Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 14 October 2021.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2021 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.</AI1><AI2>

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 Richard Somner declared an interest in Agenda Item 9 (Contract Award for the Drug and Alcohol Behaviour Change Service) by virtue of the fact that he is an NHS employee of provider services, 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.

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 John Gotelee on the subject of reinstating the football pitch and clubhouse at the LRIE was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

b)    A question standing in the name of Mr Graham Storey on the subject of the Council’s position on funding and building homes for social rent was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Strategic Partnerships and Transformation.

c)    A question standing in the name of Mr Simon Pike on the subject of the Council’s plans to update its ‘Supplementary Planning Document: Part 5 – External Lighting’ was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

d)    A question standing in the name of Ms Alison May on the subject of addressing the challenges caused by violence against women participating in politics was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection / Adult Social Care.

e)    A question standing in the name of Mr Darius Zarazel on behalf of Newbury Town Council on the subject of a final public consultation on the Monks Lane Sports Hub application would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Internal Governance, Leisure and Culture.

f)     A question standing in the name of Mr Vaughan Miller on the subject of the removal of the high protective net preventing balls from being kicked into the Kennet was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

g)    A question standing in the name of Mr Paul Morgan on the subject of the Council’s intention to borrow funds from the Public Works Loan Board for the Monks Lane Sport Hub proposal was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Internal Governance, Leisure and Culture.

h)   A question standing in the name of Mr John Gotelee on the subject of development on the Faraday Road football pitch was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

i)     A question standing in the name of Mr Graham Storey on the subject of applications to the new Housing Register and the Council’s social housing policy    was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Strategic Partnerships and Transformation.

j)      A question standing in the name of Mr Simon Pike on the subject of recommendations of the Institute of Lighting Professionals on environmental zones for exterior lighting control was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

k)    A question standing in the name of Mr Vaughan Miller on the subject of the total costs of the preparation of Faraday Road Football Ground to be reopened as a recreation pitch was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

Purpose: To present the first progress report on the Environment Strategy covering the first year of the Strategy from July 2020 to July 2021.

Resolved that the Annual Progress Report on the Environment Strategy be approved for publication on the Council’s website.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 26 November 2021, then it will be implemented.

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter summarised the report (Agenda item 6) which <AI5>

presented the first Annual Progress Report for the Environment Strategy, specifically covering the period from the approval of the Strategy in July 2020 through to July 2021. The report also demonstrated how the Council had listened to feedback received throughout the year, provided an update on the Council’s carbon footprint, and reported on the carbon emission data for the District.

Councillor Ardagh-Walter highlighted some of the actions delivered over the last twelve months in line with the strategy, with the activities having covered carbon neutrality, improving the natural and physical health of people and wildlife, as well as ensuring economic growth is environmentally responsible. Councillor Ardagh-Walter referred to the work still to do on the strategy and the part that everyone in the district can play in getting to carbon neutral. Councillor Ardagh-Walter also confirmed that the delivery team had recently appointed three new officers which had increased its capacity to deliver projects.

Councillor Lee Dillon spoke on behalf of Councillor Adrian Abbs who was not present. Firstly, Councillor Dillon noted Section 4.4 of the report, which stated a 16% reduction in carbon footprint, which he believed presented a false picture of hope. He referred to the Council Motion to make West Berkshire carbon neutral by 2030, and argued that percentages across the district needed to be understood first to then work out what that percentage is as a result of the Councils activities. Secondly, Councillor Dillon asked whether a visual representation could be provided of the carbon impact of each project, in addition to the financial details of the £12.5 million allocated for environmental projects. Finally, Councillor Dillon noted that Grazeley is big enough for 60 megawatts but the report stated only 10 megawatts was envisaged. He suggested that the Council’s level of ambition should be set higher. Councillor Ardagh-Walter responded by confirming that the Council was responsible for around 1% of emissions in the district and that it is far easier to measure what the Council was doing to reduce its carbon footprint than look at the district as a whole. The data for the district produced at a national level infers overall trends, and there has been a pronounced downward trend in carbon levels. He also confirmed that the Council is on track and has credible plans for achieving carbon neutrality, but that he did not think the government target of 2050 for the decarbonisation of the UK economy would be achievable given current lifestyles. Councillor Ardgah-Walter then advised that the carbon impact of the Council’s programmes are expected to be produced shortly by the consultants commissioned for the project, and that this could be shared once available. Finally, he agreed that Grazely could be bigger, and that the matter is being driven by officers’ advice and the specialist engineers working on designing the scheme. He believed that, collectively, members would have another opportunity to consider the plans for this.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Purpose:  To feedback on the statutory consultation in relation to the hackney carriage table of fares and to determine whether or not to modify the hackney carriage fare scale, following the Delegated Officer Decision on 8 September 2021, to vary the current fare scale by an increase of 5%, in light of the objection received (and not withdrawn) during the consultation period.

Resolved that:

·         The objection received during the statutory consultation had been considered and it was determined that no modifications would be made to the table of fares having taken account of the objection.

·         The table of fares would come into effect on 19 November 2021. 

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 Hilary Cole presented the report (Agenda item 7) which provided feedback on the statutory consultation in relation to the hackney carriage table of fares, and invited the Committee to determine whether or not to modify the hackney carriage fare scale (following the Delegated Officer Decision on 8 September 2021 to vary the current fare scale by an increase of 5%) in light of the objection received and not withdrawn during the consultation period.

Councillor Cole explained how the Delegated Officer Decision had been advertised, with the subsequent objection considered by the Licensing Committee at its meeting on 8 November 2021. Cllr Cole advised the Committee of her support for the recommendations of the Licensing Committee that the revised table of fares come into operation on the 19 November 2021 and noted that drivers have the option to increase fares by 5% should they choose to do so.

Councillor Richard Somner asked for clarification that the decision affected all taxi provision within the District. Councillor Cole responded that her understanding was that hackney carriages are vehicles that can be flagged down on the road whereas private hire taxis (are vehicles booked in advance. Councillor Graham Bridgman added that this was correct and that it applies only to hackney carriage vehicles.

Councillor Lee Dillon noted that this matter had already been considered and endorsed by the Licencing Committee, and stated the importance of recognising that it’s a maximum increase being proposed. Councillor Dillon referred to increased living costs and the need for fares to keep in line with inflation to ensure that drivers make a decent wage, and also the importance of supporting the taxi industry in the district. Councillor Cole indicated her agreement and expressed her gratitude to officers and the Licensing Committee for their work on this matter.

Councillor Graham Bridgman expressed his support of building positive relationships with the taxi trade across the District and stated that the new fare structure was much simpler to understand in comparison to the former tariffs, enabling it to be revisited more often (in conjunction with the trade) to keep account of inflation.

RESOLVED that:

a)    The objection received during the statutory consultation be considered and noted.

b)    No modifications be made to the table of fares at Appendix D having taken into account the objection.

c)    The 19 November 2021 be confirmed as the date that the table of fares, without modification, comes into effect.

Other options considered: Other options, such as not introducing an increase or varying the table of fares by circa 10%, have been considered at earlier stages in the process and rejected. However, the specifics of any modification now to the table of fares set at Appendix D, are for the Executive to determine, taking into account all the information referred to in the report and Appendices. The only decisions that can be taken now are as outlined in the report. There are no restrictions or limitations on when or how often the Council reviews the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Purpose: To seek approval from the Executive to adopt the West Berkshire Social Value Policy which would formalise the approach to implementing Social Value in the District in line with the 2012 Public Services (Social Value) Act.

Resolved that:

·         The West Berkshire Council Social Value Policy be adopted.

·         Delegated authority would be granted to the Executive Director Resources to agree any minor changes to the adopted Social Value Policy.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 26 November 2021, then it will be implemented.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon presented the report (Agenda item 8) which sought approval for the adoption of the West Berkshire Social Value Policy which formalises the approach to implementing Social Value in the District in line with the 2012 Public Services (Social Value) Act.

Councillor Mackinnon explained how the new policy seeks to secure social, environmental and economic benefits to the District at the pre-procurement stage of the awarding of all public services contracts by West Berkshire Council. Councillor Mackinnon referred to the relatively new government procurement policy statement that requires public bodies to consider social value issues, and the Council has defined its own to include: focussing on creating jobs for young people; apprenticeships; using local suppliers in the supply chain, and; encouraging smaller suppliers. Councillor Mackinnon also highlighted that the proposal is to introduce a weighting of up to 10% in the scoring of bids under the tendering process for these social value aspects, with exceptional cases potentially going above that level. Councillor Mackinnon finished by paying tribute to work of the Task and Finish Group.

Councillor Lee Dillon noted that social values and sustainability are typically standard considerations within procurement now, and that the proposed scoring mechanism followed a well-defined procurement template and style. Councillor Dillon then queried the membership of the Task and Finish Group, and requested an example of potential circumstances where using a social value score would not be appropriate. Councillor Mackinnon responded by confirming that the membership was as set out in the report in the ‘consultation and engagement’ section, and that as this is intended for wide usage he could not think of a situation in which social value would not be considered.

Councillor Alan Macro queried whether the sample questions set out in the report could be expanded to include matters such as carbon emissions and recycling. Councillor Mackinnon responded to confirm that the sample questions were not an exhaustive list of all the questions asked, and his certainty that these matters are considered.

Councillor Jeff Brooks highlighted that the Task and Finish Group did not have a Liberal Democrat member, and suggested that the tender process could also include a request for potential suppliers to demonstrate financially how they will invest locally. Councillor Mackinnon responded that he didn’t see an issue with this in principle, and acknowledged that contributions can also be more than financial as well. On the composition of the Task and Finish Group, Councillor Mackinnon noted that the Liberal Democrats were approached to nominate a member.

Councillor Woollaston noted that the report was uncontroversial and had cross-party support.

RESOLVED that:

a)    The adoption of the West Berkshire Council Social Value Policy be approved.

b)    Delegated authority be granted to the Executive Director - Resources to agree minor changes to the adopted Social Value Policy.

Other options considered: Do nothing. This is not an option. Consideration of social value in procurements over the Find a Tender (FTS – formerly OJEU) levels is now mandatory. Public authorities are recommended to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Purpose: To award the contract for the supply/provision of the Drug and Alcohol Behaviour Change Service following a tender process. 

Resolved (subject to Part II discussion) to:

·         Award the contract for the Drug and Alcohol Behaviour Change Service to the successful bidder.

·         Delegate authority to the Service Lead Legal & Democratic Services to finalise the terms of the agreement as set out in the tender documents and to make any necessary drafting or other amendments to the terms of the agreement which are necessary to reach final agreement but do not materially affect the intent and substance of the agreement.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 26 November 2021, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda item 9) which proposed to award the contract for the supply/provision of the Drug and Alcohol Behaviour Change Service following a tender process.

Councillor Graham Bridgman highlighted three elements of the proposed contract: the savings to the Council along with the improved service offer to those in need of it; the extended hours the new contract will provide, and; the improved scope for the transition between children and adults in need of the service.

Recommendations (Vote to be taken in Part 2):

1)    To award the contract for Drug and Alcohol Behaviour Change Service to the successful bidder.

2)    To delegate authority to the Service Lead Legal & Democratic Services to finalise the terms of the agreement as set out in the tender documents and to make any necessary drafting or other amendments to the terms of the agreement which are necessary to reach final agreement but do not materially affect the intent and substance of the agreement.

Other options considered: Permission to go out to tender was sought from Procurement Board. The procurement options were set out in the procurement strategy.

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 the Council testing the applicability of CS15 as a tool to address climate change would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

b)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of the cancellation of CIL charges levied to residents was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

c)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon on the subject of highways signs across the District was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

d)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of the allocation of a parking space for a Car Club car at the Newbury Racecourse housing development was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

e)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of the number of vehicles being provided for the Newbury Car Club contract was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

f)     A question standing in the name of Councillor Andy Moore on the subject of potential changes to the use of the multi-storey car park behind the West Berkshire Council Market Street offices in light of post-Covid changes was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

g)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Erik Pattenden on the subject of the provision of food vouchers over the October half term was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education.

h)   A question standing in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs on the subject of the application for lawful occupation recently passed in Lambourn would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

i)     A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of when the consultation will take place with regards to the speed limit reduction on the A4 from Henwick Lane to Lower Way was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

j)      A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of who is responsible for providing facilities for long-distance HGV drivers was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.

k)    A question standing in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs on the subject of alternative locations considered for the proposed Sports Hub would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Internal Governance, Leisure and Culture.

l)     A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks on the subject of waiving fees for street closures during the Jubilee Lunch on 5 June 2022 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture.

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(s) * of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution also refers.

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

Purpose:  To award the contract for the supply/provision of the Drug and Alcohol Behaviour Change Service following a tender process.

Resolved that the recommendations in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 26 November 2021, then it will be implemented.

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

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 12) concerning the award of the contract for the supply / provision of a Drug and Alcohol Behaviour Change Service following a tender process. The report proposed (1) the award of the contract to the successful bidder and (2) delegating authority to the Service Lead, Legal and Democratic Services to finalise the terms of the agreement.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.