To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury

Contact: Democratic Services Team 

Items
No. Item

27.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 472 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 3 September 2020.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon agreed to provide a response to the query raised by Councillor Jeff Brooks at the last meeting in relation to the Treasury Management Annual Report.

28.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest received.

29.

Public Questions pdf icon PDF 186 KB

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.

Minutes:

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

(a)       The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall querying the estimated cost of CPOs on the LRIE would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(b)       The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall on the subject of how many jobs would be affected by the closure of businesses if the LRIE project goes ahead would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(c)        The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall on the subject of whether the Council had plans to extend the scope of the LRIE project to adjoining properties by means of CPO would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(d)       The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall asking if there was a non-fulfillment clause with St Modwen would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(e)       The question submitted by Mr John Gotelee on the subject of why infrastructure and utilities was left out of the Avison Young brief would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(f)        The question submitted by Mr John Gotelee asking how much land would be put aside for future infrastructure needs, if the piecemeal option for development of the LRIE was chosen, would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(g)       The question submitted by Mr Stuart Gourley which sought assurance that there was enough PPE in schools was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education.

(h)       The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall on the subject of whether the Council would do an on-line video showing WBC’s waste recycling process would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Environment.

(i)         The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall on the subject of the recycling of clear transparent plastics would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Environment.

(j)         The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall on the subject of the public engagement session on the London Road Industrial Estate would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(k)        The question submitted by Mr Ian Hall on the subject of building flats in a flood plain would receive a written response from the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(l)         The question submitted by Mr Alan Pearce querying the drainage system installed when constructing the new A339 Road junction into the London Road Industrial Estate was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(m)      The question submitted by Mr Alan Pearce on the subject of the settings of the devices installed to attenuate the flow and stop the urban runoff flowing into the Thames Water surface water sewer, when constructing the drainage system for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

30.

Petitions

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Lee Dillon presented a petition, of behalf of Ms Sue Lister, containing 2,217 signatures which asked West Berkshire Council to protect and save Thatcham’s ancient woodland and wildlife site for future generations. The petition was referred to the Service Director – Environment for a response.

31.

Communications and Engagement Strategy 2020-2023 (EX3951) pdf icon PDF 273 KB

Purpose:  To set out a proposed Strategy for enhancing the Council’s communications and engagement activities over the coming three years.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that:

 

·         the actions set out in paragraph 2.9 of the attached document be approved.

·         the financial implications associated with these actions and how it is proposed to address them be noted.

·         it be noted that the Delivery Plan will be submitted to the Customer First Programme Board for approval by the end of November 2020.

 

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on Friday 23 October 2020, then it will be implemented.

Minutes:

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning a proposed strategy for enhancing the Council’s communications and engagement activities over the coming three years.

Councillor Lynne Doherty in introducing the report stated that in November 2019 the Council had invited the LGA to conduct a Peer Review. One of the key themes coming out of the feedback from that review was that the Council had been hiding its light under a bushel. They recommended that the Council should make communication central to the Council’s thinking and at the heart of what it did for both residents and staff. This Strategy recognised that an effective engagement spectrum was wide and varied in approach. Feedback received in respect of the communications around Covid over recent months had been very positive and residents felt that they were being kept informed on recent events. However, in order to keep this level of communication going it was recognised that additional resources would be required. It would also be necessary to communicate directly to local residents and therefore a new delivery platform was set out within the Strategy. This was an e-mail platform and Councillor Doherty was pleased to announce that just prior to the meeting she had been informed that the Council had over 50,000 subscribers who had between them signed up to some 86,000 topic subscriptions. In the recent residents’ survey over 81% of residents had stated that they preferred e-mail contact to any other form of contact.

The Strategy was looking to enhance consultation and engagement using different methods in order to actively seek feedback which would help to assist, shape and form policy. It was the deeper levels of engagement which involved collaboration and empowerment that had not been as fully formed as she would like and hopefully this was addressed in the Strategy. This should be done jointly with local residents and it was therefore necessary to ensure that appropriate mechanisms were in place in order to hear their voices. The community engagement framework set out in the report identified the first wave of priority actions that needed to be taken forward to improve engagement but also left a degree of flexibility to enable the Council to try different methods and to obtain feedback from residents on their preferred options. They would inform the Delivery Plan that would be brought back to the Corporate First Programme Board for sign off and monitoring going forward.

Councillor Doherty specifically highlighted paragraph 9.4 of the Strategy which set out the outcomes that the Council was seeking to deliver and section 10 which focused specifically on what the Council was seeking to do and gave details around some of the actions. Councillor Doherty felt that effective communication and engagement was vital to ensure that the services and the way that they were delivered met the needs of the residents that the authority served.

The report was seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole.

Councillor Richard Somner referred to the Volunteer Centre for West Berkshire and in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

32.

Proposals for future Community Infrastructure Levy spending (EX3965) pdf icon PDF 369 KB

Purpose:  To reshape the priorities that CIL income is used to support. The reports seeks to review CIL income to provide further support for community led schemes as well as reshape support so that it is more closely aligned to the Council Strategy approved last year, which in turn reflects the Adopted Local Plan.

Decision:

Resolved to:

 

·         approve the continued focus on the Adopted Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan and schemes highlighted in the Council Strategy (2019-23) & Recovery Strategy that support this to be included in the Capital Strategy 2021 onwards.

·         approve a continued profiling of CIL funds of 35% education, 35% transport, 10% other services, with 15% to parishes (or 25% if they have a neighbourhood plan) and 5% for administration.

·         approve a one off sum of up to £500k to be used to “ensure sustainable services through innovation and partnerships” by allocating funding for community groups to bid to support the Adopted Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan Implications and Impact Assessment.

 

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on Friday 23 October 2020, then it will be implemented.

Minutes:

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which looked at reshaping the priorities that CIL income was used to support. The report sought to review CIL income to provide further support for community led schemes as well as reshaping support so that it was more closely aligned to the Council Strategy approved in the previous year, which in turn reflected the Adopted Local Plan.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon in introducing the report stated that the paper sought to implement a pilot scheme to allocate half a million pounds from CIL funds to distribution to community groups to use on worthy local infrastructure schemes. A bidding process would be in place where community groups could apply directly to the Council for this top slice of self-funding. The vetting process would be similar to that used for Member bids. The funds would need to be spent on projects which met the definition of infrastructure.

The paper also recommended that the Council was not proposing to change the current percentage allocation of CIL funds. It was a way of getting funds to good projects to help communities prosper.

The report was seconded by Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that it was good that the Council was earning money through its developments but it did not explain in the paper why there was such a massive underspend of CIL funds. He was worried that the Council might lose some of this money as he was aware that if it did not at least commit to spend on a particular project, within a certain time, then the money had to be returned to the developer. Councillor Mackinnon responded that the amount of CIL funds spent did not actually reflect what had been included in the Capital Programme. Councillor Hilary Cole clarified that she did not think that CIL money had to be returned to the developer as had been the case with s106 contributions.

Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that up to now 10% had been allocated in table 1.1 and 40% had been profiled in table 1.2. She stated that this was a significant shortfall and she was particularly interested about the money allocated for cycleways and how that compared to the money given for Active Travel. Could some of the CIL funding be used outside of Newbury as a lot of the Active Travel fund had been spent in the Newbury and Thatcham area? Councillor Ross Mackinnon felt that there needed to be a level of prudence here as there were uncertainties over future CIL levels. He hoped that the forecast CIL income levels did materialise in which case they would be allocated towards the capital programme but it was important not to over commit at this stage.

Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that there was a £5m underspend in CIL funding and suggested that more should be spent on environmental projects in order to meet the Environmental Emergency Declaration. He also noted that the percentage profiling was proposed to remain unchanged but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

33.

Response to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission Task Group Report on the London Road Industrial Estate (EX3956) pdf icon PDF 655 KB

Purpose:  To provide a response to the recommendations made in the report from the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) task group on the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) that was presented to Members of the OSMC in July 2020.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that the action plan produced in response to the recommendations raised by the LRIE Task Group be noted.

 

This decision is not subject to call in as:

 

·      Report is to note only

 

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

Minutes:

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning a response to the recommendations made in the report from the Overview & Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) task group on the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) that was presented to Members of the OSMC in July 2020.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon reported that the LRIE task group had been set up in April 2019 to review the LRIE project to 2018. The aim of the task group was to review what had been learnt from the project and to report back to the OSMC. The report had been received in July 2020. An action plan had been developed in relation to each of the 15 recommendations set out in the report where appropriate. A number of the recommendations had already been addressed as the Council had clearly developed its practices over the last ten years. However, the report had concluded that the Council had not intended to act illegally and had had regard to its legal obligations and the public contract regulations. The evidence was also clear that the Council had acted reasonably after taking expert advice from external providers. The task group would not have made any different decisions regarding the proposed development of the site.

Councillor Lynne Doherty seconded the report.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to recommendation 5 on page 134 of the agenda in respect of each Committee/Board reviewing the Terms of Reference on an annual basis. He felt that reviewing the Terms of Reference automatically was not the right approach and felt that the recommendation should be amended to state that they should be reviewed on a regular basis. Councillor Mackinnon felt that an annual review could take place at a very high level and would therefore not be that onerous. Councillor Bridgman responded that if it was suggested that it only needed to be a very high level review then the response to the recommendation needed to be amended to reflect that.

Councillor Lee Dillon was a member on the task group and he said that it was not necessarily to review the contents of the terms of reference but when a new member came on to the Committee then they needed to be made aware of the Terms of Reference so that they were aware what they were making decisions on and whether they were a decision making group or not. What he could not see in the report in the response from the Executive was any form of apology for the poor project management that had taken place at the time and he felt that some recommendations and an apology from the Administration was required. Councillor Mackinnon agreed but an organisation of this size would always be improving their project management methodology and internal processes as time progressed. The Council would always seek to improve methodology whenever it could and he felt that the response to the recommendations had demonstrated that.   

Councillor Jeff Brooks referred to the comprehensive Project Management Methodology which had been included as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

34.

4 The Sector - new lease (Urgent Item) pdf icon PDF 366 KB

Purpose:  To recommend the creation of a new lease, for 8,000 sq. ft. (circa 28%) of the office building in Newbury, 4 The Sector, which forms part of the Council’s commercial property portfolio.

Decision:

Resolved to delegate to the Service Director for Strategy and Governance to enter into the lease for 8,000 sq. ft. of office space in 4 The Sector on the terms described.

 

This decision is not subject to call in as:

 

·      a delay in implementing the decision could cause the Council serious financial implications.

 

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

Minutes:

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning the creation of a new lease. West Berkshire Council had freehold ownership of an office building in Newbury, 4 The Sector, which formed part of the Council’s commercial property portfolio. The building comprised 28,700 sq. ft. of high grade office space and was currently vacant.

The purpose of this report was to recommend the creation of a new lease, for 8,000 sq. ft. (circa 28%) of the building.

RESOLVED that delegation be given to the Service Director for Strategy and Governance to enter into the lease for 8,000 sq. ft. of office space in 4 The Sector on the terms described in the report.

Reason for the decision: To secure occupation of the building.

Other options considered:

(1)       To decline the proposed lease and continue to market the vacant property on the basis of letting 100% of the space to a single tenant.

(2)       To dispose of the freehold, removing the property from the portfolio.

(3)       To convert the office space under permitted development to residential.

35.

Members' Questions pdf icon PDF 195 KB

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.

Minutes:

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

(a)       The question submitted by Councillor Dennis Benneyworth querying whether the Council was ready to support those in economic hardship would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council.

(b)       The question submitted by Councillor Tom Marino on the subject of whether the Council would be signing up to the government’s £2bn Kickstart scheme to help young people between the ages of 16 – 24 on Universal Credit into the work place was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Internal Governance.

(c)        The question submitted by Councillor Peter Argyle on the subject of what the Council was doing to help young people in to employment was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education.

(d)       The question submitted by Councillor Rick Jones on the subject of why the Culture Strategy and the Leisure Strategy were being developed in the midst of Covid-19 was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, Leisure and Culture.

(e)       The question submitted by Councillor Garth Simpson asking what provision was still in place in the district, after the ending of government food parcels, for those in our communities who were in clinical need of further support or experiencing food poverty was answered by the Leader of the Council.

(f)        The question submitted by Councillor Dennis Benneyworth on the subject of what preparation the Council had made in order to deliver the £500 Test and Trace Support Payment announced by the Government as part of the more recent response measures to Covid-19 would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council.

(g)       The question submitted by Councillor Tom Marino on the subject of how the Council’s commercial property portfolio had been performing over the sixth months or so since the Covid pandemic emerged was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development.

(h)       The question submitted by Councillor Peter Argyle on the subject of how the Council was supporting young unaccompanied asylum seekers was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education.

(i)         The question submitted by Councillor Rick Jones on the subject of Covid testing capacity in the district was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, Leisure and Culture.

(j)         The question submitted by Councillor Phil Barnett on the subject of what measures were proposed to ensure the animals on Greenham Common were safe from vehicles along the perimeter roads was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Countryside.

(k)        The question submitted by Councillor Carolyne Culver on the subject of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Environment.

(l)         The question submitted by Councillor Steve Masters on the subject of potential approaches by private security companies to be covid wardens in West Berkshire would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council.

(m)      The question  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

Exclusion of Press and Public

RECOMMENDATION: That members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items as it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information of the description contained in the paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 specified in brackets in the heading of each item. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution refers.

Minutes:

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 Paragraph 3 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.

37.

4 The Sector - new lease (Urgent Item)

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

Purpose:  To recommend the creation of a new lease, for 8,000 sq. ft. (circa 28%) of the office building in Newbury, 4 The Sector, which forms part of the Council’s commercial property portfolio.

Decision:

Resolved that the recommendation in the exempt report be approved.

 

This decision is not subject to call in as:

 

·      a delay in implementing the decision could cause the Council serious financial implications.

 

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

Minutes:

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

The Executive considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 12) concerning the creation of a new lease, for 8,000 sq. ft. (circa 28%) of the office building in Newbury, 4 The Sector, which formed part of the Council’s commercial property portfolio.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

Reason for the decision: as set out in the exempt report.

Other options considered: as set out in the exempt report.