Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 15 July 2021.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2021 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.

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.

Please note that the list of public questions is shown under item 4 in the agenda pack.

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

(a)  A question standing in the name of Mr Nigel Foot on the subject of activities made available for young people in Newbury was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education.

(b)  A question standing in the name of Mr Ian Hall on the subject of the funding allocated for construction and stands at Newbury Rugby Club would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

(c)  A question standing in the name of Mr William Beard on the subject of whether the Council’s procurement arrangements would be limited to companies with a published carbon reduction plan was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(d)  A question standing in the name of Mr Simon Pike on the subject of the statutory duties of the Council’s highway works was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

(e)  A question standing in the name of Mr Paul Morgan on the subject of the Council forming its own housing development company was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(f)   A question standing in the name of Mr Graham Storey on the subject of the potential improvements to the format of asking questions at Council and Executive meetings was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Internal Governance, Leisure and Culture.

(g)  A question standing in the name of Mr Vaughan Miller on the subject of the costs of the recycling centre permit scheme and the booking system would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Waste.

(h)  A question standing in the name of Mr John Gotelee on the subject of the treatment of empty buildings in West Berkshire Council was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(i)    A question standing in the name of Mrs Sam Coppinger on the subject of traffic movements and whether these were restricted by hours of work planning restrictions was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

(j)    A question standing in the name of Ms Bridgette Jones on the subject of the development of a master plan for Membury Airfield Industrial Estate was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Waste.

(k)  A question standing in the name of Mr Nigel Foot on the subject of mental health support provided to students was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education.

(l)    A question standing in the name of Mr Ian Hall on the subject of the measuring of the water table on the existing football pitch would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

(m) A question standing in the name of Mr Simon Pike on the subject of the time taken to install dropped kerbs in Henwick Lane in Thatcham was answered by the Portfolio  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

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:  To agree a way forward in relation to separation of food waste.

Resolved that approval be granted for the introduction of separate food waste collections in the district. 

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.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which provided an update on progress made towards the introduction of free, weekly separate food waste collections from households in the district; highlighted potential opportunities, risks and issues for the project; and sought approval to enable separate food waste collections to be introduced.

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter advised that capital funding of £900,000 had been provided to enable a separate, additional, weekly food waste collection service to be run from next year. This would enable the Council to save money as it would no longer have to pay additional costs for disposal of food waste and allow residents to dispose of food waste more frequently than at present. To date, the proposal had attracted cross-party support and negotiations with Veolia were drawing to a close with a commitment for funding to purchase the necessary food waste vehicles for a proposed launch of the service in the first quarter of next year. However, the lead time estimates had increased significantly to c. 10 – 12 months for the supply of these vehicles, likely due to the high number of Councils who were planning to introduce similar services in the near future. It was hoped that approval by Executive to the proposal would maintain pressure on the supply chain to enable a launch of the service as originally intended.

A question was asked as to the benefits for residents and the Council by introducing this service. Councillor Ardagh-Walter explained that this would be an entirely new service in comparison to the previous food waste service. The previous scheme saw food waste caddies emptied by green waste vehicles but the new scheme would be run by a specific service independent of green waste services. This would enable communications, publicity and encouragement to be much more forthcoming and for the service to be run on a weekly basis, which was not the case previously.

Councillor Carolyne Culver welcomed the initiative as a positive way of dealing with food waste and asked Councillor Ardagh-Walter to pass on her thanks to Kofi Adu-Gyamfi and his colleagues for their help in answering local queries and for their work on this important initiative. Councillor Culver sought clarification on the planned consultation with the public, how the scheme would work for residents living in flats and what would happen with the organic soil improver that would be produced as a result of the initiative. Councillor Ardagh-Walter said the public consultation had happened in several parts, most recently as part of the Environmental Strategy Delivery Plan, which had achieved a high level of enthusiasm and public support. The key area of consultation and engagement would be immediately prior to launch by communicating through as many channels as possible in order to encourage uptake. With regard to residents living in flats, the detail for collection of food waste had not yet been finalised but the need to make an attractive offer to those residents had been recognised. With regard to the soil improver, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

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

Resolved to note:

·         the year-end forecast under spend of £0.3m. The year-end forecast is after taking account of provision that was made in reserves for specific risks at the time of budget setting. Without this provision, the forecast would be an over spend of £0.5m.

·         the ongoing impact that Covid will have on the 2021/22 budget as the Council sees increased demand for some services, but continues to be supported by external funding. 

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 the financial performance of the Council’s revenue budgets and which provided a year-end forecast.

There was a predicted underspend at year end of £0.3m taking into account under and over spends across the Directorates. In the People Directorate, there was a forecast overspend of £59,000 after the use of Government Covid-19 funding and service specific risk reserves which were allocated to the Adult Social Care and Children and Families Services budget in March 2021 which recognised the increased volatility, inherent in the ASC modelling in particular, as a result of the pandemic. In the Place Directorate, additional staffing costs were forecast reflecting pressures relating to the Local Plan and ecological assessments contributing towards a forecast over spend of £0.2m.

In the Resources Directorate there was a forecast overspend of £0.4m arising from less income than expected due to a number of schools leaving the Council insurance service in favour of cheaper Risk Protection Arrangements offered by the Department for Education and also additional temporary staff costs in the Finance Service. However, Capital Financing forecast a £1m underspend due to more efficient treasury management and more judicious use of lower interest rates and short-term borrowing.

In summary, the revenue budget was forecast to be underspent by just 0.2% which reflected the continued strong and robust financial management of the Council.

Councillor Lynne Doherty said the report highlighted the difficult circumstances the Council was still in with regard to the effects of Covid-19 as well as the uncertainty of funding going forward. Councillor Doherty thanked the Finance team for their excellent work in these uncertain times which were likely to remain for the remainder of the financial year. Councillor Doherty was disappointed to note from the report that the overspend in Children and Family Services was due to partners choosing not to contribute into the Family Safeguarding Model which was felt to be rather short-sighted given the impact on children and young people in the district.

Councillor Lee Dillon raised a concern over the use of risk reserves at this stage of the financial year and queried if those risk reserves were robust or would there be a call on general reserves to top up risk reserves at Q2? Councillor Ross Mackinnon said he felt the risk reserves were robust and could be relied upon, although it was generally recognised that any forecast or model might not prove to be accurate at the end of this financial year. With regard to reserves usage, Councillor Mackinnon pointed out that Covid-19 had hugely increased the volatility into that model and this had been recognised in the budget.

Councillor Carolyne Culver referred to paragraph 4.3 of the report which noted a spend of £0.5m in the Chief Executive’s Office and queried what this spending activity related to. Councillor Mackinnon said the Chief Executive’s Office was an administrative and back-office function but did not have the detail for the spend and would endeavour to answer this query  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Purpose: To present the Q1 capital financial performance for Members to note.

Resolved that the proposed reprofiling of £4.3 million of future expenditure from 2021/22 into financial year 2022/23 be approved. 

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 10 September 2021, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which outlined the forecast outturn position for financial year 2021/22 as at Q1.

The capital programme invested in the future of the district with new schools, improved roads, an active transport infrastructure, outstanding new sports facilities and environmental projects. The projected capital investment for the year was £56.5m, a forecast under spend of £3.7m. The under spend did not mean that projects had been lost but were merely delayed and the reasons for delay were project-specific. Overall, the vital capital programme remained on track to deliver outstanding new amenities and environmental improvements for all residents.

Councillor Tony Vickers asked for more detail on the re-design of the Robin Hood roundabout and the delays on the A4. Councillor Richard Somner stated that the re-design being looked at was to take further opportunity for active travel funding and to build that into the previous draft design so that the outcome would be bigger and better than was originally planned.

Councillor Erik Pattenden asked why there had been a delay with the i-College project. Councillor Dominic Boeck said it had been very difficult to reach agreement over the tenancy of the site that would now be developed. However, Councillor Lynne Doherty said, having been involved with the project for some time, she was very pleased to see that it was now progressing.

RESOLVED that the proposed reprofiling of £4.3 million of future expenditure from 2021/22 into financial year 2022/23 be approved.

Other options considered: None.

Purpose: To report Q1 outturns for the Key Accountable Measures which monitor performance against the 2021/22 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 to note the progress made in delivering the Council Strategy Delivery Plan 2019-2023, a maintained strong performance for core business areas, good results for the majority of the measures relating to the Council’s priorities for improvement, and remedial actions taken where performance is below target. 

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) which sought to provide assurance that the core business and Council priorities for improvement measures in the Council Strategy 2019-2023 were being managed effectively. During Q1, strategic management and Members of the Executive had identified additional outcomes to be included in the Council Strategy Delivery Plan and arrangements were being made to include them in the Q2 performance report.

The report highlighted successes and, where performance had fallen below the expected level, presented information on the remedial action taken, and the impact of that action.

Councillor Howard Woollaston said the statistics in the report showed the outstanding performance of the Council and he thanked Officers for their efforts in difficult times. Some of the previous quarter’s indicators had been seriously impacted by Covid-19, including the collection of Council Tax and Business Rates as well as Ofsted inspections but these were now back to normal levels. Councillor Woollaston flagged two areas – appraisals and training – though these had measures in place to allow them to return to previous acceptable levels.

Councillor Lynne Doherty drew the Executive’s attention to paragraphs 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 of the report which showed several awards had been made to West Berkshire Council. These were noteworthy in particular as they had been achieved over the last 18 months when it had been very difficult to continue business as usual whilst responding to a global pandemic. Councillor Doherty said it was also reassuring to see some of the positive economic indicators considering the concerns with regard to recovery following the impact of Covid-19.

Councillor Jo Stewart clarified that the provisional numbers on the dashboards on page 79 of the report were because the majority of the Adult Social Care figures had to be given final sign-off from the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that the Council aligned internally with what was reported statutorily.

Councillor Lee Dillon noted that the average number of days to make a full decision on new housing benefit claims was 20 which was one day over the target of 19 days and the rationale was that the team was down one member of staff, the vacancy for which was currently being advertised. In addition, self-isolation grants were due to end in September 2021 and recruitment would take place for an additional staff member. Councillor Dillon asked for clarification as whether it was intended therefore to recruit one or two new additional staff members and whether the need for additional resource should have been recognised earlier. Councillor Ross Mackinnon said as far as he was aware the intention was to recruit two new staff members. The Revenue and Benefits team had proved to be an invaluable resource throughout the pandemic and had been redeployed across the Council in various guises to form a rapid response team across many different services. The Government had provided financial support but unfortunately no additional staff had been provided in order to administer it. Rather than  ...  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.

Please note that the list of Member questions is shown under item 10 in the agenda pack.

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

(a)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs on the subject of additional costs incurred following the fire at Faraday Road was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(b)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Phil Barnett on the subject of the disturbance that could be caused by drones was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Strategic Partnerships and Transformation.

(c)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Martha Vickers on the subject of the Council’s previous car club contract with Co-Wheels would receive a written response from Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

(d)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of the funding collected from developers since the start of the Newbury Car Club and how much funding was unallocated at the time the Council changed its service provider was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

(e)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeremy Cottam on the subject of the Council’s highway maintenance programme and the policy for cutting back overgrown shrubs and trees on urban roads was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

(f)   A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro querying whether any consultation had been undertaken regarding the effectiveness and popularity of the booking system used for the Council’s two HWRCs (outside of the centres themselves) was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Waste.

(g)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Royce Longton on the subject of how people booked to visit the HWRCs without internet access was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Waste.

(h)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Erik Pattenden on the subject of the decision path taken in deciding to maintain the HWRC booking system that restricted residents to one visit per week (until this was recently lifted) was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Waste.

(i)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Owen Jeffery on the subject of why the HWRCs had not extended their opening hours in the spring and summer months was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Waste.

(j)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon on the subject of why it was considered to be unfair on other users if a resident visited the HWRCs more than once a week was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Waste.

(k)  A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of what communications had taken place with Vodafone regarding Vodafone’s retrenchment of their office space at their Headquarters was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(l)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs on the subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.