Agenda and draft minutes

The Chairman to report on functions attended since the last meeting and other matters of interest to Members.

The Chairman reported that he had attended 15 events since the last Council meeting on 16 October 2025. Specifically, he highlighted his attendance at the Streatley ribbon cutting for a new accessible footpath, an 80^th anniversary celebration for the founding of the United Nations, the Greenham Trust Charity Award Ceremony, and the 20^th annual road death memorial service put on by Thames Valley Police. In addition, he also attended a number of remembrance events, including a Poppy Appeal in Calcot and the Great Western Railway Poppies to Paddington event.

The Vice-Chairman also attended a number of events since the last ordinary Council meeting, including a Diwali celebration in Thatcham, an achievement event for children in care, Glow Rides – and event for all women cycling, the Thatcham remembrance service, and the Purley-on-Thames’ annual Chairman’s reception.

The Chairman to sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 16 October 2025.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tony Vickers and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2025 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.”

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Petitions may be presented to Council. These will normally be referred to the appropriate body without discussion.

Councillor Carolyne Culver presented a petition containing 53 online signatures, and 15 paper signatures, relating to the Berkshire Pension Fund divesting from companies complicit in Israel’s genocide and apartheid.

The Chairman of West Ilsley Parish Council, Tim Pearey, presented a petition containing 70 online signatures, and 76 paper signatures, relating to the implementation of a weight restriction on Bury Lane, West Ilsley.

The Chairman thanked the Member and resident for presenting the petitions and confirmed that officers would review them and confirm within ten working days what action would be taken.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Council's Constitution.

Details of the public and Member question and answer sessions are available from the following link: Q&As.

The Council to agree any changes to the membership of Committees.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Dominic Boeck and seconded by Councillor Owen Jeffery:

That Council approve the following changes to the membership of Committees:

-        “That Charlie Gale and Natasha Rowe be appointed as Young Person Co-opted Members of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee

-        That Emily Daly be appointed as Primary School Governor Co-opted Member of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee”

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

Council noted that Councillor Janine Lewis and Councillor Billy Drummond would swap positions on the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee so that Councillor Drummond becomes a full Member of the Committee and Councillor Lewis becomes a substitute Member of the Committee.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jeff Brooks, also highlighted several changes to the portfolios of the Executive Members. Therefore, the composition of the Executive for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year was announced as:

To note Motions which have been presented to previous Council meetings.

There were no motions from previous meetings needing updates.

That Council is informed about the meetings held since the last ordinary meeting of Council. The minutes of these meetings will be available on the Council’s website. 

A)        The Licensing Committee met on 3 November 2025.

B)        The Personnel Committee has not met.

C)        The Governance Committee met on 18 November 2025.

D)        The District Planning Committee has not met.

E)        The Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee met on 10 November 2025 and 25 November 2025.

F)        The Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee has not met.

G)        The Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee has not met.

H)        The Health and Wellbeing Board has not met.

I)          The Joint Public Protection Committee has not met.

Council noted the meetings that had been held since the last ordinary meeting of Council as laid out in Agenda Item 9.

This report seeks Council support for the Executive to agree to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) to Government in response to the Government’s devolution policy. It is a stated Government policy intent that all regions in England benefit from devolution. 

The submission of the EOI Thames Valley will not bind the Council but will enable it to engage with Government on devolution of powers and functions to target regional economic growth working within a strategic partnership that aims to bring prosperity. This will enable collaborative regional governance to enable this Council to support innovation, business growth and investment. The aim of devolution is to ensure inclusive growth by opening greater prospects for skilled jobs, affordable housing and connected places that add to the region’s future economic sustainability.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning the submission of an expression of interest in a Thames Valley Mayoral Strategic Authority.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Justin Pemberton and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

That the Council:

1. “Is informed of the benefits from the proposed devolution of powers and functions, and agrees to continue building on the collaborative approach across the region to date.
2. Notes that the informal Devolution Board will oversee discussions with Government, ensuring robust governance and stakeholder engagement by elected members throughout this process.
3. Recommends that the Executive approves the Expression of Interest (EOI) to authorise the Council to submit this to Government, noting that the EOI is designed to proactively position the Thames Valley for early consideration in the next wave of the Devolution Programme.
4. Supports that a further report will be brought to Council and Executive prior to any final decision on the creation of a Strategic Authority”.

Councillor Pemberton introduced the report and highlighted that the White Paper from Government discussed both Local Government Reorganisation – of which the Council had submitted a Ridgeway Council proposal – as well as devolution. The Government was clear that it wanted all of England to be covered by a devolved authority and that they would be ending the current deals-based approach to devolution. He also informed Council that the Government would pass legislation enabling them to create a devolved authority above any local authority which failed to come to an agreement about one. For this reason, doing nothing could mean the Government legislating the creation of a Strategic Authority over West Berkshire, without its input.

Members noted that the goals of these Strategic Authorities would be to enable growth and that their remit devolved from central Government would involve cross boundary infrastructure, spatial planning, developing local skills, and encouraging investment. If the Government were to pursue a Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) in the Thames Valley, it would likely have a directly elected Mayor and a board comprised of the Leaders of the Councils in the area. However, specific governance arrangements would be confirmed in any final proposal. In addition, the Government would benefit from dealing with a reasonable number of Mayors across England, rather than hundreds of Council Leaders. Overall, Councillor Pemberton recommended that the Council submit an expression of interest in a Thames Valley MSA.

Some Members expressed their opposition to the establishment of a Mayoral Strategic Authority. As Police and Crime Commissioner and Local Elections had low voter turnout, questions were raised as to the democratic legitimacy of a future Mayor. In addition, the centralisation of power in the hands of a single mayor, and the undermining of the role of local authorities with decisions being taken further away from where residents lived, was also a concern. As there was no confirmation about the governance structure or funding proposed for the MSA at this time, it was questioned as to whether the Council should engage in the proposed process.

Council also questioned the geographical area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Public Protection Partnership Service was subjected to a peer review which concluded earlier in the year. In line with the negotiations on the recommendations of the review, a report seeking authorisation for West Berkshire Council to enter into a new three authority shared service agreement with Bracknell Forest Council and Wokingham Borough Council until the 31 March 2029 was agreed at Executive on the 6 November 2025.

This report seeks authority to make the associated changes to the Constitution to allow Wokingham Borough Council to rejoin the governance arrangements at a member level. It also seeks delegation of Council Functions undertaken by the Public Protection Service to the Joint Public Protection Committee until 31 March 2029.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning the shared service agreement for the Public Protection Partnership (PPP).

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tom McCann and seconded by Councillor Justin Pemberton:

That the Council is informed that:

1. “The decision taken by the Executive to enter into a new shared service agreement with Bracknell Forest Council and Wokingham Borough Council until the 31 March 2029 including the terms set out in this report and to extend the delegation of the Executive functions to the Joint Public Protection Committee.
2. The agreement includes an exit clause based on a minimum of twelve months’ notice to give effect to leaving the agreement on the 31 March in any given year.
3. West Berkshire Council continues to be the host authority to avoid significant short-term disruption.
4. That the Service Lead for Public Protection in conjunction with the Service Lead for Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to enter into this agreement on behalf of West Berkshire Council”.

And that the Council approves:

A)    “The extension of the delegation of its Council public protection related functions to the Joint Public Protection Committee until the 31 March 2029.

B)    That Wokingham Borough Council becomes a full Member of the Joint Public Protection Committee and all other governance arrangements and that the terms be based on those set out in the original shared service agreement of the 6 January 2017.

C)   And that the Terms of Reference and relevant sections of the Constitution (Part 3.1 Appendix JPPC and Part 6.5 Council Bodies Rules) be amended to reflect the revised Governance arrangements set out in the recommendation above”.

Councillor McCann introduced the report and highlighted that he was very satisfied that Councillor Pemberton, the previous Portfolio Holder for the area, and Officers, had managed to successfully re-incorporate Wokingham Borough Council into the PPP. As he believed that Wokingham would be a positive addition to the PPP, he encouraged Council to approve the recommendations.

In addition, Councillor McCann indicated that he would clarify the financial implications of the report as some Members raised questions about the costs associated with the change proposed. The potential impact of the PPP on the wellbeing of children was also raised as an area that Members would also like to see more detail on.

The work of the PPP was mentioned, with several Members highlighting their positive experience in engaging with the service on the wide range of activities that they undertook. However, some Members indicated that they would appreciate greater clarity about how to contact the service about the local issues that they were facing.

Overall, as Council were happy for Wokingham to rejoin the PPP, and that they were satisfied that they would be a positive addition to the joint service, they agreed to approve the recommendations.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.</AI9>

The purpose of this report is to update Council regarding the work undertaken by the Constitution Review Task Group (“CRTG”), and to seek approval of the proposed Constitutional updates detailed in this report and subsequent implementation.

The completion of the Constitution review is an important part of the overall good governance of the Council and has been highlighted as an area to complete in the Annual Governance Statement. 

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 12) concerning Constitutional changes to Part 8 – Contract Rules – and Part 13 – Appendix D.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Iain Cottingham:

That Council approve the amendment of the following parts of the Constitution as outlined in the report:

A)    “Part 8 Contract Rules, to take effect on 1 April 2026.

B)    Part 13 Appendix D, Protocol for use of ICT Equipment supplied to Members, to take immediate effect”.

Councillor Brooks introduced the report and highlighted that the Constitution was a living document and under continual review. The Procurement Act of 2023 required the Council to examine its procurement rules. The proposed changes in the report complied with this demand and also streamlined them in order to ensure that they were more usable. He gave assurances about the effectiveness of the Council’s checks and balances, even with a greater delegation value, and noted that the proposal had been recommended for approval by both the Constitution Review Task Group and the Governance Committee.

On a question about the approval process when spending anything worth £2.5m and above, Members noted that spending of this amount was required to be progressed through the Procurement Board of the Council (of which the Portfolio Holder was a Member), that it would need to be publicly declared before it could be spent, and that the full details of the decision would be made publicly available.

In response to a question about the potential risk of a large project getting split into smaller parts so it could pass under delegated powers, Members were assured that, as this was a well-known risk from a fraud perspective, it would be tightly monitored to ensure this did not occur. If it was found that this had occurred, the repercussions would be very serious.

Overall, as Council were satisfied that the proposed new thresholds would be in line with the statutory position, they agreed to approve the recommendations.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To recommend a timetable of public meetings for the 2026/27 Municipal Year. The timetable is proposed for approval and then publication to give advance notice of public meetings at which the Council’s key decision making takes place to help meet its wide range of business demands. The approval of the timetable will also assist with making administrative arrangements for the meetings.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 13) concerning the timetable of public meetings for the 2026/27 Municipal Year.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Iain Cottingham:

“That Council approve the timetable of public meetings for the 2026/27 Municipal Year”.

Councillor Brooks introduced the report and highlighted that it was a regular item which outlined the proposed meeting dates for West Berkshire Council for the upcoming municipal year. Overall, as Council was satisfied with the report, they agreed to approve the meeting timetable.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To receive any Motions submitted in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Council's Constitution.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (of which Agenda Item 14 refers) submitted in the name of Councillor David Marsh relating to the use of Swift Bricks.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor David Marsh and seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver:

“That Council notes that swifts, one of the oldest species on earth, fly thousands of miles (spending up to three years on the wing) to breed in the UK. Increasingly, they are finding their nesting sites blocked up. Their ancient forests with nest hollows now gone, they rely on cavities in buildings, but these too are disappearing, leaving this iconic creature on the RSPB “red list” of endangered species.

Swifts just need a brick with a hole in it to nest. The average two-storey new house contains 20,000 bricks and swift bricks– costing an estimated £30 each – can help save swifts, as well as other small nesting birds. The Labour government, having promised in opposition to incorporate a swift brick nest box into new buildings by law, has reneged on this pledge.

Council further notes, however, that a number of local authorities, with all-party support, have adopted policies requiring swift bricks to be included in new developments. These measures have proved popular with residents as well as local wildlife charities.

Council therefore resolves that:

A)    Swift boxes will be installed at suitable Council-owned properties, including providing audio lures to attract breeding pairs, before the next nesting season in May 2026.

B)    At least 50% of homes on new developments in West Berkshire shall be required to have at least two swift bricks installed. New commercial and industrial developments shall be required to have at least three swift bricks installed per appropriate unit.

C)   This condition will be attached to all relevant planning permissions for new buildings, in line with Local Plan policy SP11, Biodiversity and Geodiversity, the Council's Environment Strategy (refreshed May 2025), the Berkshire Biodiversity Strategy, and other initiatives to maintain, restore and increase biodiversity in West Berkshire.

D)   This is in addition to any biodiversity mitigation or enhancements normally requested through the planning process.”

The Chairman informed the Council that the Motion would not be debated at this meeting. In accordance with Procedure Rule 12.6.2, the Motion would be referred to the Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee. This would enable their input and that of expert Officers, before then coming back to Council for debate.

Councillor Marsh introduced the Motion and highlighted that swifts were one of the oldest species on Earth. The proposed Motion would seek to ensure that a proportion of new homes built in the district would contain swift bricks in order to help preserve the species. Since 1995, there had been a decline in the species by two thirds, with 40 per cent of this decline occurring in last ten years. In addition, swifts were now on the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds red list of threatened species.

Local Councils around the country had taken measures around swifts, including a Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by Members of the Council in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Council's Constitution.

Details of the public and Member question and answer sessions are available from the following link: Q&As.