Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 October 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Graham Jones declared an interest in Agenda Items 11 and 15, and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillors Lee Dillon and Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Items 12 and 16, and reported that, as their interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, they would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillor Dominic Boeck declared an interest in Agenda Item 10, but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate, but would abstain from voting on the matter.

Councillors Jeff Brooks and Lee Dillon declared an interest in Agenda Item 10, but reported that, as their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate.

Councillor Graham Jones announced that Councillor Marcus Franks would be stepping down from his role as an Executive Member in the new year due to ill health. His role as Portfolio Holder for Community Resilience and Partnerships would be fulfilled by Councillor Richard Somner. Councillor Jones bid farewell to Councillor Franks and a welcome to Councillor Somner.

Councillor Graham Jones explained that Councillor Franks was the longest serving Member of Executive, second only to himself. He had originally been a Member of the Conservative Shadow Executive before becoming the Housing Portfolio Holder followed by a number of senior Member positions. Councillor Franks’ contributions as a Councillor had been a very positive benefit to the residents of West Berkshire.

Councillor Graham Jones wished Marcus all the best for the future and in his recovery from ill health.

Councillor Franks gave thanks to follow Councillors for their support, particularly during the past year. He had thoroughly enjoyed his time on the Executive.

Councillor Graham Jones added his best wishes to Marcus in advance of his forthcoming wedding on 5 January 2019.

Councillor Lee Dillon echoed these comments from the Liberal Democrat side of the Chamber. As a Portfolio Holder, Councillor Franks had always shown respect to the Opposition and to members of the public, particular in his recent public facing community roles.

On a personal level, he and Marcus were friends outside of the Council and he was looking forward to attending the wedding. He added his best wishes to Marcus for the future.

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.

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

“Do the Executive have a viable plan and target date to achieve net Zero Carbon status in West Berkshire?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Steve Masters on the subject of whether the Executive had a viable plan and target date to achieve net zero carbon status in West Berkshire was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport, Environment and Countryside.

“In the light of the EU commitment to ban single-use plastics across the EU by 2021, can we ask West Berkshire Council to follow the lead of other councils around the country and bring forward a motion to confirm the phase out of their use as soon as possible (by 2021 at the latest), within WBC itself, to promote the banning of similar products in all businesses with which you work through procurement avenues and other networks, and to keeping residents informed of progress?”

A question standing in the name of Ms Susan Millington on the subject of whether West Berkshire Council would follow the lead of other councils around the country and bring forward a motion to confirm the phase out of single-use plastics as soon as possible (by 2021 at the latest) in West Berkshire was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“Now that so many people are concerned to reduce plastic pollution, and your neighbouring councils are collecting a wider range of plastics than in West Berkshire, can you please inform us about what efforts you are making to modify your present contract with Veolia so that a greater range of plastics can be collected and recycled?”

A question standing in the name of Ms Susan Millington asking what efforts the Council was making to modify the present contract with Veolia so that a greater range of plastics could be collected and recycled was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“When you are intending to provide recycling bins alongside the standard rubbish bins in public places in the local area?”

A question standing in the name of Ms Susan Millington asking when the Council would provide recycling bins alongside the standard rubbish bins in public places in the local area was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“The headteachers, governors and parents of Falkland and Park House schools believe that a reduction in the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph on Andover Road near the schools would greatly enhance their children's safety. Do you agree?”

A question standing in the name of Mr David Marsh on the subject of whether the speed limit should be reduced on the Andover Road near to Falkland and Park House Schools was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport, Environment and Countryside.

“Will you consider improving safety for residents, pedestrians and road users by extending the 30mph speed limit zone along the A343 south in the direction of Wash Water so that it covers the whole residential area of Andover Road?”

A question standing in the name of Mr David Marsh on the subject of whether safety improvements would be considered by extending the 30mph speed limit zone along the A343 south in the direction of Wash Water (thereby covering the whole residential area of Andover Road) was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport, Environment and Countryside.

“Which housing developers are the Council actively seeking out to encourage efficient, environmentally sound, and truly affordable home building on brown sites in the West Berkshire Council area?”

A question standing in the name of Ms Moz Bulbeck Reynolds asking which housing developers were the Council actively seeking out to encourage efficient, environmentally sound, and truly affordable home building on brown sites in the Council area would receive a written answer from the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“What additional support is the Council provisioning to give Council employees who are at the front line of managing the housing benefit roll over onto Universal Credit, to ensure they are fully supported to best assist clients affected?”

A question standing in the name of Ms Moz Bulbeck Reynolds asking what additional support was the Council provisioning to give Council employees at the front line of managing the housing benefit roll over onto Universal Credit to ensure they were fully supported to best assist affected clients would receive a written answer from the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“Now that any redevelopment of the London Road Estate is not going to happen for some years, when will the council re-open the Faraday Road football stadium fit-for-purpose so that teams in the Newbury community can once again play their league matches?”

A question standing in the name of Mr John Stewart asking whether the Council would reopen the Faraday Road football stadium fit for purpose so that teams in the Newbury community could once again play their league matches at the ground was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, Leisure and Culture.

“When will the Council disclose all relevant documents including but not limited to the decisions of committees and individual members, fiscal and legal advice and recommendations, and risk assessments related to the regeneration of the London Road Industrial Estate project since 2010, as it is obliged to do under its Duty of Candour?”

A question standing in the name of Dr Julie Wintrup (asked on her behalf by Mr Lee McDougall) on the subject of whether the Council would disclose all relevant documents relating to the regeneration of the London Road Industrial Estate project since 2010 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“Will the council supply details of all public consultation events and outcomes specific to the redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate regeneration project for the period between 2008 and 2018?”

A question standing in the name of Dr Julie Wintrup (asked on her behalf by Mr Lee McDougall) on the subject of whether the Council would supply details of all public consultation events and outcomes specific to the London Road Industrial Estate project for the period between 2008 and 2018 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“Given that the football stand is an Asset of Community Value, will the Council provide the necessary legal documentation, such as a bill of transfer to a 3^rd party, to show that it has complied with the ACV requirements?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Paul Morgan (asked on his behalf by Mr John Stewart) on the subject of whether the Council would provide the necessary legal documentation to show that the Council had complied with the Asset of Community Value requirements was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“Given that there has not been a section 80 Notice of Demolition issued, despite Gary Rayner confirming in writing that one was required, will the Council be reinstating the stand until the necessary approvals are in place?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Lee McDougall on the subject of whether the Council would be reinstating the football stand at the Faraday Road football ground, on the understanding that a Section 80 Notice of Demolition had not been issued, was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“Can Councillor Hilary Cole please advise on the amount of money the Council intends to spend on re-opening the football ground which the Chief Executive has promised the Council will do?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Lee McDougall asking how much money the Council intended to spend on re-opening the Faraday Road football ground was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“Does the Council’s failure to consult the Newbury Ladies football team about the closure of the Faraday Road Football Stadium demonstrate a sexist mindset within the Council?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Jack Harkness on the subject of whether there was a sexist mindset within the Council following the Council’s failure to consult the Newbury Ladies Football Team about the closure of the Faraday Road football stadium was answered by the Leader of the Council.

“Will the Council now permit the ladies teams to play cup matches at Faraday Road?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Jack Harkness on the subject of whether the Council would permit the ladies teams to play cup matches at Faraday Road was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, Leisure and Culture.

“Could you provide a detailed itemised list of all costs associated with the LRIE redevelopment incurred since 2010 to the present day?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Lee McDougall requesting a detailed itemised list of all costs associated with the London Road Industrial Estate redevelopment incurred since 2010 to the present day was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“What happens to the contents of the green recycling bag if it is contaminated with plastics that cannot be recycled - e.g. bottle tops, margarine tubs etc?”

A question standing in the name of Ms Carolyne Culver asking what happened to the contents of green recycling bags if they were contaminated with plastics that could not be recycled was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Waste.

“What actions are the Council taking in light of the Appeal Court ruling its development agreement with St Modwen being invalid due to not following the correct procurement process?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman (asked on his behalf by Mr David Marsh) asking what actions the Council was taking in light of the Appeal Court ruling its development agreement with St Modwen was invalid was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“Will the Council publish all minutes of the meetings it had with St Modwen prior to signing of the agreement along with any legal advice it received?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman (asked on his behalf by Mr David Marsh) asking whether the Council would publish all minutes of the meetings it had with St Modwen and legal advice it received prior to signing the agreement was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“What is the total amount spent on facilitating the St Modwen development agreement including the capital costs of the new road junction to the estate, the cost of officer’s time spent on the project and all legal fees spent in pursuing this development to date?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Norman (asked on his behalf by Mr David Marsh) querying the total amount spent on facilitating the St Modwen development agreement was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

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.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

(CSP: BEC, BEC1, BEC2, SLE, SLE1, SLE2, P&S, P&S1, HQL, HQL1, MEC, MEC1)

Purpose:  To report Q2 outturns for the Key Accountable Measures which monitor performance against the 2018/19 Council Performance Framework. To provide assurance that the objectives set out in the Council Strategy and other areas of significant activity are being managed effectively. To present, by exception, those measures that are predicted to be 'amber' or 'red' and provide information on any remedial action taken and the impact of that action. To recommend changes to measures/targets as requested by services.

Resolved that:

·         Progress against the KAMs and key achievements in all services be noted.

·         Those areas reported as ‘amber’ and ‘red’ had been reviewed to ensure that appropriate actions were now in place:

Amber:

1)    (LRIER) London Road Industrial Estate redevelopment 2018/19 milestone: Create and gain approval for the business plan.

2)    Increase number of West Berkshire premises able to receive Superfast Broadband services 24Mb/s or above.

3)    Average number of days taken to make a full decision on new benefits claims.

4)    % of people presenting as homeless where the homelessness has been relieved or prevented.

Red:

1)    % of WBC provider services inspected by Care Quality Commission (CQC) that are rated good or better by CQC in the area of “safe”.

2)    % of clients with Long Term Service receiving a review in the past 12 months.

3)    % of ‘major’ planning applications determined within 13 weeks or the agreed extended time.

4)    % of ‘minor’ planning applications determined within 8 weeks or the agreed extended time.

·         The Development and Planning Service consideration of an alternative KPI for “% of high priority Disabled Facilities Grants approved within 9 weeks of receipt of full grant applications” be noted.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 31 December 2018, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which outlined quarter two outturns for the Key Accountable Measures which monitored performance against the 2018/19 Council Performance Framework; provided assurance that the objectives set out in the Council Strategy 2015-2019 and other areas of significant activity were being managed effectively; presented, by exception, those measures which were predicted to be ‘amber’ (behind scheduled) or ‘red’ (not achievable) at year end and information on any remedial action and its impact; and which recommended changes to measures/targets as requested by service areas.

Councillor Dominic Boeck, in introducing the report, gave an assurance that actions had been put in place to make improvements to the ‘amber’ and ‘red’ measures where possible.

Councillor Graham Bridgman commented on the two Adult Social Care (ASC) measures which were reporting ‘red’. As noted previously, the indicator ‘% of WBC provider services inspected by Care Quality Commission that are rated good or better by the CQC in the area of “safe”’ was ‘red’ as the 100% target had not been met. This was because the Birchwood Care Home had been given a rating of Requires Improvement and this could not be changed at least until the home was re-inspected. Councillor Bridgman added the positive news that the embargo on making placements at Birchwood had been lifted. He commended officers for their work on making improvements to the home.

The second ‘red’ measure in ASC was ‘% of clients with Long Term Service (LTS) receiving a review in the past 12 months’. Councillor Bridgman explained that there were two issues impacting on performance in this area. A manager in this area of work had recently retired and turnover was high. However, work was ongoing to address this and new staff were bedding in.

Councillor Hilary Cole turned to the ‘red’ measure in Development and Planning. She explained that Development Control had historically achieved the targets for determining major, minor and other planning applications. The targets were originally set at a level agreed with the Planning Service Customer Panel and allowed time for negotiation and amendment with a view to gaining planning approvals. However, as part of the New Ways of Working review it was noted that the local performance targets were below other similar Local Planning Authorities. It was therefore agreed to increase the targets to the national average mid-way through the financial year. There was every confidence that the targets could be achieved in 2019/20, however it would prove challenging in 2018/19 as the changes were introduced mid-year.

Councillor Lee Dillon thanked Councillor Bridgman for his explanation of the ‘red’ indicators in ASC. He understood the points made regarding the Birchwood Care Home, but was concerned that the indicator ‘reviews for long term clients’ was again reporting as ‘red’. He noted the explanation of staffing, but he felt this to be a further excuse following poor performance in previous quarters. Care packages should be reviewed in a timely manner to ensure they were appropriate. Reviews could also identify savings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

(CSP: MEC & MEC1)

Purpose: To inform Members of the progress with major capital schemes, particularly those considered to be high risk, and forecast spend against the 2018/19 approved capital budget.

Resolved to note the progress made with major capital schemes, particularly those considered to be high risk, and forecast spend against the 2018/19 approved capital budget.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning forecast spend against the 2018/19 approved capital budget. The report also informed Members of the progress made with major capital schemes, particularly those considered to be high risk.

Councillor Anthony Chadley advised that every effort was made to fulfil capital programme works as per the schedule. There was also flexibility to complete works ahead of schedule in some cases.

RESOLVED that progress against the Council’s capital programme and forecast expenditure against the approved capital budget be noted.

Other options considered: N/a- factual report for information.

(CSP: MEC & MEC1)

Purpose: To inform Members of the latest revenue financial performance of the Council for 2018/19.

Resolved to note the report, in particular the continued challenge of managing pressures in Adult Social Care, which are shared nationally, and the mitigation that is proposed in year to reduce the current end of year projection.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which informed Members of the latest revenue financial performance for 2018/19.

Councillor Anthony Chadley advised that the current financial forecast was an overspend of £1.3m against a net revenue budget of £119.4m which equated to 1.1% of the net budget.

The forecast overspend took into account £2m of mitigating action to be delivered by services during the remainder of the current financial year. The implementation of this mitigating action would be monitored closely.

The main driver of the forecast overspend was the Communities Directorate which was forecasting an overspend of £2.8m. £2.1m of this sum related to Adult Social Care (ASC) which was facing increasing financial pressures on demand led, externally commissioned, placement budgets over and above the modelled assumption that formed the basis of budget setting. In addition, a number of risks, provided for in the service specific risk reserve had materialised. Local authorities nationally were facing significant financial challenges relating to the funding of ASC budgets, including increasing demand on services and rising costs of commissioning care. This had been recognised by the Government and additional winter funding had been announced.

Councillor Chadley also reported that £1.3m of service specific risk reserves could be used to mitigate further the forecast overspend. This had yet to be deployed and was not included in the forecast. There was also an additional £768k risk management budget which could be utilised to help mitigate further the current forecast overspend. Councillor Chadley was therefore confident that the budget would be brought on target despite the significant financial pressures being faced. The Council had an excellent record in managing its finances.

Councillor Lee Dillon commented that the Council’s finances were in a similar position to the previous year with an overspend being consistently predicted. He therefore felt the budget setting process needed to be examined and he would welcome a cross party solution to this. The budget needed to adequately reflect pressures. Councillor Dillon noted that risk reserves could be deployed, i.e. to meet contract inflation pressures, but he felt it should be possible for these pressures to be tracked and identified in the budget setting.

Councillor Dillon felt that it would be beneficial to understand in more detail the availability of other earmarked reserves and their total sum. He asked that the use of these/their purpose be reviewed, he hoped this was an area the Administration would also be wanting to review.

Councillor Dillon also raised the importance of learning lessons from savings and income generation targets that were at risk of/would not be met.

Councillor Jeff Brooks noted that the Resources Directorate were reporting an underspend of £667k. He felt this was another example of the Resources Directorate ‘riding to the rescue’. Councillor Brooks saw this as annual occurrence, with the Resources Directorate underspend accelerating through the year.

Nick Carter responded to this point. The report outlined the forecast outturn for the Directorate. He added that there had been a corporate response to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

(CSP: SLE, SLE2, HQL)

Purpose: To seek Executive approval for entering into a funding agreement with Great Western Railway (GWR) to facilitate the improvement works to Newbury Railway Station in accordance with the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (TVB LEP) funding.

Resolved to delegate authority to:

(a)  the Head of Development and Planning (in consultation with the Head of Finance and the Portfolio Member for Transport) to award the funding in connection with improvement works at Newbury Station to GWR. The source of this funding is from the TVB LEP and will only be allocated once it is available.

(b)  the Head of Legal Services to enter into a funding agreement with GWR.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

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

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) which sought approval for entering into a funding agreement with GWR to facilitate the improvement works to Newbury Railway Station in accordance with the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership funding.

Councillor Jeanette Clifford explained that while this paper was essentially procedural, it gave her the opportunity to remind the Executive that Newbury Railway Station would shortly be transformed by a joint WBC and Railway Industry project as an interchange, as a building and in the facilities it offered to the growing number of passengers that used it every day, by the investment of more than £18m from:

•           The railway industry;

•           Grainger – the Council’s partners in the Market Street Development;

•           A small input from this Council; and

•           A major contribution of about £6m from the Growth Fund, administered on behalf of all the Berkshire Authorities by Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).

Under the current rules, the LEP could only award funding to a local authority. However, as the Council’s partners at Great Western Railway (GWR) would be responsible for work within the station itself, the proposal before the Executive allowed for the correct funding to be passed by the Council to GWR. Governance of this project was extremely rigorous and Councillor Clifford hoped there would be agreement to this arrangement.

In response to a query from Councillor Lee Dillon, Councillor Clifford confirmed that the process for the transfer of funding to GWR would be in stages.

Councillor Jeff Brooks welcomed this proposal. However, he felt the report was light on some of the details. For example, when plans would be made available. Councillor Clifford advised that the final, very detailed business case would be signed off before Christmas. She added that further information on how the funding would be expended was contained in the appendices to the report.

Councillor Clifford concluded by stating that the station would become an excellent gateway to Newbury.

RESOLVED that authority be delegated to:

(a)          the Head of Development and Planning (in consultation with the Head of Finance and the Portfolio Member for Transport) to award the funding in connection with improvement works at Newbury Station to GWR. The source of this funding is from the TVB LEP and will only be allocated once it is available.

(b)          the Head of Legal Services to enter into a funding agreement with GWR.

Other options considered:

·                    The consideration of various options for the improvement works at Newbury Station are dealt with in the Options Assessment Report (OAR) which forms part of the formal documentation in support of this scheme.  The OAR can be found on the Council’s website at www.westberks.gov.uk/sep under Project 24: Newbury – Railway Station Improvements.

·                    Given the fact that a large proportion of the proposed improvement works will affect land and buildings on railway land (owned by Network Rail and leased to GWR), it is not considered an option for the Council to procure the work directly.  The only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Purpose: To consider Thatcham Town Council’s (TTC) devolution proposal for the freehold transfer, and all future maintenance, of the open space and associated playgrounds at Pound Lane and Mount Road, Thatcham. This report seeks approval to transfer the playgrounds and associated open space as a freehold from this Council to TTC.

Resolved that officers be authorised to enter into discussions with Thatcham Town Council as to the heads of terms for the freehold transfer.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 31 December 2018, then it will be implemented.

(Councillor Dominic Boeck declared an interest in Agenda Item 10 by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Thatcham Town Council. As his interest was personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate but would abstain from voting on the matter.)

(Councillors Jeff Brooks and Lee Dillon declared an interest in Agenda Item 10 by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Thatcham Town Council. As their interest was personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate.)

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning Thatcham Town Council’s (TTC) devolution proposal for the freehold transfer, and all future maintenance, of the open space and associated playgrounds at Pound Lane and Mount Road, Thatcham. The precise locations of the open space were shown in Appendix 1.

The current sites were under the management of TTC by virtue of a lease dated 28 April 2003. The lease period was for 99 years. This report sought approval to transfer the playgrounds and associated open space as a freehold from West Berkshire Council to TTC.

Councillor Jeanette Clifford stated that West Berkshire Council firmly believed in devolution and proposed the report’s recommendation. TTC already had a good track record in managing these sites under the current lease agreement.

Councillor Lee Dillon noted this support to devolution but he queried if there would also be support to devolve other assets, i.e. a car park, to a parish. He voiced a concern should West Berkshire Council only devolve in cases where it would achieve cost savings, but not if an asset generated income. Councillor Clifford explained that consideration would be given to any proposal regardless of the asset and/or service concerned. A proposal for a car park had not come forward.

Councillor Marcus Franks added that he had no awareness of a devolution request being made for a car park and repeated that West Berkshire Council would look at all requests received. He added that conversations were ongoing in relation to devolving community buildings and they could generate income. This proposal for devolving playgrounds was positive.

Councillor Graham Jones also reiterated that the Council would look at requests based on their own merits, he gave the devolution of Lambourn Library as another positive example of this. This was a positive proposal that should not be viewed negatively.

Councillor Boeck added that the devolution proposal from TTC was beneficial to both parties.

RESOLVED that officers be permitted to enter into discussions with TTC as to the heads of terms for the freehold transfer.

Other options considered: None.

(CSP: P&S, HQL & HQL1)

Purpose: To seek approval from the Executive to an exception from the contract rules of procedure to award the Public Health Enhanced Services Contract to each of the 13 GP Practices across West Berkshire from 1^st April 2019 to 31^st March 2022. The exception will enable the Council to extend the current provision of the service fulfilling public health functions and mandatory directives guidance.

Resolved to award the Public Health Enhanced Services Contract to all (13) GP Practices across West Berkshire, subject to the consideration of the item in Part II of the meeting.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision could compromise the Council's position.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

(Councillor Graham Jones declared an interest in Agenda Items 11 and 15 by virtue of the fact that he was a pharmacist and provider of public health services, and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter).

(Councillor Graham Jones left the meeting at 6.15pm).

(Councillor Hilary Cole in the Chair).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 11) which sought approval for an exception from the Contract Rules of Procedure to award the Public Health Enhanced Services Contract to each of the 13 GP Practices across West Berkshire from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022. It was proposed that the 3 year contract (2+1) would be delivered by 13 GP Practices across West Berkshire. The exception would enable the Council to extend the current provision of the service fulfilling public health functions and mandatory directives guidance. The exception was being sought as this was the only viable option for this contract.

Councillor Rick Jones explained that this Part I version of the report enabled public notification of this proposed contract exception award from April 2019. Approval of the item would come within Part II of the meeting.

RESOLVED that the Public Health Enhanced Services contract 19-22 be awarded to all (13) GP Practices across West Berkshire, subject to the consideration of the item in Part II of the meeting.

Other options considered: Re-tender the service across West Berkshire ASAP.

(CSP: P&S, HQL & HQL1)

Purpose: To inform Executive of the tender process and to seek delegated authority to award the contract.

Resolved to re-tender the Supported Living Schemes and Floating Support for Adults with Learning Disabilities Services as one lot, subject to the consideration of the item in Part II of the meeting.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

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

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

(Councillor Graham Jones rejoined the meeting at 6.17pm and resumed in the Chair).

(Councillors Lee Dillon and Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Items 12 and 16 by virtue of the fact that they were employed by Sovereign Housing Association. As their interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, they would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter).

(Councillors Dillon and Franks left the meeting at 6.17pm).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 12) which informed the Executive of the tender process and sought delegated authority to award the contract. The existing contract was due to end on 25 February 2019 and was currently made up of three separate contracts. The recommendation of Procurement Board was to combine the re-tender of the current service into one lot due to economies of scale indicated by providers that would be the most cost effective route to market. The tender submissions had now been received.

RESOLVED that the recommendation to re-tender the Supported Living Schemes and Floating Support for Adults with Learning Disabilities services into one lot be approved, subject to the consideration of the item in Part II of the meeting.

Other options considered:

·         Do nothing – this would leave over 100 adults with learning disabilities at risk of being made homeless and or/without the necessary care and support that they need to go about their everyday life.

·         Contract extension – contract extensions for the three contracts have been considered and the existing providers were willing to extend. However, both providers requested an increase which became non-compliant with procurement legislation and WBC contracts rules and procedures. To ensure that there is sufficient time to re-tender and bring all of the contract end dates in-line, all three contracts have been extended until 25th February 2018.

·         Two-stage tender – we want to encourage as many providers in and reduce the administrative burden for the providers tendering.

·         Two lots – the decision was made at Procurement Board to re-tender the three existing contracts into one lot due to indicative savings that would be made due to larger economies of scale. Procurement Board asked Commissioning to undertake a desktop exercise with providers to understand the effects of tendering in a single lot or multiple lots. The providers response demonstrated that tendering in a single lot would be cheaper tendering in multiple lots due to the economies of scale they may achieve. No prices were given by either provider or WBC at this stage, this was an exercise in the most cost effective route to market.

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

(Councillors Lee Dillon and Marcus Franks rejoined the meeting at 6.18pm).

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 estimated cost of officer time spent on the LRIE to date?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of the estimated cost of officer time spent on the LRIE was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“What are the estimated internal and external costs for re-procuring a London Road preferred partner?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of the estimated internal and external costs for re-procuring a London Road preferred partner was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

“Why did the council not consult on closing the football ground which has seen men’s, women’s and children’s football displaced across the district?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon asking why the Council did not consult on closing the Newbury Football Ground was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, Leisure and Culture.

“How much income has the council forgone since it evicted its tenants from the football ground?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon asking how much income the Council had forgone since it evicted its tenants from the football ground was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Transformation and Property.

RECOMMENDATION: That members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items 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 Paragraphs 5 and 6 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 6 - information relating to proposed action to be taken by the Local Authority)

(CSP: P&S, HQL & HQL1)

Purpose: To seek approval from the Executive to an exception from the contract rules of procedure to award the Public Health Enhanced Services Contract to each of the 13 GP Practices across West Berkshire from 1^st April 2019 to 31^st March 2022. The exception will enable the Council to extend the current provision of the service fulfilling public health functions and mandatory directives guidance.

Resolved that the recommendation in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision could compromise the Council's position.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

(Paragraph 6 – information relating to proposed action to be taken by the Local Authority)

(Councillor Graham Jones declared an interest in Agenda Items 11 and 15 by virtue of the fact that he was a pharmacist and provider of public health services, and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter).

(Councillor Graham Jones left the meeting at 6.28pm).

(Councillor Hilary Cole in the Chair).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 15) which sought approval for an exception from the Contract Rules of Procedure to award the Public Health Enhanced Services Contract to each of the 13 GP Practices across West Berkshire from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022. It was proposed that the 3 year contract (2+1) would be delivered by 13 GP Practices across West Berkshire. The exception would enable the Council to extend the current provision of the service fulfilling public health functions and mandatory directives guidance.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

Other options considered: as outlined in the exempt report.

(Paragraph 5 - information relating to legal privilege)

(CSP: P&S, HQL & HQL1)

Purpose:  To inform Executive of the tender process and to seek delegated authority to award the contract.

Resolved that the recommendation in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

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

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

(Paragraph 5 – information relating to legal privilege)

(Councillor Graham Jones rejoined the meeting at 6.32pm and resumed in the Chair).

(Councillors Lee Dillon and Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Items 12 and 16 by virtue of the fact that they were employed by Sovereign Housing Association. As their interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, they would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter).

(Councillors Dillon and Franks left the meeting at 6.32pm).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 16) which informed the Executive of the tender process and sought delegated authority to award the contract. The existing contract was due to end on 25 February 2019 and was currently made up of three separate contracts. The recommendation of Procurement Board was to combine the re-tender of the current service into one lot due to economies of scale indicated by providers that would be the most cost effective route to market. The tender submissions had now been received.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

Other options considered: as outlined in the exempt report.