Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 April 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 April 2016 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Deputy Leader.

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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

There were no public questions submitted in relation to items not included on the agenda.

The following question, pertaining to a report on the agenda, was submitted after the agenda was published:

(a)          Question submitted by Mrs Martha Vickers to the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Emergency Planning

A question standing in the name of Mrs Martha Vickers on the subject of consultation with residents affected by new parking schemes and how this was reflected in relation to recent proposals for Leys Gardens, Goldwell Drive and Jesmond Dene in Newbury was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Emergency Planning.

A full transcription of the public and Member question and answer sessions are available from the following link: Transcription of Q&As.

Councillor Gordon Lundie presented a petition, on behalf of the residents of Great Shefford and the owner of the Great Shefford Village Shop and Post Office, containing 980 signatures relating to concerns over proposals of West Berkshire Council to implement double yellow lines adjacent to the shop. The petition was referred to the Head of Highways and Transport.

(CSP: MEC, SLE2, MEC1)

Purpose: To respond to the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) in respect of various parking issues, as set out in the report to the OSMC dated 5 January 2016 that is at Appendix D, and to seek approval to proceed accordingly.

Resolved to note the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) and to approve the responses of the Highways and Transport Service as detailed in Appendix C to the report.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      the item has been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, or has been the subject of a review undertaken by another body within the preceding six months.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which set out the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) in respect of various parking issues and which outlined the responses of the Highways and Transport Service.

Councillor Garth Simpson, in introducing the report, gave the view that the OSMC’s recommendations, summarised below, were sensible and would be taken into account moving forward:

·           Develop a district parking plan;

·           Develop an integrated transport plan with Reading BC;

·           Consider extending the ‘Ticketer’ system;

·           Widen consultation for Residents Parking Schemes;

·           Ensure Residents Parking Schemes were cost neutral;

·           Consider the extension of access to off-street car parking to augment capacity in Residents Parking Schemes;

·           Evaluate the introduction of virtual residents parking permits;

·           Commission a parking demand/capacity study for Newbury;

·           Assess effectiveness of on-street parking payment methods.

Councillor Lee Dillon, who was a Member of the cross-party OSMC Task Group which conducted this review, commented that a key finding of the review suggested that if alternative measures, such as those identified as part of the review, were not taken forward then it could be the case that the growing demand for parking spaces could not be met in future. It was therefore important, as far as possible, to encourage people out of their cars and onto public transport. While this was difficult for those living in rural parts of the District, this needed to be encouraged in urban areas.

Councillor Simpson responded to this point by explaining that the growth in demand for parking spaces was recognised as were the problems this created. This was therefore regularly considered by Officers. Short term solutions included efforts to encourage greater use of the Council’s car rental scheme as opposed to people using their own cars and increased availability of weekend parking provision. In the longer term, parking provision would be increased as a result of the Market Street redevelopment. The parking element of the scheme was front loaded in the building programme.

Councillor James Fredrickson explained that he was part of the OSMC Task Group’s review, prior to becoming an Executive Member, and he agreed with the points made in relation to the increasing demand for parking spaces. This was an issue which needed a continued focus.

RESOLVED that the report and the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission be noted and the responses of the Highways and Transport Service be approved.

Reason for the decision: To respond to the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission.

Other options considered: None.

(CSP: SLE, MEC, MEC1)

Purpose: Following an in-principle decision earlier in the year work has been underway to look at the feasibility of a shared Building Control Service formed by the merger of the current service with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Borough Council. This work has concluded that not only would such a service be feasible but given prevailing market conditions it will also be desirable. The report sets out the reasons for this.

Resolved to:

(1)       support the proposed shared Building Control Service with Wokingham Borough Council as lead authority as set out in the report;

(2)       agree to the discharge of function relating to the Building Control Service by Wokingham Borough Council under the provisions of Section 101 Local Government Act 1972, Section 9EA the Local Government Act 2000 and Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012;

(3)       delegate to the Head of Culture & Environmental Protection authority (in consultation with the Head of Legal Services and Portfolio Member) to conclude negotiations and enter into a triparty shared services agreement with Wokingham Council (as lead Authority) and the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead for the provision of discharge of building control services.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 3 June 2016, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) that advised of work undertaken to look at the feasibility of a shared Building Control Service formed by the merger of the current service with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Borough Council. This work concluded that not only would such a service be feasible, it would also be desirable given prevailing market conditions.

Councillor Marcus Franks introduced the report and explained that the proposed Building Control Shared Service would, if approved, become another of several shared services in place across many areas of West Berkshire Council activity.

The formation of the Building Control Shared Service would enhance the resilience of the service and reduce the level of risk in terms of loss of income. It was proposed that a five year shared service agreement be entered into, with a possible one year extension.

It was noted that 5.2 full time equivalent (FTE) members of staff would transfer to Wokingham Borough Council (lead authority) under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006.

Councillor Franks proposed acceptance of the report’s recommendations.

RESOLVED that the Executive:

(1)       supports the proposed shared Building Control Service with Wokingham Borough Council as lead authority as set out in the report.

(2)       agrees to the discharge of function relating to the building control service by Wokingham Borough Council under the provisions of Section 101 Local Government Act 1972, Section 9EA the Local Government Act 2000 and Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012.

(3)       delegates to the Head of Culture & Environmental Protection authority (in consultation with the Head of Legal Services and Portfolio Member) to conclude negotiations and enter into a triparty shared services agreement with Wokingham Council (as lead Authority) and the Royal Borough Windsor & Maidenhead for the provision of discharge of building control services.

Reason for the decision:. Changes in staffing had afforded the opportunity to consider a new model of delivery.

Other options considered: There were a range of options that had been considered including keeping the service in-house, creating a stand alone or mutualised service or sharing with a greater number of authorities.

A full transcription of the public and Member question and answer sessions are available from the following link: Transcription of Q&As.

“What is the status with regard to the required branch library needs assessments?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro (asked in his absence by Councillor Lee Dillon) on the subject of the status of the branch library needs assessment was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Adults, Care and Culture.

“What is West Berkshire Council doing to improve its relationships with parish councils?

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro (asked in his absence by Councillor Lee Dillon) on the subject of improving relationships with parish councils was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Public Protection.

(Question submitted after agenda published but in accordance with the requirements for questions pertaining to agenda items)

“I welcome the news of Building Control Shared Services with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and Wokingham Borough Council. Given the benefits of sharing Council services, has the Council any other shared service arrangements?”

The following questions, pertaining to reports on the agenda, were submitted after the agenda was published:

A question standing in the name of Councillor Richard Somner on the subject of the number of shared service arrangements adopted by the Council was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services and External Affairs.

(Question submitted after agenda published but in accordance with the requirements for questions pertaining to agenda items)

“I notice in the service response to recommendation (3) of Agenda Item 6 that it was intended to purchase an extra module for the ‘Ticketer’ smart ticketing system to allow live tracking to identify delay hotspots by the end of April 2016. Can you advise on the progress of this?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeanette Clifford on the subject of the progress being made with purchasing an extra module for the ‘Ticketer’ smart ticketing system to allow for live tracking was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Emergency Planning .

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.

RESOLVED that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as contained in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution also refers.

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

(CSP: BEC, BEC1, BEC2)

Purpose: To agree the recommendations as set out in the exempt report.

Resolved that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision could cause the Council serious financial implications.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

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

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 10) in relation to Academy conversion for John O’Gaunt School and retention of an identified parcel of land by West Berkshire Council.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

Reason for the decision: as detailed in the exempt report.

Other options considered: as detailed in the exempt report.