Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 19 December 2019.

(Councillor Graham Bridgman, Deputy Leader, in the Chair)

Councillor Bridgman advised that he would be declaring an interest in Agenda Item 7 (Granting the leasehold of the Stratfield Mortimer Library building to Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council) which would require him to leave the Chamber. Therefore another Member of the Executive would need to be appointed to Chair the meeting for that item.

Councillor Rick Jones proposed that Councillor Hilary Cole be appointed as Chairman for this particular item. This was seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston.

(Councillor Graham Bridgman abstained from the vote).

RESOLVED that Councillor Hilary Cole would Chair the meeting for Agenda Item 7.

The Minutes of the three meetings held on 19 December 2019 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Deputy Leader, subject to the following amendments:

Meeting 1 (Ordinary Meeting)

It was noted that the link to the transcription of the questions and answers from the previous meeting needed to be enabled. This would be corrected.

Meeting 2 (First Special Meeting)

Item 65 – Preventing Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy (EX3832) – second page, final paragraph, fourth sentence:

She acknowledged that the Market Street development had a lower affordable housing provision but this was an exception.

Item 67 – Community Investment Scheme (EX3860) – seventh paragraph:

Councillor Culver next queried if there were examples of where Abundance (the private company referred to) had worked with other local authorities.

Item 68 – Senior management posts of Chief Executive, Executive Director (Place), Service Director and Service Lead (EX3825) – Resolutions (bullet point 3:

·         the posts of Service Director for Adult Social Care, Environment, and Strategy & Governance be established and recruited to early in 2020;

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 Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Item 6 by virtue of the fact that she was a teacher at Theale Green School, but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain in the meeting for the matter but would not participate in the debate.

Councillor Graham Bridgman declared an interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that he was a Stratfield Mortimer Parish Councillor 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.

There were no public questions submitted.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

(CSP: PC1)

Purpose:  To set out the requirements and changes for setting the primary and secondary school funding formula for 2020/21 and to set out West Berkshire Council's funding proposals to go out to consultation with all schools.

Resolved to:

1)    Replicate the DfE’s National Funding Formula to calculate the funding allocations and to introduce the mobility factor into the local formula.

2)    Address any surplus or shortfall in funding by a combination of reduced AWPU (age weighted pupil unit) rates and a cap on gains.

3)    Apply a top slice of 0.25% to the schools’ funding, in order to support High Needs, which would provide £261k additional funding for high needs.

If the Schools Forum do not agree with the proposals, the Local Authority can make the final decision on funding allocations, and can appeal to the Secretary of State to make a block transfer.

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) concerning the primary and secondary school funding formula for 2020/21. The report set out West Berkshire Council’s funding proposals for 2020/21 post consultation with all schools.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon proposed acceptance of the report’s recommendations. He explained that it was an annual requirement for the Council to approve the funding formula for primary and secondary schools.

In terms of the consultation response, Councillor Mackinnon explained that largely favourable responses had been received to all of the consultation questions with the exception of question four which received a more balanced response: ‘Which of the following options would you support regarding a transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block for 2020/21?’

Nine of the sixteen respondents to this question supported a transfer, the remaining seven did not. Of the nine; four supported a transfer of 0.25% (the proposal in this report), three were in favour of a larger transfer of 0.5% and the remaining two did not specify a transfer amount.

Councillor Dominic Boeck seconded approval of the report’s recommendations.

Councillor Erik Pattenden noted that 16 (close to 20%) of schools had responded to the consultation. He queried whether a response from this number sufficiently represented West Berkshire’s schools. He also questioned how much weight could be given to responses from 16 schools and whether their feedback could have altered the recommendations.

Councillor Mackinnon responded. He agreed it would have been preferable for a higher response rate, but added that schools could not be forced to respond. The responses received did not alter the report’s recommendations.

Councillor Boeck added to the response by stating that many of West Berkshire’s schools looked to their representative(s) on the Schools’ Forum to be their voice on such matters. The Schools’ Forum was represented by each sector of West Berkshire’s schools. He would not expect small schools for example to respond individually.

Councillor Pattenden noted this, but pointed out that schools had been given very little time (ten working days) to respond. He was concerned that the consultation had been rushed. He was also concerned that the consultation responses would not be considered by the Schools’ Forum until 20 January 2020 ahead of a final decision needing to be made on 21 January 2020.

Councillor Boeck explained that this aligned with the consultation process conducted annually for the school funding formula. Councillor Pattenden felt this routine practice was flawed.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the recommendations. He reiterated that the consultation response that related to recommendations one and two had been strongly in favour of approval. He felt it unlikely that a higher response rate would have elicited a different answer. Councillor Pattenden stated that a higher response would have given greater assurance of schools’ views. Councillor Mackinnon reiterated the point that all schools were represented on the Schools’ Forum.

Councillor David Marsh queried why the recommended top slice of 0.25% was unpopular to the majority of the responding schools. Councillor Boeck explained that he had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Purpose:  To seek approval for Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council's request for the Council to grant a 99 year lease of the Stratfield Mortimer Library building so they can increase community use of the building alongside the Council's Library Service.

Resolved to work with Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council (SMPC) to negotiate a 99 year lease of the building to the parish council and a Joint User Agreement so that:

•          SMPC is responsible for the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the building delivering a saving to be reinvested in the library service to improve resilience.

•          The Council maintains its statutory responsibility for delivering a library service - set out in a Joint User Agreement between the Council and SMPC.

•          SMPC are able to continue using the building as their parish council office without paying rent to the Council.

•          SMPC are able to develop the use of the building for community purposes – for example, as Hungerford Town Council has done since taking over the Hungerford library building.

•          SMPC are able to invest in the building to increase the community facilities available – for example, a meeting room, a publicly accessible toilet facility, storage. 

•          The Council and SMPC continue to work together to increase the use of the library service and other community activities in the building for the benefit of residents.

Resolved that Legal, Property and Library Services would work with SMPC to agree the Heads of Terms of the lease and Joint User Agreement by April 2020 or as soon as it possible thereafter.

Resolved that Property Services identify a value for the asset using the Depreciated Replacement cost methodology.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 24 January 2020, then it will be implemented.

(Councillor Graham Bridgman left the meeting at 5.21pm)

(Councillor Hilary Cole in the Chair)

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which sought approval for Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council’s request for West Berkshire Council to grant them a 99 year lease of the Stratfield Mortimer Library building so they could increase community use of the building alongside the Council’s Library Service. If approved, the Parish Council would take on the ownership and management of the building.

Councillor Rick Jones stated that there had been many successes in the Library Service in recent years. There had been a growth in the number of volunteers, libraries had become vibrant community spaces and the Council had been successfully working in partnership with Town and Parish Councils. He made reference, as an example, to Hungerford Library. This had become a community hub and was managed by Hungerford Town Council. This same principle was being recommended for Stratfield Mortimer. It would bring significant benefits to the Parish and the District Council, both community and financial benefits.

Councillor Dominic Boeck previously held the Library Portfolio and he had been involved in the work to transform the Library Service from the outset. He was delighted to see that the Stratfield Mortimer Library was performing so well and gave his support to the report’s recommendations.

Councillor David Marsh turned to the report’s conclusions. He was concerned at the reference made in paragraph 7.1 in relation to the distance between Burghfield Library and Stratfield Mortimer Library, and having two libraries in relatively close proximity. Councillor Marsh felt this reference could imply that Burghfield Library was under threat. This was a concern when many of the Council’s libraries had previously been at risk of closure.

Councillor Jones understood the concern, but made the point that the service was performing well. There would be a further strategic review of the Library Service early in 2020, but this carried no threat to any individual library. The focus of the review would be on benefits to the community.

Councillor Boeck commented that it had not been the Council’s intention to close all its libraries. This further review had been planned since the previous review in 2016. He praised the support given by Parish and Town Councils to West Berkshire’s libraries.

Councillor Hilary Cole added that the involvement of communities and volunteers did much to contribute to this success story.

She also advised that a covenant was placed on the Stratfield Mortimer Library building which meant it could only be used for that purpose. However, the Parish Council could put the building, which was being transferred in a good condition, to community use in addition to library use.

RESOLVED to work with Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council (SMPC) to negotiate a 99 year lease of the building to the parish council and a Joint User Agreement so that:

·         SMPC is responsible for the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the      building, delivering a saving to be reinvested in the library service to improve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

(Councillor Graham Bridgman returned to the meeting and resumed in the Chair)

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

“Given that it is over 10 years since the current Administration steered Sandleford Park into pole position in the race for ‘Strategic’ site status in our current Local Plan and that little has been achieved towards that aim, what is the Council doing to secure delivery of the much needed 2000 new dwellings there?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of what the Council was doing to secure delivery of the 2000 new dwellings at Sandleford Park was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Planning.

“Can the Executive confirm when the Economic Development Plan will be published?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks (asked on his behalf by Councillor Lee Dillon) on the subject of the publication of the Economic Development Plan was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Planning.

“Why has the publication of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HEELA) been delayed?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Alan Macro on the subject of why the publication of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HEELA) had been delayed was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Planning.

“Since the climate emergency was declared, how much has WBC’s carbon footprint been reduced by?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs on the subject of the reduction of West Berkshire Council’s carbon footprint, since the climate emergency was declared, was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment.

“What has been the actual usage of Electric Vehicle charging points in West Berkshire during 2019 (measured by month, charging type and location, including fast charging points and normal charging points)?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs on the subject of the actual usage of Electric Vehicle charging points in West Berkshire during 2019 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment.

“After hearing that the portfolio holder believes that the targets for social and affordable housing on greenfield and brownfield sites across West Berkshire are something to be proud of can I request a full outline of the actual numbers of both affordable and social units delivered by developers since May 2015?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Steve Masters on the subject of the actual numbers of both affordable and social units delivered by developers on greenfield and brownfield sites across West Berkshire since May 2015 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Planning.

“Prior to releasing the Market Street site to the developer Grainger, did the council explore setting up a company such as the one in Bristol in order to ensure that the council’s aspirations for maximising social and affordable units are met?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Steve Masters on the subject of the Council’s aspirations for maximising social and affordable units on the Market Street development was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance.