Agenda item

Please note that the list of Motions is shown under Item 19 in the agenda pack.

With the agreement of Council, the Vice-Chairman brought this item forward on the agenda. The Vice-Chairman then indicated the revised order under which the Motions would be taken.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 19(b) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter regarding the levels of sewage discharge by water companies.

Councillors Graham Bridgman and Tom Marino left the meeting during consideration of this Motion due to their declarations of interests on this matter.

The Chairman informed Council that the Motion, if seconded, would be debated at the meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter and seconded by Councillor Richard Somner:

“This Council considers that the level of sewage discharge by water companies into our rivers is unacceptable - sewage contamination can have a devastating impact on fish and other aquatic wildlife. Further, if people swim, bathe or participate in activities in or around sewage contaminated water, there are significant risks to public health such as gastroenteritis, ear, nose and throat infections, skin infections, and worse.

 

This Council believes that water companies must significantly reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows as a priority.

 

This Council welcomes the Environment Act 2021, which has created a new duty on HM Government to produce (by September 2022) a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows, and to produce a report setting out the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, together with the costs and benefits of those actions.

 

This Council also welcomes the new statutory duty requiring water companies to produce comprehensive Drainage and Sewerage Management Plans, which means that they must set out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage systems over a minimum 25-year planning horizon, including how storm overflow issues will be addressed.

 

Of specific local relevance, this Council welcomes Thames Water’s initiation of a significant restoration project, including an end to sewage discharges, for the River Pang. We look forward to seeing results of this work as it unfolds.”

Councillor Ardagh-Walter in introducing the Motion highlighted that it sought to establish a concrete, useful and constructive way forward to achieve the goal of having cleaner, better rivers free of sewer discharges. He noted that many amendments had been made to the Environment Act which was still ongoing in terms of its implementation and, whilst viewed as a major step forward, it was acknowledged that it was not perfect.

 

Councillor Ardagh-Walter referred to the de-nationalisation of the water industry in the 1980s which he felt had delivered improvements and had been driven by the dual imperatives of keeping price rises as moderate as possible for consumers whilst increasing quality. Though still unacceptable, he felt that rivers today were in much better condition than when under the control of the former Water Boards.

 

The challenges as Councillor Ardagh-Walter viewed them were several-fold. The growth in houses and the level of investment in the water industry had not kept up with population growth and intensive farming also caused fertiliser run-off into rivers, thereby harming wildlife. He was pleased to see a much firmer directive set on Ofwat to demand improvements, that the government had mandated the delivery of detailed plans on improvements by September 2022, and that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission had already invited Thames Water to explain its plans further. Councillor Ardagh-Walter was also comforted from the shared level of determination across this Council, and from residents and groups across the district and the country, as together with firmer legislation mandating the improvement of the environment on the water companies he believed this would result in change. He looked forward to significant improvements over the coming years.

 

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Owen Jeffery and seconded by Councillor Alan Macro:

“This Council considers that the level of sewage discharge by water companies into our rivers is unacceptable - sewage contamination can have a devastating impact on fish and other aquatic wildlife. Further, if people swim, bathe or participate in activities in or around sewage contaminated water, there are significant risks to public health such as gastroenteritis, ear, nose and throat infections, skin infections, and worse.

This Council believes that water companies must significantly reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows as a priority.

This Council welcomes the Environment Act 2021, which has created a new duty on HM Government to produce (by September 2022) a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows, and to produce a report setting out the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, together with the costs and benefits of those actions. 

This Council also welcomes the new statutory duty requiring water companies to produce comprehensive Drainage and Sewerage Management Plans, which means that they must set out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage systems over a minimum 25-year planning horizon, including how storm overflow issues will be addressed. 

Of specific local relevance, this Council welcomes Thames Water’s initiation of a significant restoration project, including an end to sewage discharges, for the River Pang. We look forward to seeing results of this work as it unfolds.

However, this Council calls on Government to go further and resolves that Council should respond to the Government’s consultation on environmental targets to suggest where appropriate:

·         Meaningful targets and deadlines to meet them are set to require water companies to end these discharges;

·         A tax on water companies be levied to enable the funding of the Environment Agency to adequately monitor water companies’ discharges and other clean-up measures;

·         Reduce the number of licences granted for discharge into rivers;

·         Strengthen OFWAT’s powers to hold companies accountable; and

·         Require local environmental groups to be given places on company boards”

 

Councillor Jeffery read out the wording of his proposed amendment to the Motion by way of introduction.

 

Councillor Alan Macro referred to the framework formed in 2018 by the Environment Agency and the water companies which had identified 700 problem overflows, none of which had been fixed to date. He also noted the reduction in the budget for the Environment Agency from £120m in 2010 to £43m in 2021 leading to it being unable to investigate these problems. He felt that the water companies relied on the Environment Agency and so could be a potential alternative source of funding for it. Councillor Macro then highlighted the recent fining of a water company for discharging sewage into the sea which had been cheaper than treating it, and referred to the strong suspicion that other water companies were doing the same. He felt that the Environment Agency should be given what it needed to deal with this quickly.

 

Councillor David Marsh spoke about a report called ‘Troubled Waters’ produced in September 2021 by a partnership of environmentalist charities which included The National Trust, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and The Wildlife Trust. The report had found that fragile freshwater habitats were being devastated by agricultural waste pollution and raw sewage, only 14% of rivers in England met the standard of ‘good’ ecological status, and species such as otters, salmon and the swallow tail butterfly were among those threatened by the environmental catastrophe. The report called for more funding to monitor and enforce environmental regulations, urgent measures to reduce pesticide and excess fertiliser use in farming, and a complete and immediate ban on allowing raw sewage to enter rivers. He noted that the government allowed water companies to discharge sewage into rivers at any time if there is a lack of chemicals to treat it or in emergencies (normally at times of heavy rain). There were 400,000 such occasions during 2020 according to water company figures and these overflows containing human waste and household chemicals were diluted only by rainwater. The government wanted taxpayers rather than water companies to pay for improvements to the sewage system despite enormous profits since denationalisation. Councillor Marsh highlighted that those who had signed the petition were horrified by these matters and wanted the Council to be more ambitious than the government in this area and wanted the water companies to be held to account.

 

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that he was not against privatisation altogether, but when dealing with water, which is a natural resource, it resulted in a monopoly. He felt that in cases of natural monopoly the state needed a much firmer hand on those resources in the interests of the public. The original Motion in his opinion did nothing, but the amendment responded to matters in a strong way and contained specific actions which would help hold the water companies to account. He referred to historic problems with combined sewage going through Newbury which had led to instances of sewage coming up into the street, but he felt that improvements in the sewage industry needed to be done more quickly to stop the negative impact on wildlife. Councillor Vickers then highlighted Hong Kong as an example of the market economy working well where the government owns all its land and companies and runs them itself. He wanted the government to set targets and provide more funding to the Environment Agency which had been unable to attend the Lambourn Valley Flood Forum due to a lack of resources.

 

Councillor Brooks had been informed that water companies had discharged raw sewage into waterways 400,000 times during 2020, amounting to more than three million hours of discharges with the longest lasting more than 8000 hours. He reiterated that only 14% of waterways were in a good ecological condition with more than half of rivers in England failing to pass cleanliness tests. However, water companies had made £2.2 billion profits in 2020. Councillor Brooks also believed that the original Motion did nothing whereas the amendment pressed for meaningful targets and a tax on water companies to be levied to mitigate the damage they caused. The amendment was radical and went further than what the government was doing which was necessary given the situation. Councillor Brooks argued that the Council should lobby government and that the amendment enhanced the Motion.

 

Councillor Mackinnon indicated he would not support the amendment. He did not dispute that the infrastructure required investment but felt that taxing water companies to obtain investment was economic illiteracy. He also agreed that there was a natural monopoly which required a regulator but felt that Ofwats powers had been strengthened from its new statutory policy statement which had been supported by The Angling Trust. Councillor Mackinnon was also not supportive of the tax on water companies which he felt would be counterproductive, and noted what he thought were meaningful targets and deadlines in the Environment Act as it stands. He referred to the statutory duty on water companies to come up with a plan on how the problems of storm discharges would be fixed which would also include meaningful targets and deadlines. He also disagreed with local environmental groups being put on company Boards given it was such a fundamental change to UK corporate governance.

 

Councillor Steve Masters believed that very little action had been taken to achieve the targets mentioned by Councillor Mackinnon and that they were not stringent enough. He thought it no coincidence that lobby groups for the water companies made donations to political parties and found it astonishing that The Rt Hon Lord Benyon had sat on the Chair of the Association of Water Companies and written in November 2017 that water privatisation had been a triumph. He argued that there were no statutory levels or real targets set because it was not in the interests of Conservative Party supporters and their donors.

 

Councillor Howard Woollaston, as Chairman of the Lambourn Valley Flood Forum, confirmed that the Environment Agency and Thames Water had attended every meeting in the three years he had chaired it.

 

Councillor Phil Barnett wished to provide extra information for Members relating specifically to active waste transfer in relationship to sewage transfer. He advised that greater pressure over the last few years had been put on all the old sewerage system, especially some of the Victorian systems. In the Greenham Ward there were two or three sub-stations and problems had been exacerbated due to further developments not being accommodated in the existing sewerage system. This had resulted in waste being tankered from the sub-stations causing disruption to residents and affecting their quality of life. He believed there were a series of issues that needed to be addressed and that councillors had an important role to play when looking at future urban planning applications given that sewerage systems could not take more development.

 

Councillor Jeff Cant outlined what he felt were the difficulties with this amendment of trying to design government policy on something beyond the Council’s remit. In his opinion the original motion recognised the local impact and that the Council intended to work with Thames Water to ameliorate it. He wanted Council to concentrate on issues it could influence rather than trying to frame government policy.

 

Councillor Erik Pattenden disagreed that the amendment was trying to influence government policy. It was trying to encourage Council to hold the government to account which the original Motion did not.

 

Councillor Owen Jeffery wondered whether any one of the Members on Council desired to see sewage dumped into the chalk streams, bigger water courses or ultimately in to the River Thames. He noted that the government target of 75% of rivers and streams to be in good condition by 2027 was not expected to be achieved and that currently no English surface waterway was deemed to be in good overall condition. He also felt that a privatised water company would not be bankrupted by having an environmentalist on its Board, nor by being obliged to stop discharging sewage into public water courses. Councillor Jeffery wanted West Berkshire to send a message to government that it did not want its lovely chalk streams destroyed to allow water companies to make billions in profits. The amendment was constructive, non-party political, intelligent, moderate and potentially so valuable, and he urged Council to support it.

 

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter agreed with many of the points raised by Councillor Jeffery as they were already in his original Motion and were subjects of action by the government. He indicated that he would be content to accept the first, third and fourth bullet points of the amendment as additions to his original Motion as a reasonable compromise.

 

Councillor Owen Jeffery proposed a minor alteration to the Amended Motion to remove the second and fifth bullet point. Councillor Alan Macro, seconding, agreed to this minor alteration. The alteration was additionally approved by Members present.

MINOR ALTERATION TO AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Owen Jeffery and seconded by Councillor Alan Macro:

“This Council considers that the level of sewage discharge by water companies into our rivers is unacceptable - sewage contamination can have a devastating impact on fish and other aquatic wildlife. Further, if people swim, bathe or participate in activities in or around sewage contaminated water, there are significant risks to public health such as gastroenteritis, ear, nose and throat infections, skin infections, and worse.

This Council believes that water companies must significantly reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows as a priority.

This Council welcomes the Environment Act 2021, which has created a new duty on HM Government to produce (by September 2022) a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows, and to produce a report setting out the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, together with the costs and benefits of those actions. 

This Council also welcomes the new statutory duty requiring water companies to produce comprehensive Drainage and Sewerage Management Plans, which means that they must set out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage systems over a minimum 25-year planning horizon, including how storm overflow issues will be addressed. 

Of specific local relevance, this Council welcomes Thames Water’s initiation of a significant restoration project, including an end to sewage discharges, for the River Pang. We look forward to seeing results of this work as it unfolds.

However, this Council calls on Government to go further and resolves that Council should respond to the Government’s consultation on environmental targets to suggest where appropriate:

·         Meaningful targets and deadlines to meet them are set to require water companies to end these discharges;

·         Reduce the number of licences granted for discharge into rivers; and

·         Strengthen OFWAT’s powers to hold companies accountable.

 

The proposed Amendment to the Motion with minor alterations was put to the vote and declared CARRIED becoming the new Amended Substantive Motion.

Councillor Brooks believed the amendment strengthened the Motion considerably into a call for action but noted that his Group would continue to press for a tax on water companies given the damage they were doing. He noted that an environmental representative on a Board might not make a lot of difference but it was at least a voice against a commercial body interested in profits only. He agreed that the former Water Boards had been inefficient but introducing privatisation brought with it the danger of profit being the only major motive, losing quality of service and delivery.

 

Councillor James Cole looked forward to the opportunity to question Thames Water at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission which he thought would be at its September meeting. He referred to articles in the press regarding the Lambourn River and a comparison of Thames Water achievements against its stated ambitions. He noted that all residents should also take more care over what is put into sewers.

 

CLOSURE MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty, and seconded by Councillor Alan Law: that the question be put.

 

In the opinion of the Vice-Chairman the question before the meeting had been sufficiently discussed. The Closure Motion was therefore put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

 

Councillor Richard Somner stated he was content to support the Amended Substantive Motion.

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter, as the proposer, had no further comments to add.

The Amended Substantive Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 19(d) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Steve Masters regarding the discharge into rivers and coastal outflows. The Motion contained the same wording as the Petition for Debate which Council had voted to not take the action on as suggested under Minute 90.

The Vice-Chairman advised that Council would not debate the Motion under Procedure Rule 4.16.1 whereby a Motion may not be moved to rescind a decision of Council within the preceding six months. 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 19(a) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Lynne Doherty regarding the crisis in Ukraine.

 

The Vice-Chairman informed Council that the Motion, if seconded, would be debated at the meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“West Berkshire Council is united in its condemnation of the armed attack on Ukraine by the Russian Federation and urges Vladimir Putin to immediately and unconditionally cease this unjust and evil war.

 

West Berkshire Council would encourage residents that wish to offer financial assistance to do so by donating to the Disasters Emergency Committee or the British Red Cross.

 

West Berkshire Council will welcome Ukraine Refugees and partake in resettling Ukraine Refugees in West Berkshire when we have details of the scheme through the South East Migration Partnership.

 

West Berkshire Council stands with the people of Ukraine and expresses its unwavering commitment to democracy, multilevel governance and human rights.”

 

Councillor Lynne Doherty in introducing the Motion noted that Russia's appalling assault on the Ukraine was an unprovoked, premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state and said the Council should be united in its condemnation and relentless in its commitment to support Ukraine. She had been watching the horrors unfolding in Ukraine, and the Motion was designed to enable the provision of assistance as much as possible. A Ukraine support hub had been set up in West Berkshire and she had met with the Greenham Trust and the Volunteers Centre West Berkshire to discuss how the three could collectively support the response in the district. People were being encouraged to give financial assistance if able to do so through the Disasters Emergency Committee or the Red Cross. The Council and the Greenham Trust had also both provided £25k to co-ordinate and support any local response to potential needs, and an appeal would be going live on the Greenham Trust platform. A Council webpage had also been set up to provide updates on information and guidance as it became available.

 

Councillor Doherty advised that Ukrainian refugees would be welcomed and the Council was actively taking part in the schemes open to it such as the Ukraine Family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. There had been an exceptional response across the country of people offering their homes to the people of Ukraine and the Council would be central in helping families settle into communities and access public services. Councillor Doherty welcomed this role for the Council and invited Members to support the Motion.

 

Councillor Jeff Brooks welcomed the Motion and encouraged residents that wished to offer financial assistance to do so by donating. He recalled previously living with the fear of nuclear obliteration and mentioned some hardships that would be experienced now as a result of this war. His Group endorsed this Motion and offered any assistance they could provide.

 

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Steve Masters and seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver:

“West Berkshire Council is united in its condemnation of the armed attack on Ukraine by the Russian Federation and urges Vladimir Putin to immediately and unconditionally cease this unjust and evil war.

West Berkshire Council would encourage residents that wish to offer financial assistance to do so by donating to the Disasters Emergency Committee or the British Red Cross.

West Berkshire Council will welcome Ukraine Refugees and partake in resettling Ukraine Refugees in West Berkshire when we have details of the scheme through the South East Migration Partnership.

West Berkshire Council urges the government to waive visa requirements for Ukrainians seeking refuge from the war.

West Berkshire Council stands with the people of Ukraine and expresses its unwavering commitment to democracy, multilevel governance and human rights.”

Councillor Steve Masters in introducing the amendment noted its simplicity and asked the Council to urge government to ease the visa requirements to ensure that refugees could be expedited quickly. He felt that the process had been hampered by bureaucracy which needed to be removed.

 

Councillor Lynne Doherty referred to the countries bordering Ukraine having opened their borders to refugees in imminent danger, the majority of whom had biometric passports and no need for a visa. Those without could also now apply online. She thought that the UK’s response had initially been slow but there had been increased action and activity over the last few days. She had heard that 6,100 visas had already been granted and so did not believe there was a requirement to waive visas. She would therefore not be supporting the amendment.

 

Councillor Jeff Brooks felt the amendment introduced a political edge to an important Motion and urged his fellow Group Members to abstain. It was clear the government needed to do better in terms of processing visas but he did not think the amendment added anything to the Motion.

 

Councillor Graham Bridgman advised there had already been false applications for visas by people seeking to come into the country as Ukrainians when they were not. He agreed that the process needed speeding up but waiving visa requirements could cause wider issues.

 

Councillor Tony Vickers indicated his agreement with the amendment but said he would not be supporting it. He believed there had been a knee jerk attitude amongst members of the government towards people requiring visas when those in question were women, children and older people coming from a dreadful war and who were not a danger. He felt that the Council’s role was to welcome those that managed to get here.

 

Councillor Hilary Cole indicated that she would not be supporting the amendment.  

 

Councillor Carolyne Culver welcomed the original Motion, particularly the aspect encouraging residents to provide financial assistance where they could via the Disasters Emergency Committee. Regarding visa applications, Councillor Culver referred to media reports suggesting there was a great deal of confusion and difficulty, more so than compared to what other European countries were doing. She also raised concerns that people who had offered their homes were not going to be paired up with refugees because they did not have a name, and that this system had been made overly complex.

 

Councillor Lynne Doherty noted the common agreement that speeding up the process was critical, however increased capacity and deployment of extra staff to visa application centres had been seen as well as pop-up visa application centres opening near the borders. She did believe that visas should be in place and would not be supporting the amendment.

 

The Amended Motion was put to the vote and declared LOST.

Councillor Tony Linden expressed his support for the Motion and echoed sentiments expressed over the barbaric and disgraceful attacks against Ukrainian citizens. He welcomed the actions being taken by the Council and felt that nationally the example of Germany and other countries needed to be followed by increasing spend on defence.

 

Councillor Dominic Boeck acknowledged the track record of supporting refugees and asylum seekers in West Berkshire. In recent years people from Syria and Afghanistan who needed help had been welcomed in to local communities. Many unaccompanied asylum seeking children had made their way here after leaving family and friends in their home countries. He knew there was capacity to treat refugees from Ukraine with the same kindness, and highlighted the two Ukrainian children already here and being taught in a local primary school. He fully supported the Motion.

 

Councillor Steve Masters welcomed the Motion and explained why he felt it had needed a minor amendment. It was an absolutely terrible situation in Ukraine and he agreed that the Council needed to be as welcoming as it could. He urged the Council to reach out to all the refugee groups and other charities involved.

 

Councillor Lynne Doherty thanked Members for their support and explained how it was a fast moving situation. She and the Executive Director for Place had been working to ensure the Council was responding to guidance and data being received daily. Councillor Doherty confirmed that communication on this issue would be regularly sent out from the Council, and that a Ukraine support hub would be established given how well the Covid support hub had worked. 

 

The Substantive Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 19(c) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Steve Masters regarding reducing the impact of the fuel crisis on the residents of West Berkshire. 

 

Councillors Graham Bridgman, James Cole and Lynne Doherty left the meeting during consideration of this Motion due to their declarations of interests on this matter.

The Vice-Chairman informed Council that the Motion, if seconded, would be debated at the meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Steve Masters and seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver:

“Council notes:

Residents across West Berkshire are facing a cost-of-living crisis, driven by the dramatic rise in fossil fuel prices. The poorest people are being hit hardest, with many now facing the stark choice between heating and eating. 

Council resolves to:

Call on our local MPs to lobby the Government to fund a nationwide retrofit insulation scheme from a windfall tax on the inflated profits of fossil fuel companies.

Furthermore the Council calls on our MPs to lobby the government to suspend VAT on domestic energy bills to reduce the impact on consumers here in West Berkshire.”

Councillor Steve Masters in introducing the Motion noted that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Practitioners and the End Fuel Poverty Coalition were calling for action, arguing that the UK's resilience on fossil gas for heating was a root cause of fuel poverty exacerbated by poor quality housing. Energy bills were set to triple in April and the Institute had warned that fuel poverty was a health and social crisis requiring urgent action from the government now. He explained that work by the independent think tank The Resolution Foundation had found that the number of households in fuel crisis spending at least 10% of their family income on energy bills was set to triple to 6.3 million households from the start of April. This was the day the new energy price cap would come into effect and was expected to rise by 51%, translating to a rise in a minimum yearly energy cost from £1277 to £1925.

 

Councillor Masters referred to a Financial Times article which had argued for a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies. It had stated the windfall tax was efficient precisely for the reasons tax professionals did not like it as it taxed past investment that could not be withdrawn. Industry bodies were opposed and argued that investment would suffer but evidence suggested this was not accurate. He noted that individual companies could not be expected to give up gains through worry that competitors would not follow suit, so collectively via the government imposing a windfall tax was the most suitable option. He set out how the Chancellor could reintroduce the 2011 regime for the 2021/2022 tax year and ensure that regime continued as long as oil and gas prices remained above a predetermined threshold. Those rates were not arbitrary and corrected something wrong with the tax system.

 

At a local level, Councillor Masters advised that charities were already witnessing people struggling due to the impending cap removal. Some global charities were offering top ups for pre-paid smart meters so clients could cook food they had been given from the food bank and other agencies. Community workers were also reporting that many people were asking for food that did not need to be cooked because of the rising cost of domestic fuel. He argued that large groups of the population should not be being placed into this financial crisis, particularly as it was likely that rates would be increasing again towards the end of the year. Local businesses were also being negatively impacted as a result of higher utility bills. He urged the administration to support the Motion and ensure that the most vulnerable have some provision and flexibility. He felt it was a win overall given that providing insulation would help towards achieving the net zero ambitions set locally and nationally and would help create jobs moving forward.

 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon disagreed that increased taxes would not decrease investment as he felt that a one-off, arbitrary and unexpected tax would do nothing except discourage investment in a key UK industry. The UKs oil and gas sectors were world leading and the industry and its supply chain supported almost 200,000 jobs. He noted that investment during 2020/2021 had been at an all-time low but there was £11b of opportunities awaiting investment which a windfall tax would threaten. He argued that tax rates were already extremely high for the sector with the current tax rate charged on oil and gas profits being 40% (more than double the standard rate of corporation tax). Councillor Mackinnon said that the Conservatives recognised the severe pressures families had on their budgets but their approach was to offer a direct lifeline to less well-off households through the £200 smoothing rebates on energy bills and the non-repayable £150 cash rebate for Council Tax bands A to D. Additionally £144m of discretionary funding had been made available for local authorities to support households that were not eligible for the Council Tax rebate. He felt that reducing the VAT on oil and gas would not be targeted and would disproportionately benefit wealthy households with no guarantee that businesses would pass on the saving.

 

Councillor Jeff Brooks highlighted how George Osborne, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, had raised the supplementary charge in the 2011 budget from 20% to 32% showing that windfall taxes had been levied on gas and oil companies in recent years and they had gone on to make billions of pounds in profits. He did not believe that the true nature of the crisis was being considered given that energy prices had never had such forecasts before (30-40%). He noted that his Group would had been pushing this agenda for some time and would therefore be supporting the Motion.

 

Councillor Alan Macro referred to Investopedia which showed that the profit margins for oil and gas production in Quarter 4 of 2021 was 31.3% up from 4.7%. He argued that any windfall tax would not affect investment given these levels of profit.

 

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter indicated that he would not be supporting the Motion. His belief was that a VAT suspension would be an inefficient broad brush intervention whereby everybody from the wealthiest down to those most vulnerable would equally benefit, and this would be hugely inefficient. He also pointed out there was not enough capacity within the building industry to implement a wide scale installation of insulation, though he did support the idea in principle.

 

Councillor Jeremy Cottam felt that a lot of people would be shortly be forced into fuel poverty which was an exceptional circumstance. Investments were planned years ahead, especially in a huge industry like oil or gas, and therefore profits over the short term would not in his opinion affect investment at all. He was in support of the Motion as he believed action should be taken on this immediately.

 

Councillor Jeff Cant expressed his disappointment over the extensive and lengthy discussion regarding central government policy rather than instead focusing on matters within the Councils remit and what it could do to ameliorate the impact of some of these issues on local communities.

 

Councillor Owen Jeffery put forward his opinion that a single one-off tax due to exceptional circumstances would not destroy or deter the oil and gas industries.

 

Councillor Carolyne Culver referred to planning policy CS15 which stated that West Berkshire District was one of the highest electricity users in the southeast and was in the upper quartile of local authorities for CO2 emissions within the region. Fuel poverty levels in West Berkshire were also high compared to other authorities making it an extremely relevant topic for the Council to debate. She highlighted that the planning policies demonstrated a need for more insulation and heat pumps in the district, and that the Green Deal scheme for home insulation had been abandoned and the Green Homes grant scrapped after six months. Thousands of jobs had been lost and cutting insulation programmes in the last ten years had added around £1b to domestic energy bills. She invited Members to remember the amount of public subsidies that the fossil fuel industry received and closed by highlighting the urgency of the matter.

 

Councillor Steve Masters urged Council to support the Motion.

 

The Motion was put to the vote and declared LOST.

(The meeting was adjourned at 9.15pm and reconvened at 9.23pm)

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 19(e) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers regarding garage blocks.

 

The Chairman advised that Council would not debate the Motion and, in accordance with Procedure Rule 4.9.8, this would be referred to the Planning Advisory Group and Transport Advisory Group for consideration as the detail of the Motion falls within the remit of the Executive. A report would be considered at the Planning Advisory Group, the Transport Advisory Group and the Executive, and the outcome of that would be reported to Council.

 

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tony Vickers and seconded by Councillor Jeremy Cottam:

 

“This Council

 

Notes that -

 

1.         Standard size garages are too small for modern cars and therefore no longer count as parking spaces in new housing developments or in calculations on the need for Residents Parking Zones;

2.         The District has many older post-WWII housing developments which include significant areas of garage blocks that are no longer fit for their original purpose of providing secure parking for local residents’ cars and are used – if at all – for general storage, while many homes have no street frontage and no parking spaces because these garage blocks were built for them;

3.         There is no ‘use class’ in planning law for residential parking;

4.         Car ownership is much greater now than when these estates were built and that many of them, in all parts of the District, have problems with on-street parking and access for emergency and other larger vehicles;

5.         Some garage blocks have been attracting anti-social behaviour, have no overall management structure and their appearance has a negative impact on the amenity of residents;

6.         Others have been bought up by local housing developers resulting in permanent loss of a potential parking area for residents and visitors.

 

This Council therefore calls for:-

 

1.         planning and transport policies to be discussed at the appropriate forums, aimed at achieving:-

A.        First call on future redevelopment of garage blocks to be for parking for local residents, as was their original purpose;

B.        Dedicated Car Club spaces (and EV charging points) within any redeveloped garage blocks;

C.        Spaces reserved on-street, where this proves impossible, for properties with no road frontage.

2.         Investigation into the ownership of these areas, including approach roads that are not public highways, with a view to pursuing compulsory purchase to bring some of them back into use primarily for parking;

 

Furthermore if current legislation does not allow such policies to be adopted locally through our emerging Local Plan and Transport Plans, Council will lobby our MPs and the LGA to change the law so that it can happen.”

 

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 19(f) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers regarding land reform. 

 

The Chairman informed the Council that the Motion, if seconded, would be debated at the meeting.

 

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tony Vickers and seconded by Councillor Erik Pattenden:

 

“This Council

 

Endorses the 2019 report “Grounds for Change” by SHELTER, supported by CPRE, which recognises that:-

 

1.         A home is a fundamental human need;

2.         In the last 20 years the value of land has risen by 550% and all the increase in total national wealth in the last 10 years is accounted for by land value;

3.         Almost all increase in land value comes not from anything the landowner does but from investment in infrastructure, growth in prosperity, enterprise of businesses, earnings of working people, and crucially the granting of planning consent;

4.         The crisis in affordable housing supply cannot be solved without land reform that ensures much more of the land value is recovered for public benefit, to pay for essential infrastructure, including measures to tackle the consequences of climate change.

 

Council therefore resolves to write formally to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities to express its support for further measures to reform the 1961 Land Compensation Act more in line with the policies of other developed countries, which enable public bodies such as Local Authorities to acquire land – especially green field land needed for housing - at prices much closer to existing use value than this Act permits.”

 

Councillor Tony Vickers in introducing the Motion referred it being the third Motion relating to planning and land reform that he had submitted in three years. The previous two were more focused on planning reform and the wider reform of land policy. Nine months had passed however since the Leader of the Council advised she would work through her party channels to secure progress with planning reforms, and it was still unclear when the new planning bill would be introduced.

 

Councillor Vickers advised that the piece of legislation primarily to blame for issues was the Land Compensation Act 1961. Ever since the pre-war public sector landholdings had largely been used up, Britain had been building some of the highest priced, worst insulated and smallest homes in Europe. Most experts agreed that land prices were the biggest problem, with land now being 70% of the price of a house. He felt that obscene wealth was being allowed to fall unearned into the lap of those happening to hold title to land. Only Parliament could remove the right for vendors to receive the ‘hope value’ and he argued that public bodies must be allowed to recover the value that the public and the wider private economic activity created. He noted that existing deals between land owners and developers would have to be honoured but wanted to take advantage of existing lines of communication to the Local Government Association and the government to initiate change.

 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon did not dispute that more houses were needed but referred to the blockages preventing those houses coming online. He felt that local authorities being allowed to compulsorily purchasing land at its existing use value would be expropriating private property very cheaply. His party believed in private property rights and he stated that for any economic and political system to work it was crucial that all had confidence in those rights being upheld. Land reform along these lines had already been partially attempted by the SNP administration in Scotland with the result being land owners far less likely to let land to farming tenants, and a reluctance of tenant farmers to take on leases due to long term uncertainty. He highlighted that the Grounds for Change report cited in the Motion was actually a collection of essays from various interested parties which he believed should not be used as a basis for setting policy.

 

Councillor David Marsh indicated that he and his fellow Green Party councillors strongly supported the Motion.

 

Councillor Richard Somner referred to the year of publication of the report cited in the Motion and felt that a more updated position would be beneficial. His understanding was that the Levelling Up White Paper contained some revisions however and planning reforms were expected this spring. He considered that this would provide that refreshed position needed. Under those circumstances, his preference was to wait for that to be delivered and, if appropriate and acceptable, for the Planning Advisory Group to then have a full, rounded conversation with officers. He noted that the Council had a good position on affordable housing, with a rate for developers at 40% which was higher than many other planning authorities. He restated his offer to meet with Councillor Vickers to discuss this matter outside of this meeting.

 

Councillor Alan Law had sympathy for the subject matter but felt that some of the supporting facts and figures referred to were open to challenge. He was particularly concerned about the point regarding the acquisition of land at prices much closer to existing use value as he believed more thought was needed on this. He was supportive of the matter being debated with officer involvement at the Planning Advisory Group.

 

Councillor Erik Pattenden was sure that Members all knew someone who had wanted to purchase their own home and had not been able to do so because the cost of buying a house in the UK is far too high. Countries like the Netherlands and Germany had much lower land pricing than in England where people were forced to spend a vast proportion of their incomes on mortgages or rent leaving them too little for the rest of their needs. Reforming the 1961 Land Compensation Act offered an effective way to address these issues. He noted that the target across the country of building in excess of 300,000 homes would not be met without doing something radical, and he urged Council to support the motion.

 

Councillor Hilary Cole expressed sympathy with what Councillor Vickers was aiming to achieve but did not think the Motion was necessarily the right vehicle for it.

 

Councillor Tony Vickers advised that the figures in his Motion had been drawn from the National Statistics Office and that everything in the bullet points was fact. He agreed with Councillor Pattenden that targets would not be achieved unless the land question was tackled in a radical way. He felt there were differing views amongst the government on whether to take radical measures on land auction, but did not believe, like others appeared to do so, that the market would solve the land issue. He had wanted this matter raised in a public forum but was happy for the debate to be taken further at the Planning Advisory Group.

 

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 19(g) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Alan Macro regarding the building of a new hospital.

 

The Chairman advised that Council would not debate the Motion and, in accordance with Procedure Rule 4.9.8, this would be referred to the Health Scrutiny Committee for consideration as the detail of the Motion falls within its remit. A report would be considered at the Health Scrutiny Committee and the outcome of that would be reported to Council.

 

Councillor Alan Macro proposed a minor alteration to the Motion. Councillor Andy Moore, seconding, agreed to this minor alteration. The amendment was additionally approved by Members present.

 

AMENDED SUBSTANTIVE MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Alan Macro and seconded by Councillor Andy Moore:

 

“Council notes that:

 

·                The Royal Berkshire Hospital Foundation Trust has been consulting on various options to re-develop the hospital. Several options involve various levels of redevelopment of the existing site and one option the building of a new hospital on a new site.

·                The existing site is very cramped and contains a mixture of new, old and very old buildings, some of which are pre-fabricated. Many have very poor insulation leading to uncomfortable conditions for patients in hot or cold weather and also to poor energy efficiency.

·                Re-development of the existing site is difficult because of its cramped and dense layout.

·                It is very difficult for residents of some parts of West Berkshire to reach the hospital using public transport.

·                Car parking in and around the hospital is restricted and expensive.

·                It can be time consuming to travel to the hospital by any means, including ambulance, at peak times.

 

Council therefore resolves that its preferred option is the building of a new hospital on a new site that is readily accessed by West Berkshire residents by both private and public transport, and that this preference be conveyed to the Royal Berkshire Hospital Foundation Trust.”

 

The Vice-Chairman proposed that the meeting be extended until 10.30pm. This was seconded by Councillor Lynne Doherty and duly approved by the members present in the Chamber.