Agenda item

Purpose: To outline to OSMC the work undertaken by the task group created to better understand the advice and guidance received in relation to the Council’s decision when procuring a preferred partner for the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) development.

Councillor Alan Law declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Executive at the time. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter. Councillor Lee Dillon (Vice-Chairman) took over as Chairman for this item.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that he had worked on planning applications with a member of the public with an interest in item 6. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning the London Road Industrial Estate Task Group.

Councillor James Cole introduced the report that sought to outline to OSMC the work undertaken by the task group created to better understand the advice and guidance received in relation to the Council’s decision when procuring a preferred partner for the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) development. He stated that the full list of recommendations by the Task Group are set out in Paragraph 5.42 and Appendix H, and it is recommended that these be adopted by OSMC as recommendations to the Executive.

Councillor Vickers stated that ‘east of the a339’ was not part of the Newbury Vision area. He also noted in the Newbury Town Centre Plan 2005, one option for the town centre boundary included LRIE. He further noted that one of the problems the Council has had was that there has not been a planning led master plan for the area. He also stated that he thought the terms of reference were too tight and that scrutiny should be led by the opposition.

Councillor Jeff Brooks stated that he was looking for assurances that things had changed and processes had been updated. He stated he wanted to see evidence of this.

Councillor Garth Simpson stated that the report showed the lack of project management that was involved in LRIE. He asked if the Commission were now satisfied that the Council had invested sufficient resources to resolve the issues that arose out of LRIE.

Councillor Steve Masters also stated that the Commission needed assurances that processes had changed and the same mistakes will not be repeated. He asked what measures had been taken to fix the issues of LRIE.

Councillor Cole stated that the project management comments in the report demonstrated that the Council had developed since the LRIE started. He stated that the Council now used the Prince-Two programme for management and that it had programme officers for big projects. He also noted that the Council was now putting staff through project management training. He stated that this was evidence that it things had changed.

Councillor Marino asked for clarification on VAET notice.

Councillor Cole stated that it meant Voluntary Ex Anti-Transparency notice.

Sarah Clarke clarified that it related to procurement legislation.

Councillor Brooks stated that the Council should be at the forefront of adopting new project management methodologies and not lagging behind.

Councillor Vickers asked Councillor Cole what else he would have included in the terms of reference that were not included. He also asked why the new ‘executive master plan’ initiative was not paused whilst the report was being written. Furthermore, he asked why Mr Crook was not interviewed. He stated that the Strutton Parker feasibility study took too long to go to Executive. He further noted that the LRIE provides a substantial income to the Council and asked if the site should be utilised in a way other than rental income. Lastly, he stated that the football ground at LRIE is an asset of community value, he asked if the next project will incorporate this.

Councillor Cole stated that he would not have expanded the terms of reference.

Councillor Lynne Doherty, in response to Councillor Vickers, stated that the project was not delayed because the provision was that West Berkshire was always open for business to attract new investment.

Councillor Cole stated that the task group had a submission from Mr Crook but a lot of it was outside of the terms of reference.

Sarah Clarke stated that the task group was unable to locate Mr Gaulton. She also stated that she was not sure why there was a delay of the Strutton Parker feasibility study.

Councillor Vickers stated that he was on the Newbury Town Centre Task Group and he felt that we did not have the resources to deal with the project management.

Bryan Lyttle stated that, on planning policy, the core strategy for West Berkshire was submitted in 2010 and ensured protected employment areas. He also stated that LRIE is an area of protected employment and is susceptible to flooding.

Councillor Doherty, on consultation, that this would be reviewed at Executive. She also noted that the figures for the income of LRIE would be disclosed at a later date.

Resolved that: the recommendations were approved and the report would move to Executive.