Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 July 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.

Councillor Gordon Lundie announced that Councillor Joe Mooney had taken the decision to step down as the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care and Insurance. Councillor Lundie registered his thanks for Councillor Mooney’s commitment, hard work and excellent service over his 12 years as first Shadow Portfolio Holder and then Portfolio Holder. He had played a very important role on the Executive and would be missed.

Councillor Mooney’s replacement on the Executive would be announced shortly.

Councillor Roger Hunneman stated his appreciation for Councillor Mooney’s work and added that they had always had a cordial working relationship.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules contained in the Council’s Constitution. (Note: There were no questions submitted relating to items not included on this Agenda.)

There were no public questions submitted.

Councillors or Members of the public may present any petition which they have received. These will normally be referred to the appropriate Committee without discussion.

(CSP: 8)

Purpose: To provide a response to the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Task Group in respect of the utilisation of Shaw House.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which outlined responses to the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Task Group in respect of the utilisation of Shaw House.

By way of background, Councillor Hilary Cole advised that a small Member group had originally been formed which had concluded that a Business Plan be produced for Shaw House in order to maximise its use. This was shortly followed by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) agreeing, in May 2013, to form a Task Group to conduct a review into the utilisation of Shaw House, its costs etc. The Task Group review had now concluded and had included consideration of the draft Business Plan. Many of the scrutiny recommendations related to the development of the Business Plan.

The final report of the task group, which had been presented to the OSMC on 20 May 2014, took the view that the overall thrust of the proposed Business Plan appeared to be sound and should go some way to significantly increasing the potential and utility of Shaw House.

Councillor Jeff Brooks gave his thanks to Councillor Cole for her involvement at the meetings of the Task Group which he felt helped the process. He was also pleased to note that many of the OSMC’s recommendations were agreed. However, in some cases the recommendations were ‘not agreed’ and Councillor Brooks felt this was concerning. The scrutiny review did note that there were plans to reduce the operating subsidy of Shaw House in the coming years, but Councillor Brooks questioned whether the plans to do so were sufficiently ambitious. He was of the view that a more enterprising and bold approach could serve to further improve the financial position of Shaw House.

Councillor Gordon Lundie acknowledged the points made by Councillor Brooks and agreed the importance of utilising this very good cultural and heritage asset to the benefit of West Berkshire. However, the increased commercial use of Shaw House was a challenge when considering the requirements of the Heritage Lottery Fund and Shaw House Trustees.

Councillor Brooks then referred to the OSMC recommendation to increase the marketing budget by at least £20k per annum. This recommendation was ‘not agreed’ and Councillor Brooks felt that this was an example of a lack of ambition by the Council. He felt that improved signage to Shaw House would be beneficial and made the point that Shaw House was a unique facility that should be utilised more fully.

Councillor Cole also advised that she agreed with many of the points made by Councillor Brooks, but she also appreciated the views given by Officers. She felt there was potential to increase the use of Shaw House as a wedding venue, but this was currently a difficult market. Such a move would also involve the relocation of the Registration Service away from Shaw House and this would take time to achieve due to the statutory notice period required of 12 months. Councillor Cole also accepted that the requested increase to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

(CSP: 6)

Purpose: To inform Members of the latest financial performance of the Council.

(CSP:1,2,3,4 and 8)

Purpose: To present the basket of key accountable measures and activities for 2014/15, to report quarter one outturns against the measures and activities contained in the 2014/15 council performance framework and to report by exception those measures / activities, not achieved / expected to achieve and to cite remedial action taken and the impact it has had.

Councillor Gordon Lundie introduced the report (Agenda Item 8) which outlined quarter one outturns against the key accountable measures and activities contained in the 2014/15 Council performance framework, and which reported by exception those measures/activities not achieved and cited remedial action taken and its impact.

The report set out progress against a basket of 53 key accountable measures and activities aligned to the objectives set out in the Council Strategy. Of the 53 reported measures, outturns were available for 37 with 27 being reported as ‘green’ and 10 as ‘amber’. No measures had been reported as ‘red’. Councillor Lundie advised that the basket of measures and activities had been informed by a review by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission.

Detail was provided in the report on ways to try and improve the performance of the 10 measures reported as ‘amber’, but in summary these were as follows:

Children and Young People:

·        Looked After Children cases which were reviewed within required timescales

·        Child Protection cases which were reviewed within required timescales

Older People and Vulnerable Adults:

·        Proportion of adults with a learning disability who lived in their own home or with their family

·        Proportion of repeat safeguarding referrals through the monitoring and review of protection plans

·        Level of delayed transfers of care from hospital and those attributable to social care from acute and non-acute settings

·        Percentage of people presenting as homeless where the homelessness had been relieved or prevented

·        Average number of days taken to make a full decision on new benefit claims

·        Average number of days taken to make a full decision on changes in a benefit claimant’s circumstances

Planning:

·        Major planning applications determined within 13 weeks

·        Minor planning applications determined within 8 weeks

Councillor Lundie also drew attention to some of the contextual and volume measures provided in the report:

·        A reducing number of Job Seekers Allowance claimants.

·        An increasing number of visitors to sports and leisure centres.

·        An increase in the number of children subject to Child Protection Plans.

·        An increasing number of Freedom of Information requests.

Councillor Roger Hunneman noted that there had been a 19% decrease in Newbury Town Centre footfall compared to a year ago and requested further information on this measure. Councillor Lundie offered to provide a written answer on this point.

There had also been a decrease in the net change of the number of properties in West Berkshire and Councillor Hunneman sought a greater explanation of this measure. Councillor Lundie agreed to provide a written answer on this point.

Councillor Hunneman then referred to the measure to decrease the level of delayed transfers of care (DTOC) from hospitals and those attributable to social care from acute and non-acute settings, and questioned the accuracy of the data.

In terms of the performance level, Councillor Lundie advised that this was improving and West Berkshire compared well with its neighbouring local authorities. He did however accept that further improvements needed to be made.

Rachael Wardell confirmed that this measure provided a snapshot position of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by Councillors in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules contained in the Council’s Constitution.

“Can the Executive Member for Highways & Transport tell me how many appeals there have been against fines on the Parkway Bridge?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of the number of appeals there have been against fines on Parkway Bridge was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

“Can the Executive Member for Highways & Transport tell me what the reasons are that 329 appeals against fines on the Parkway Bridge have been successful?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of successful appeals against fines on Parkway Bridge was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

“Can the Executive Member for Highways & Transport tell me what is the administrative cost of processing all of these appeals against fines on the Parkway Bridge including staff time?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of the administrative cost of processing appeals on Parkway Bridge was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

“Can you advise why West Berkshire Council doesn’t have an advocacy policy like for example Bracknell Forest Council does?’ (http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/advocacy-policy.pdf”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Gwen Mason on the subject of an advocacy policy was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care and Insurance.

“Can the Executive Member for Residential care for both adults and young people tell us how many times per annum West Berkshire inspect residential care homes where our residents are placed?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Gwen Mason on the subject of the frequency of the Council’s inspection of residential care homes where West Berkshire residents were placed was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care and Insurance.

“Do you think the inspections are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the care homes do not fall foul of the Government’s new inspection regime as announced by Jeremy Hunt MP, the Health Secretary?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Gwen Mason on the subject of whether inspections of care homes were sufficiently rigorous was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care and Insurance.

“What action has the Executive Member for Highways & Transport taken to ensure that BT obtains authorisation from WBC in the first instance, before digging up the highway”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of authorisation for BT to dig up the Council’s highway was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operations), Emergency Planning, Newbury Vision.

RECOMMENDATION: That members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item as it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information of the description contained in the paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 specified in brackets in the heading of each item. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution refers.

(Paragraph 3 – information relating to financial/business affairs of particular person)

(CSP2,5 and 6)

Purpose: To consider an extension to the existing contract.

(Paragraph 3 – information relating to financial/business affairs of a particular person)

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 11) concerning the extension of the current contract by a further five years to realise savings.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

Reason for the decision: as set out in the exempt report.

Other options considered: as set out in the exempt report.