Agenda and minutes

To receive tributes to Councillor Keith Lock who sadly passed away on Saturday 12^th February 2011.

Councillors Graham Pask, Jeff Brooks, Graham Jones, Royce Longton and David Rendel, on behalf of the Council, all paid tribute to Councillor Keith Lock who had recently passed away. Councillor Lock had served the residents of West Berkshire for 38 years as a Councillor. Councillor Lock was renowned for his passion, wisdom, grace, calmness and consideration. He was a true gentleman who had earned respect from both sides of the chamber. Councillor Brooks hoped that he would be remembered and respected for all the work he had done over the years and stated that he would be greatly missed. The Members asked that their condolences be conveyed to his wife, Councillor Mollie Lock, as well as the rest of his family.

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

The Chairman reported that he and the Vice Chairman had attended 51 events since the last ordinary Council meeting. This included four citizenship ceremonies, two Holocaust Memorial events, four Christmas events at Care Homes and a hundredth birthday celebration. Councillor Pask thanked Councillor Argyle for his ongoing support as Vice-Chair.

The Chairman to sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 9^th December 2010 and the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 31^st January 2011.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 09 December 2010 and the Special meeting on the 31 January 2011 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive notice of any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor Gordon Lundie declared an interest in Agenda Item 18, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge declared an interest in Agenda Item 19, but reported that, as her interest was personal and not prejudicial, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors may present any petition which they have received. These will normally be referred to the appropriate body without discussion.

Councillor Alan Macro presented a petition containing 60 signatures relating to a request to take measures to reduce the amount and speed of traffic on Englefield Road in Theale.

Councillor Royce Longton presented a petition containing 43 signatures relating to a request to reduce the speed limit along a stretch of Clayhill Road in Burghfleld.

As both of the petitions related to speed reduction they would be referred to the next appropriate Speed Limit Task Group meeting following which any recommendations would be included in an Individual Decision for sign off by the relevant Portfolio Holder.

Members of the Executive to answer the following questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Council’s Constitution:

(a)             Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operational) and ICT submitted by Mr Richard Coles:

“Can the representative from the Council please explain why the full adoption of the Mortimer Hill Development is still not completed? Taylor Wimpey, (the developers,) have made it quite clear that West Berkshire Council have no reason to delay (other than a small area of Tarmac repair which should be completed within the next couple of weeks), the full engrossment of the S38 agreement, as the S278 agreement has now been formally terminated?

The current situation with this development is that West Berkshire Council say they have never received the revised plans 'as built'.

Taylor Wimpey say they have been sent to West Berkshire for approval and signature.

Someone is not telling the truth and would the council please tell me the correct and truthful position."  

(b)             Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operational) and ICT submitted by Mrs. Lucy Flowerdew:

“What were the costs of the recent resurfacing of Burnthouse Lane, Burghfield, and what proportion of these costs were paid by the Atomic Weapons Establishment?”

(c)              Question to be answered by the Leader of the Council submitted by Mr. Grahame Murphy:

"We are supposed to have a coalition government made up of Tories and Lib Dems, when are West Berks Council (Tories and Lib Dems) going to start behaving as a coalition and start consulting with each other, never mind the rest of us poor electorate?"

(d)             Question to be answered by the Leader of the Council submitted by Mr. Richard Garvie:

"Almost 1,000 in Newbury have said they do not want a pavilion on Victoria Park, yet the council press ahead with this plan. There was little or no consultation with the public regarding the cuts to youth services, nor was there any consultation before the decision to axe five day centres was made. May the Leader of the Council please explain the value of which consultation has to this administration?"

(e)             Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Community Care, Pensions and Insurance submitted by Mrs. Diane Smith:

“Why has WBC withdrawn (the very little) funding for ROAR, a dual benefit project which enables learning disabled adults to be meaningfully employed in litter picking and clearing of excess vegetation from commons and rights of way?”

(f)                Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Community Care, Pensions and Insurance submitted by Mrs. Diane Smith:

“How is WBC going to ensure that all learning disabled adults are provided with the independent assistance necessary for a meaningful discussion to take place about setting and managing a personal care budget?”

(a)               A question standing in the name of Mr Richard Coles pertaining to Mortimer Hill Development was withdrawn from the agenda by the questioner after the agenda was published.

(b)               A question standing in the name of Mrs Lucy Flowerdew pertaining to resurfacing Burnthouse Lane, Burgfield would receive a written response from the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operational) and ICT as she was unable to attend the meeting.

(c)               A question standing in the name of Mr Graham Murphy pertaining to local coalition co-operation was answered by the Leader of the Council.

(d)               A question standing in the name of Mr Richard Garvie pertaining to the value the Council placed on consultation was answered by the Leader of the Council.

(e)               A question standing in the name of Mrs Diane Smith pertaining to the withdrawal of funding for ROAR was answered by the Executive Member for Environment and Public Protection on behalf of the Executive Member for Community Care, Pensions and Insurance.

(f)                 A question standing in the name of Mrs Diane Smith pertaining to a discussion on independent assistance for dealing with personal care budgets was answered by the Executive Member for Leisure and Culture, Equality and the Visions on behalf of the Executive Member for Community Care, Pensions and Insurance.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Licensing Committee met on 21^st December 2010.  Copies of the Minutes of this meeting can be obtained from Policy and Communication or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Licensing Committee had met on 21 December 2010.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of Council, the Governance and Audit Committee met on 14^th February 2011.  Copies of the Minutes of this meeting can be obtained from Policy and Communication or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Governance and Audit Committee had met on 14 February 2011.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the District Planning Committee met on 25^th January 2011.  Copies of the Minutes of this meeting can be obtained from Policy and Communication or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the District Planning Committee had met on 25 January 2011.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission met on 18^th January 2011 and 1^st March 2011.  Copies of the Minutes of these meetings can be obtained from Policy and Communication or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee had met on 18 January 2011 and 01 March 2011.

The Council is asked to note that since the last meeting of the Council, the Standards Committee met on 24^th January 2011.  Copies of the Minutes of this meeting can be obtained from Policy and Communication or via the Council’s website.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Standards Committee had met on 24 January 2011.

A verbal update on the Police Reorganisation will be given by Councillor Anthony Stansfeld.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld provided Council with an update on the proposed reconfiguration of the Police Service in West Berkshire. These changes were being made in response to the budget cuts proposed for the service.  One of the suggestions was around removing one of the middle management tiers i.e. the Basic Command Units.

There were currently three police areas: Wokingham, Reading and West Berkshire. Until recently West Berkshire only had 95 constables and sergeants. As the new allocation of officers would be based on a formula the number of constables and sergeants would increase to 107. The increase did not, in Councillor Stansfeld’s opinion, take cognisance of the geographical area of West Berkshire. There was also no recognition of the financial input in West Berkshire which totalled around £1.5m more than neighbouring Reading.  A meeting had therefore taken place and as a consequence the area had been allocated an additional 11 Police Officers. The additional resource should provide better policing and protection levels for the residents of the area.

To inform Council of the recommendations of the West Berkshire Council Independent Remuneration Panel 2011.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 14) concerning the recommendations of the West Berkshire Council Independent Remuneration Panel 2011.

Prior to the report being proposed the Monitoring Officer clarified that the reference to the seven Opposition Spokesman Allowances did not include the Leader of the Oppositions’ allowance and the Opposition Group were therefore entitled to up to eight Special Responsibility Allowances in total.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks

That the Council:

“agree the recommendations of the West Berkshire Council Independent Remuneration Panel 2011.”

Councillor Jones in introducing the report noted that the Members allowances had been frozen again for the forthcoming Municipal Year. Members would thereby be taking the lead in reducing the Council’s costs. Councillor Jones stated that there were still issues around proportionality that he would like to see resolved but that the Council would be better placed to deal with these issues after the election.

Councillor Jeff Brooks in seconding the report stated that he had no issues with its content and he was therefore happy to support the proposals set out in it.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To summarise the Council’s borrowing limits as set out by CIPFA’s Prudential Code, and recommends the Annual Investment Strategy for the coming year.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 15) that summarised the Council’s borrowing limits as set out by CIPFA’s Prudential Code and complied with the Local Government Act 2003. the report also set out a recommended Annual Investment Strategy for the forthcoming Financial Year.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Gordon Lundie and seconded by Councillor Graham Jones:

That the Council:

“adopts the Annual Investment Strategy for 2011/12.”

Councillor Gordon Lundie in introducing the report reported that the Council had a duty to set its borrowing limits and produce the Annual Investment Strategy. He noted that there would be a slight decrease in the level of borrowing for the forthcoming year which reflected the reduction that had been made to the Council funded element of the Capital Programme. The strategy also included the agencies the Council would be investing with over the forthcoming year.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To inform Members of the medium term financial planning and strategy for the organisation.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) which set out the Council’s Interim Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Alan Law and seconded by Councillor Graham Jones:

That the Council:

“approves the Interim Medium Term Financial Strategy”.

Councillor Alan Law in introducing the report explained that the strategy would form the basis of the Council’s financial planning and would enable the Council to continue to manage its finances well.

The MTFS had been more difficult to produce this year due to a number of factors including: the removal of some grants in year, the emerging localism agenda, the announcement of the abolition of the Primary Care Trusts, changes to the police service, the reduction of ring-fenced grants, the abolition of Area Based Grants and the introduction of a new formula grant. These changes needed to be taken into account alongside changes in the economy, increasing inflation, changes to the way business rates would be allocated and changes in employment costs. As a consequence the Administration was proposing an interim strategy and once more clarity emerged they would revert to a four year MTFS.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To outline the Council’s proposed five year Capital Strategy for 2011 to 2016 including the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) statement and to set out the funding framework for Council’s five year Capital Programme for 2011/12–2015/16.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) concerning the Council’s proposed five-year Capital Strategy for 2011 to 2016 including the minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) statement. The report also set out the funding framework for the Council’s five year Capital Programme for 2011/12 – 2015/16.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Pamela Bale:

That the Council:

“approves the five year Capital Strategy as set out in the report”.

Councillor Graham Jones in introducing the report explained that the Capital Programme for the next five years would result in investment totalling £121m. The Council funded element would total £35.5m and there would be £16.5m of investment in schools. One of the challenges for the Council would be the ongoing investment in road maintenance given that the Council had the longest road network in Berkshire and as a consequence additional funding would be put into this budget.

Councillor Pamela Bale in seconding the report noted that the Capital Programme met its two main objectives: a reduction in the revenue required to support borrowing for the Capital Programme and to maximise the use of external funding including s106 contributions and other grants.

Councillor Bale noted that £141k had been included in the programme to support local communities through the vibrant villages and parish planning schemes. Councillor Bale also noted that the mobile and flexible working project, Timelord, would allow the Council to dispose of some of its investments and reduce leasing costs on other buildings. Councillor Bale thanked Officers for their efforts in producing the Strategy.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To consider and recommend to Council the 2011-12 revenue budget.

(Councillor Gordon Lundie declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that his children had accrued fines in respect of outstanding library books. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) relating to the Councils 2011-12 Revenue Budget.

Prior to the debate on this item taking place it was agreed that in accordance with paragraph 4.5.12 of the Council’s Constitution the speaking limits for this item would be amended.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Gordon Lundie:

That the Council:

“1.        approves the fees and charges as set out in Appendix I and the appropriate statutory notices be placed where required in accordance with the decision of the Executive on 17th February 2011;

2.         approves the Special Expenses as set out in Appendix J in accordance with the decision of the Executive on 17th February 2011;

3.         approves that a budget requirement for 2011-12 of £111.41 million requires a freeze in Council Tax.

In relation to 2011-12 Council Tax

4.         approves the amount (set out in Appendix O) for the year 2011-12 in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base ) Regulations 1992 made under section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992;

5.         The amounts (set out in Appendix O) be now calculated for the year 2011-12 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992;

6.         notes that for the year 2011-12 the Thames Valley Police Authority have stated that the amounts in precepts issued to the Council in accordance with section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each of the categories of dwellings set out in Appendix O;

7.         notes that for the year 2011-12 the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Authority have stated that the amounts in precepts issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each of the categories of dwelling set out in Appendix O;

8.         Having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts set out at 5, 6 and 7 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2011-12 for each of the categories of dwellings shown in Appendix O.”

In introducing the report Councillor Graham Jones noted that this budget was being set in the context of a period of great change for Local Government. The Council had been forced to make difficult decisions due to in year cuts in grants and the economy remained fragile. As a consequence significant reductions would have to be made.

Councillor Jones explained that the Council had undertaken a budget simulator exercise and the results of this consultation had helped to build the budget and would be used to shape future budgets. Councillor Jones announced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To propose a change in the Council’s current scrutiny structures with effect from 1 April 2011 and, as a consequence, to amend the previously approved timetable of meetings. To update Council in relation to the Localism Bill and the timetable for the introduction of any new governance structures (Committee System). (Pages )

(Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that she was employed by NHS Berkshire West. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 19) concerning proposals to amend the Council’s current scrutiny structures with effect from 1 April 2011 and, as a consequence, to amend the previously approved timetable of meetings. The report also sought to update the Council in relation to the Localism Bill and the timetable for the introduction of any new governance structures (Committee System).

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck:

That the Council:

“1.        That the Council’s current scrutiny governance structures be amended from one Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission and five Select Committees to one Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission with effect from 1 April 2011.

2.         That the previously approved timetable of meetings for 2011/12 be amended to reflect the changes to the Council’s scrutiny structures.

3.         That the Council notes the position in relation to the timetable for the introduction of any new governance structures (Committee system).

4.         That Council be asked to write to the Local Government Association requesting them to lobby the coalition Government in relation to amending the current Localism Bill to enable Local Authorities to introduce new governance structures (e.g. Committee system) without the need to wait until after the next local elections following the passing of the Localism Bill.”

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Brian Bedwell and seconded by Councillor Geoff Findlay:

That the Council:

“approves the recommendations as set out in the report subject to the following amendments:

The scrutiny structures be amended to allow the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission to be supported by a Health Scrutiny Panel and a Resource Management Working Panel.”

Councillor Bedwell in proposing the amendment noted that provision would be made to increase the membership of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission once the new structures were introduced.

The Amended Motion was put to the meeting and duly CARRIED.

To amend the terms of reference of the two committees in line with the recent recommendations arising from an Internal Audit of the Management of the Constitution.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 20) concerning an amendment to the Terms of Reference of the Standards Committee and the Governance and Audit Committee in line with the recommendations of an Internal Audit of the management of the Constitution.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck:

That the Council:

“1.        extends the Terms of Reference of the Standards Committee as set out in paragraph 2.1 and Appendix B to this report;

2.         amends Part 7 of the Council’s Constitution as set out in paragraph 1.6 and 1.7 of this report;

3.         delegates authority to make any further corresponding changes to references in the Constitution to the Governance and Audit Committee and the Standards Committee to the Monitoring Officer to amend (e.g. Part 1 Summary and Explanation).”

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To agree the Sustainable Community Strategy.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 21) concerning an update to the Sustainable community Strategy for 2011-12.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Pamela Bale and seconded by Councillor Emma Webster:

That the Council:

“adopts the Sustainable Community Strategy for 2011-12.”

Councillor Pamela Bale in introducing the report noted that the Local Strategic Partnership had been refocused and the size of the body had been reduced and this was reflected in the revised version of the SCS.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To seek approval for the new Local Transport Plan

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 22) concerning  the transport policy framework for the delivery of local transport measures over the next fifteen years.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Alan Law and seconded by Councillor David Betts:

That the Council:

“1.        approves and adopts the West Berkshire Local transport Plan 2011?2026;

2.                  delegates authority jointly to the Head of Planning and Countryside and Head of Highways and Transport in consultation with the Portfolio members for Planning, Housing and Transport Policy and highways, Transport (Operational) and ICT to agree any non-material refinements to the policy document prior to submission to the Department for Transport;

3.                  delegates authority through an Individual decision jointly to the Portfolio Members for Planning, Housing and Transport Policy and Highways, Transport (Operational) and ICT in consultation with the Transport Policy Task Group to agree the supporting Implementation Plan and any changes to the LTP necessary as result of formal review or significant changes locally or nationally as described in paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 of this report).”

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To consider the adoption of Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 23) adoption of Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck:

That the Council:

“adopts Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009.”

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

To report back the findings of the Greener Select Committee's deliberations into two separate but related Council Motions concerning renewable energy.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 24) which provided feedback on the findings of the Greener Select Committee’s deliberations on two separate but related Council motions concerning renewable energy.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Emma Webster and seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole:

That the Council agrees that:

1.                  The Local Strategic Partnership are best placed for taking on responsibility for, and producing, a West Berkshire Renewable Energy Strategy;

2.                  that the Council’s Energy Team finalise an Energy Strategy to include policy on renewable energy, for West Berkshire Council’s estate that includes school buildings:

3.                  that the Council examines ways in helping/facilitating others to take up projects under the Localism Bill;

4.                  the Council investigates introducing a loan scheme to assist schools and community groups undertaking renewable energy projects’.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

(a)               The following Motion has been submitted in the name of  Councillor Paul Bryant:

“The Council notes, with concern and disappointment, that whilst West Berkshire Council has faced an unexpected in-year grant cut of about £1M and a large grant cut of  about £3.5M in the coming financial year, the UK’s contribution to the European Union (EU) has increased by 60% over two years. These Council cuts have resulted in severe problems in struggling to maintain front line services.

This Council notes that, despite the opposition of many MPs, and MEPs, the government has agreed to a further 2.9% increase in the overall EU budget.

This Council believes the EU should be treated the same as the other tiers of government and in these austere times should share responsibility, along with central and local government, for public spending reductions. Sharing the burden would result in less severe cuts for local authorities, and give more assistance to councils to protect front line services.

This Council therefore urges West Berkshire's three MPs not to support any increase in the EU budget or the UK contribution to the EU.”

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 25 refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Paul Bryant relating to funding for the European Union.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Paul Bryant and seconded by Councillor Anthony Stansfeld:

That the Council:

“notes, with concern and disappointment, that whilst West Berkshire Council has faced an unexpected in-year grant cut of about £1M and a large grant cut of  about £3.5M in the coming financial year, the UK’s contribution to the European Union (EU) has increased by 60% over two years. These Council cuts have resulted in severe problems in struggling to maintain front line services.

This Council notes that, despite the opposition of many MPs, and MEPs, the government has agreed to a further 2.9% increase in the overall EU budget.

This Council believes the EU should be treated the same as the other tiers of government and in these austere times should share responsibility, along with central and local government, for public spending reductions. Sharing the burden would result in less severe cuts for local authorities, and give more assistance to councils to protect front line services.

This Council therefore urges West Berkshire's three MPs not to support any increase in the EU budget or the UK contribution to the EU”

The Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

(a)               A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of progress made to fund a right hand only turn for buses, from the A4 into the West Berkshire Hospital would receive a written answer from the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operational) and ICT.

(b)               A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of provision of a waiting room for bus passengers at the new parkway Development would receive a written answer from the Executive Member for Highways, Transport (Operational) and ICT.

(c)               A question standing in the name of Councillor Jeff Beck on the subject of the financial responsibility for the future use of the Community of the Riverside Community Centre Facilities would receive a written answer from the Executive Member forChildren & Families, Youth Service & Culture & Leisure.