Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 16 July 2020.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader subject to the following amendment:

Page 18, Item 11 – Future Arrangements for the provision of Public Health across West Berkshire, Wokingham and Reading - third sentence, third paragraph should read:

‘They recommended dissolving the current arrangement and moving to two hub and spoke arrangements across three borough geographies.’

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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

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.

There were no public questions submitted.

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

“In any future redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate what measures will be taken to ensure that any case-officer reports are accurate and protect the rights of property owners (be it freeholders or leaseholders) and that councillors have access to full and unfiltered information?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Ian Hall on the subject of the London Road Industrial Estate would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“In any future redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate will all case officer reports be double checked and if so by whom?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Ian Hall on the subject of reports on the London Road Industrial Estate would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“In any future redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate what measures are being taken to protect any property owners’ rights in the event of the Council envisaging or considering Compulsory Purchase Orders?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Ian Hall on the subject of Compulsory Purchase Orders in relation to the London Road Industrial Estate would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“In any future redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate what measures are the Council taking to ensure that businesses who may lose their premises have access to replacement premises?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Ian Hall on the subject of replacement premises for businesses on the London Road Industrial Estate would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“What past experience or qualifications in planning and housing does the executive portfolio holder for planning and housing have?”

A question standing in the name of Mr John Gotelee on the subject of qualifications held by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“With the Council's Homelessness Prevention strategy on page 9 recognising a problem with funding challenges and workloads before the Covid pandemic, what steps (beyond the strategy) are the Council taking to prevent people becoming homeless?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Peter Gower on the subject of preventing people becoming homeless would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“What steps will the Council take to bring the Mandatory Cycle Lane that is currently being implemented through Thatcham into compliance with the Government’s recently published minimum standards and guidance?”

A question standing in the name of Mr Simon Pike on the subject of Mandatory Cycle Lanes would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Transport and Countryside.

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.

Purpose:  For the Executive to consider the draft Development Brief as submitted by Avison Young and start the process to consult on the draft Development Brief in bringing forward regeneration on the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE).

Resolved that publication of the draft Development Brief be approved and public consultation on the draft Development Brief be launched in order to bring forward regeneration on the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE).

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 10 September 2020, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning the draft Development Brief for the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) as submitted by Avison Young.

The Council had a new draft Development Brief that confirmed regeneration of the LRIE remained a viable proposition. It was acknowledged that the process would be long, challenging and potentially risky depending on whether the Council considered any element of self-delivery.  Nonetheless, bringing forward regeneration was within the Council’s capability.

The draft Development Brief set out a number of delivery options that represented different balances between financial risk and reward and corresponding levels of control. This level of information should give the Council confidence to now present the draft Development Brief to the public for comment and where the aim should be to appropriately acknowledge feedback on the draft Development Brief and publish it in its final form later in the year.  At that point the Council could review matters again and consider in detail the next technical steps to be taken should the Council decide to proceed further in the process of bringing forward regeneration on the LRIE.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon stated that the report sought approval to publish the document and to launch a public consultation exercise. It had been a long held vision of the Council to regenerate the site and it was hoped to attract high quality development with a mix of office and residential accommodation. The development of this area was linked to the Recovery Strategy.

The Development Brief confirmed that regeneration of the site was still viable and set out two overarching approaches – a ‘Baseline Masterplan’ which presumed a progressive plot by plot development or a ‘Comprehensive Masterplan’ which was holistic and where all elements were interrelated. Councillor Mackinnon confirmed that the Council was committed to supporting the existing businesses on the site. 

Councillor Lynne Doherty seconded the report and stated that it confirmed the fact that West Berkshire was open for business and would secure job opportunities for future generations.

Councillor Tony Vickers raised concerns that the Council was looking at a masterplan which was business led. It would have no formal status as a planning document and therefore it presented as considerable risk. He noted that there seemed to be a number of gaps in the brief such as flood risk which was an important factor.  He was also concerned about displacing existing business community assets who might incur a loss of revenue or constraints of moving from the current site. Councillor Ross Mackinnon responded that the Development Brief was silent on the planning issue was that the local authority had an interest as landowner which could be a conflict of interest and therefore it was proper to keep it separate. However, he acknowledged that Councillor Vickers had made valid points but he stressed that this report was merely asking for permission to go out to consultation and a further report would be produced for further consideration once the consultation exercise had completed and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Purpose:  To present the proposed Ultra Low Emission Vehicle Strategy to the Executive for approval.  This Strategy sits underneath the Environment Strategy and sets out the Council's current direction to promote and develop low emission vehicles and charging infrastructure in West Berkshire.

Resolved that the West Berkshire Ultra Low Emission Vehicle Strategy be approved and its actions as the Council’s direction for aiding the uptake of low emission vehicles in West Berkshire.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 10 September 2020, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning the proposed Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle Strategy.

Councillor Richard Somner stated that this Strategy sat underneath the Environment Strategy and set out the Council’s current direction to promote and develop low emission vehicles and charging infrastructure in West Berkshire. It provided a sound platform to build upon. Vehicle licensing data from the Department for Transport set out that there were 119,664 vehicles registered in the district in 2019 of which 1,007 were ULEV (0.84%). In 2019 for the UK as a whole ULEV’s represented 0.68% of the vehicles registered which suggested that West Berkshire was slightly above the average ULEV uptake.

It was noted that work needed to begin on the actions within this proposed Strategy as soon as practical in order to build on existing use and improve uptake in the district promptly.

The Government might bring forward the requirement for all new vehicles to be electric to 2035, however, if the aims of the Environment Strategy were to be achieved, transport emissions needed to decrease rapidly and ideally be zero by 2030. Any delay effectively reduced the chance of achieving this by delaying measures to increase low emission vehicle uptake.

Councillor Somner in summarising stated that this was a rapidly changing sector but the strategy enabled the Council to plan and build upon the work already started and to keep it under review.

The report was seconded by Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter who fully endorsed the report. He agreed that this was a rapidly evolving sector which provided a number of consumer choices. He anticipated that over the next 3-4 years there would be even more purchases of electric vehicles. Hopefully the Strategy would encourage people to buy electric as it set out a framework.

Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that the Government was thinking about bringing forward the date for all new vehicles to be electric from 2035 to 2030. The Council’s aim was to have zero emissions in the district by 2030. He felt that there seemed to be a lack of ambition and the Council should have a Zero Emission Strategy in place as otherwise the target date of 2030 would not be achievable.  He also queried when the document had been drafted as it seemed to be out of date in some places and he therefore felt that the document should remain in draft form. Councillor Richard Somner agreed that this was an area which was evolving rapidly. Not everyone would be able to afford an electric vehicle and consequently there was a need to be realistic in order to bring the public and businesses on board. The strategy had been in draft form for some time and had been through various Boards and therefore the document would look slightly dated. However, it was a snapshot in time and would be reviewed on a regular basis through the Transport Advisory Group and the Environment Advisory Group. He would take the comments made by Councillor Abbs on board and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Purpose: 

To provide assurance that the core business and council priorities for improvement measures (Council Strategy 2019-2023) are being managed effectively.

To highlight successes and where performance has fallen below the expected level, present information on the remedial action taken, and the impact of that action.

Resolved that progress and achievements be noted and to review the appropriateness of any remedial actions taken to improve performance particularly in relation to non-domestic rates collected as a percentage of non-domestic rates due.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 10 September 2020, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning the provision of assurance that the core business and Council priorities for improvement measures were being managed effectively as at Quarter One of 2020/21. The report also highlighted successes and where performance had fallen below the expected level, presented information on any remedial action taken, and the impact of that action.

Councillor Jo Stewart stated that in Quarter One it was possible to see the impact of Covid-19 in some areas but there were many core business areas which had retained a ‘green’ position due to resilience in the workforce. One area which had been particularly challenging was the collection of non-domestic rates as this had been impacted by the Council’s conscious measures put in place to support local businesses. Councillor Stewart highlighted a number of areas where performance had improved such as the Library Service, reduction in staff sickness and the launch of the Employee Assistance Programme.

Councillor Graham Bridgman seconded the report and stated that it included some interesting information. He referred to the significant drop in the number of people receiving long term services in Adult Social Care. This was largely due to Covid and it was an area where there had been a particularly high number of deaths. There had also been a reduction of 24.8% in the number of new adult safeguarding enquiries. The Care Quality Commission had not been operating as it had prior to Covid in terms of inspecting service providers as it had not wanted to add to the burden on care homes.

Councillor Lynne Doherty thanked Officers for their hard work in providing and contributing to the Quarter One report particularly as many had been involved in supporting the Covid response. The majority of indicators were positive but one area of concern that she raised was the increase in the number of reported domestic abuse cases which aligned with the national trend. There was a 36.8% rise in cases compared to the Quarter One figure for 2019/20. She was surprised to see this level of increase as the Council had done a lot of hard work in raising awareness around domestic abuse. Councillor Howard Woollaston confirmed that he had also been alarmed by this figure and he had raised the issue with Thames Valley Police. There was a difference between domestic crime and abuse. There was always more which could be done in this area and it would be necessary to ensure that thinking was joined up with other partner agencies. He would look at the background to the figure quoted in conjunction with Councillor Jo Stewart as he agreed that it did not feel right.

Councillor Lee Dillon thanked Officers for all their hard work and he was pleased to see such a positive report as he was sure that most Members would have expected to see a decrease in performance over this period. The focus around staff wellbeing was also welcomed. He noted that there had been a downturn in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Purpose:  This report summarises the results of the Council’s management of cash-flow, borrowing and investments in the financial year 2019/20.

Resolved that the contents of the report be noted.

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 9) concerning the results of the Council’s management of cash-flow, borrowing and investments in the financial year 2019/20.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon confirmed that the report dealt with borrowing and investments. The Council’s revenue cost of borrowing and investment was £10.8m which was £78k less than had been budgeted for. Interest earned on investments was higher than expected because the Council had gained more than expected from the pre-payment of pension contributions because the amount set aside in 2019/20 to contribute to the pension fund deficit was slightly higher than the amount required to be paid to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

The Council’s borrowing and investment strategy set a limit of £5m to be invested at one time with any one institution. On two occasions the amount held in the Council’s current account exceeded this amount by a maximum of £364k due to the fact that an unexpected sum of income had been paid in late in the day.  This issue had been resolved within one working day.

Councillor Jeff Brooks referred to paragraph 5.41 and queried whether IT systems had flagged this issue up or had it relied on human diligence in picking it up. Councillor Mackinnon did not know the answer to this question but would find out and report back. Councillor Brooks also referred to the £10.8m revenue cost of borrowing and investment which was 8% of the budget and he queried whether this was acceptable. It was good to see the table in respect of assets against borrowing but he felt that it would be useful to also have a mini balance sheet included in the report and he asked if that could be taken into consideration. Councillor Mackinnon confirmed that that would not be a problem.

Councillor Dominic Boeck seconded this report which was an indication of the prudent management of the Council’s investment and borrowing by the Portfolio Holder with the support of Officers.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Reason for the decision: To ensure that sufficient funds were available on a day to day basis to enable the Council’s business to continue.

Other options considered: None.

Purpose:  To report on the in-year financial performance of the Council’s revenue budgets.

Resolved that the Quarter One forecast of £590k be noted.

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 10) concerning the in-year performance of the Council’s revenue budgets as at Quarter One of 2020/21.

The Council was forecasting an under spend of £590k. The report highlighted each directorate position and any implications for budget setting in 2021/22. There was a £3.2m savings and income generation programme which was forecasting 82% achieved at Quarter One. The Covid-19 grant funding received from Government to date, and the Council’s level of general fund reserves meant that the Council was well placed to focus its efforts on response and recovery from the Covid-19 in the current financial year.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the first bullet point in paragraph 4.2 which noted that long term services was forecast to be £844k under spent which was a result of a higher level of deceased clients compared to the same quarter in the previous year. It was stressed that this was a prediction and not an actual outturn figure. He confirmed that he would look in more detail at the long term services model with Officers.

Councillor Jeff Brooks noted that car park income was under considerable pressure and the budget seemed to be a moveable feast. Councillor Brooks would like to see further detail on a consolidated summary of all Government grants within the report. Councillor Ross Mackinnon agreed that the budget was moveable and that he was happy to consider the format changes proposed.

Councillor Alan Macro referred to paragraph 4.2 which stated that there would be an income pressure of £311k in the four Council care homes due to falling occupancy and yet on page 267 in Appendix A there was a forecast increase in income of around £800k within the Directorate and he queried why that was the case. Councillor Bridgman confirmed that he would have a discussion off-line with Councillor Macro on that.

RESOLVED that the Quarter One forecast of £590k under spend be noted.

Reason for the decision: To monitor performance of the Council’s revenue budgets.

Other options considered: None.

Purpose:  The financial performance report provided to Members on a quarterly basis reports on the under or over spends against the Council’s approved capital budget.  This report presents the Quarter One financial position.

Resolved that the report be noted and in particular the following:

(a)     The forecast financial position as at Quarter One.

(b)     £124k of additional external funding from the Phase One of the Emergency Active Travel Fund has been received by the Council.  Under delegated authority, the S151 Officer and Portfolio Holder agreed allocation of the funding to the Transport and Countryside programme in 2020/21.

(c)     A further application is to be submitted (August 2020) for Phase Two Emergency Active Travel funding, with an indicative sum of £495k.  

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 11) concerning the under or over spends against the Council’s approved capital budget as at Quarter One of 2020/21.

It was noted that at the end of Quarter One expenditure of £50.9million had been forecast against a revised budget of £56.4million, an overall forecast underspend of £5.5 million or 9% of the approved Capital Programme. This was due to the fact that Covid had started to have an impact causing delays on projects.

The main contributing factors to the forecast position were:

·         A £2.3m underspend in Education Services mainly due to a delay in the Eastern Area PRU project and a forecast underspend against the planned maintenance budget.

·         Transport and Countryside were forecasting a £3.1m underspend primarily relating to the Robinhood Roundabout and A4 development.

Councillor Dominic Boeck seconded the report and reported that Education Services was largely responsible for the underspend due to delays to construction. This seemed to be getting back on track and he referred specifically to the recent completion and opening of Theale Primary School. Councillor Alan Macro agreed that Theale Primary School was an excellent facility and he congratulated all staff involved in getting the school up and running. The Leader of the Council echoed that comment.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon confirmed that the Council had recently received £124k of Active Travel funding from the Government and a further bid had been submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted and in particular:

(1)       The forecast financial position as at Quarter One.

(2)       £124k of additional external funding from the Phase One of the Emergency Active Travel Fund had been received by the Council.  Under delegated authority, the S151 Officer and Portfolio Holder agreed allocation of the funding to the Transport and Countryside programme in 2020/21.

(3)       A further application was to be submitted (August 2020) for Phase Two Emergency Active Travel funding, with an indicative sum of £495k.  

Reason for the decision: To monitor the Council’s Capital budget.

Other options considered: None.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by Councillors 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.

“Does the Council or any of its pension funds invest in fossil fuels or the animal agriculture industry?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Carolyne Culver on the subject of investment of pension funds was answered by the Executive Member for Finance and Economic Development.

“Will the Portfolio Holder for the Environment consider creating a working group of local environmental experts and campaigners – for example Friends of the Earth, Climate Action Network and Green Exchange – to help deliver the environment strategy delivery plan?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Carolyne Culver on the subject of the creation of a working group of local environmental experts to deliver the Environment Strategy was answered by the Executive Member for Environment.

“Following the announcement by the Leader at Executive on 16 July that the way meetings are being run (via Zoom rather than in the Council Chamber) will be reviewed, is there an update about when meetings can return to the Council Chamber or be run on a hybrid basis?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Carolyne Culver on the subject of meeting arrangements was answered by the Leader of the Council.

“Will training/briefings be provided for all members about the council’s mission to become carbon neutral by 2030, so that all councillors can be effective ambassadors for the objectives of the Environment Strategy and Delivery Plan in their communities?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Carolyne Culver on the subject of training for Members on the Council’s ambition to be carbon neutral by 2030 was answered by the Executive Member for Environment.

“Regarding the Joint Venture for Local Housing mentioned in response to questions at the Executive on the 16^th July, how much funding is in place for investment in social housing, for how many homes?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Carolyne Culver on the subject of the Joint Venture for Local Housing was answered by the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“As the 24-hour traffic-free zone in Bartholomew Street, Northbrook Street, Mansion House Street and the Market Place, Newbury, has made social distancing easier, improved air quality and road safety, and is popular with shoppers, should it not, therefore, be extended beyond September?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor David Marsh on the subject of extending pedestrianisation of the town centre was answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Countryside.

“With regard to Sandleford Park, can you confirm that it remains West Berkshire Council policy to consider any proposed development for the site as a whole, and not as separate applications for different parts?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor David Marsh on the subject of the development of Sandleford Park was answered by the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“In relation to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission Task Group report following its review of the London Road Industrial Estate, the report states “where that [Faraday Development Limited’s (FDL’s)] submission went beyond the terms of reference of this review, comments have been disregarded.” Please list, by using the enumeration adopted by FDL, which of FDL’s twelve questions fell outside the Terms of Reference and why?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Steve Masters on the subject of the OSMC task group report in relation to the London Road Industrial Estate was answered by the Executive Member for Internal Governance.

“What have the impacts of the ‘A’ level/GCSE/Btech exam fiasco been on schools and colleges in West Berkshire?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Erik Pattenden on the subject of impact of exam results on schools and colleges in West Berkshire was answered by the Executive Member for Children, Young People and Education.

“Now WBC have received £375K from a youth charity for the community asset of the Waterside Centre, how are you going to use that money for the benefit of local youth services?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Erik Pattenden on the subject of use of funding from a youth charity for the Waterside Centre was answered by the Executive Member for Children, Young People and Education.

“How many households in West Berkshire are at risk of losing their homes if the Government ban on evictions by private landlords is not extended?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of the extension of the Government ban on evictions by private landlords was answered by the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“Why has the Council been treating the master planning of LRIE different to the way it treated Market Street & Parkway, where Master Plans were prepared by us as Local Planning Authority, not by the Executive?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of the treatment of the master planning of the London Road Industrial Estate was answered by the Executive Member for Planning and Housing.

“What will the impact of dismantling Public Health England be on West Berkshire, given that we are still in the middle of a pandemic?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Martha Vickers on the subject of the impact of dismantling Public Health England was answered by the Executive Member for Public Health & Community Wellbeing, Leisure and Culture.

“How many people in West Berkshire will be impacted by the end of the furloughing scheme and resulting loss of income?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of the impact of the end of the furloughing scheme and resulting loss of income was answered by the Executive Member for Finance and Economic Development.

“What parking incentives does the council intend to introduce to assist the retail and hospitality sector in West Berkshire?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of parking incentives to assist the retail and hospitality sectors was answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Countryside.

“Given that in my opinion there has been a great coming together of the community in response to Covid-19, as evidenced by local engagement with the council’s Community Support Hub, what does the Leader propose to do with the Hub going forward?

A question standing in the name of Councillor Rick Jones on the subject of the function of the Community Support Hub going forward was answered by the Leader of the Council.

“Has the Community Municipal Investment vehicle to raise money to fund environmental projects been a success?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Tom Marino on the subject of the success of the Community Municipal Investment vehicle was answered by the Executive Member for Finance and Economic Development.

“As the Local Government Association recently launched “The legacy of COVID-19 - Seven principles for reform of adult social care and support” what is the view of the portfolio holder on whether those are the right principles on which to focus and if not, what other principles should in his view be considered?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Claire Rowles on the subject of the seven principles for reform of adult social care and support was answered by the Executive Member for Adult Social Care.