Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 May 2017 and the Special meeting held on 25 May 2017.

Councillor Graham Jones opened the meeting by welcoming Councillor Keith Chopping back to the Executive as Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services.

Councillor Jones also took the opportunity to wish Councillor Dominic Boeck a happy birthday.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 May 2017 and the special meeting held on the 25 May 2017 were approved as true and correct records 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.

There were no public questions submitted.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

(CSP: MEC and MEC1)

Purpose: To inform Members of the provisional financial performance of the Council for 2016/17 .

Resolved:

·      to note the outturn position and that the service specific risk funds would not be called upon, due to under spends in other areas across the Council.

·      that the budget movements processed in year and detailed in Appendix E had been reviewed.

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 6) which set out the provisional financial outturn of the Council for 2016-17.

Councillor Graham Jones introduced the report and explained that the provisional revenue outturn was an overspend of £7,487 against a net revenue budget of £116.8m, which equated to 0.006% of the net budget. Councillor Jones also reported that 95% of the 2016/17 savings programme was achieved in year.

Councillor Jones felt that these were commendable achievements during difficult financial times. This was particularly so when considering the difficulties being experienced by some near neighbour local authorities. By way of an example, Councillor Jones referred to Reading Borough Council whose provisional outturn was an overspend of £7.3m.

Councillor Lynne Doherty stated her pleasure at the underspend reported for Children and Family Services. This was particularly commendable when considering that the service had undergone an improvement journey. A number of measures had been implemented successfully in order to achieve this, whilst still meeting demand. There had therefore been no need to utilise the service risk fund.

Councillor Doherty added that there had been a reduced need for agency staff in the service and therefore cost, with the use of agency staff having reduced from 29% to 12% of the workforce. Placement costs had also been well managed.

Councillor Lee Dillon referred to Adult Social Care. He noted that the overspend in this service had reduced from Quarter Three and this was partly due to client care packages not commencing as previously forecast. He queried whether this was due to some clients having a less acute need than originally anticipated.

Councillor Dillon also noted that there had been less use of direct payments and queried whether there was a need to educate residents on the use of this funding to encourage them to make use of it.

There had also been a lower demand for carer support. Councillor Dillon queried whether this was due to the needs of residents being less complex or whether there was a stricter assessment process in place for this support.

In response to these points, Rachael Wardell explained that a high cost scenario was forecast for care packages. Actual costs became clearer towards year-end and some lower cost packages had been achieved. It was also the case that not all packages would continue for a full year as, sadly, some clients died.

Direct payments were discussed with clients as part of social work reviews when consideration was given to the expenditure of this funding and whether the needs of clients were being sufficiently met. This was alongside seeking to encourage independence of service users.

Rachael Wardell agreed to explore with the service whether there was an identifiable reason for the reduced demand for carer support and to confirm that in writing, but confirmed that the service did take steps to ensure carers were made aware of support available.

Turning to the Education Service, Councillor Dillon noted that savings had been achieved in Property due to a reduction in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Purpose: To provide Executive with a high level overview of the various sections of the Council’s new 3-year ICT & Digital Services Strategy

Resolved that the West Berkshire Council ICT & Digital Services Strategy 2017-2020 be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 22 June 2017, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which provided a high level overview of the various sections of the Council’s new three year ICT and Digital Services Strategy.

Councillor Dominic Boeck introduced the report and explained that the time had come to replace the existing three year Strategy with this new Strategy that would cover the period 2017 to 2020.

Councillor Boeck explained that there were a number of opportunities arising for West Berkshire from the new Strategy. This was particularly the case when considering the excellent superfast broadband coverage that was being introduced by Gigaclear, with coverage close to 100% being achieved by year end. Only a small number of homes would be without superfast access (in the tens).

It was also the case that four out of five residents owned and regularly used a smart phone and/or other digital asset.

The above two points would enable residents to perform more digital transactions.

ICT was also the catalyst for many changes, and would greatly aid the Council in providing more efficient and effective services.

Councillor Lee Dillon referred to discussions held at the Resources Select Committee in January 2017 on the Strategy. At that time he raised the potential to procure ICT systems etc jointly with other local authorities. He noted that there was concern with doing so as a result of contracts in different areas ending at different times, but he felt that this was something that Officers should be asked to explore further and should be a consideration as part of the Strategy. Cost effectiveness and potential for savings did feature within the Strategy, but this did not specifically cover joint procurement.

Councillor Dillon was pleased to note the customer centric focus of the Strategy. As stated in the Strategy, this would benefit internal and external customers, including residents. However, access was a key component of this focus with more services moving online and it was important to not lose sight of residents without internet access, i.e. the elderly and vulnerable residents, to ensure they could access services. There was a potential role for the voluntary and community sector to assist/train these residents.

Councillor Boeck stated that these were good points. He would continue to work closely with the ICT Service and the potential for joint procurement would be an element of that. Councillor Boeck added his agreement to the need to be conscious of people who were unable to access services online to ensure their service delivery was not negatively affected.

Councillor Alan Macro was disappointed at the lack of reference to specific digital developments. He also raised concerns with the search facility on the Council’s website, but the Strategy did not propose any improvements in that respect.

Councillor Macro then queried whether the costs of Gigaclear, in comparison to other providers, i.e. Virgin, were a barrier to developments. Gigaclear cost £12 more per month per individual contract than Virgin. Councillor Boeck explained that this was not a straight forward comparison. Gigaclear was a new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

“How is the process of decanting the residents of Four Houses Corner progressing?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Mollie Lock  on the subject of the progress made with the process of decanting the residents of Four Houses Corner was answered by the Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Leisure.

“What is the procedure for the residents of Four Houses Corner who own their homes?”       

A question standing in the name of Councillor Mollie Lock on the subject of the procedure for the residents of Four Houses Corner that owned their own homes was answered by the Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Leisure.

“What arrangements are in place so that the children of Four Houses Corner can continue in their current place of education?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Mollie Lock on the subject of the arrangements in place for the children of Four Houses Corner to continue in their current place of education was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Children, Education and Young People.

“How much Section 106 for off site affordable housing has not yet been allocated?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro on the subject of unallocated Section 106 funding for off site affordable housing was answered by the Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Leisure.

“How many volunteers have been recruited to help man public libraries this year?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro on the subject of the number of volunteers recruited to man public libraries during the current year was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Culture and Environment.

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 1, 2 and 7 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 1 – information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 2 – information identifying an individual)

(Paragraph 7 – action taken in relation to crime prevention)

(CSP: MEC)

Purpose: To seek approval to write off debts.

Resolved that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 22 June 2017, then it will be implemented.

(Paragraph 1 – information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 2 – information identifying an individual)

(Paragraph 7 – action taken in relation to crime prevention)

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 10) which sought approval to write off debts.

It was agreed, in the Part II debate, that the total figure proposed to be written off should be included within these minutes. The total debt proposed to be written off was £65,577.43.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

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

Other options considered: as outlined in the exempt report.