Agenda and draft minutes

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

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman reported that they had attended 31events since the last Council meeting on 17 July 2025. Specifically, the Chairman highlighted his attendance at the ABC (Assist Berkshire Children) to Read concert held in Reading. This charity did much excellent work, including with schools, to help develop literacy skills for children and young people.

The Chairman also took the opportunity to highlight a concern that the Council Chairman was not receiving invitations to events to which Mayors of other areas were being invited. He was particularly concerned that events being held in rural areas of West Berkshire were not being attended by the Council. This was an issue he was seeking to rectify.

The Vice-Chairman highlighted her attendance at the nominations evening for the King’s Award for Voluntary Services. 15 certificates were presented to Berkshire organisations nominated for an award. The Vice-Chairman highlighted that this was a particularly enjoyable event at which she was pleased to hear about a wide range of voluntary work that was taking place.

The Chairman reminded Members to consider the charities operating in their wards who could be nominated in future.

The Chairman to sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Council meetings held on 17 July 2025 and 11 September 2025.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tony Vickers and seconded by Councillor Billy Drummond:

“That the Minutes of the meetings held on 17 July 2025 and 11 September 2025were 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.

Councillor Chris Read declared an interest in Agenda Item 5 (black bin collections petition) by virtue of the fact that he worked for a large sustainable packaging company that relied upon a market of recycled cardboard fibre. However, it did not, to his knowledge, directly trade with the Council, although it did have a commercial relationship with companies like Veolia. He stated that this personal interest would not influence his thoughts and decisions on what was best for the residents of West Berkshire. Councillor Read therefore reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Denise Gaines highlighted, for transparency purposes, a relevant matter in relation to Agenda Item 10 by virtue of the fact that she was previously on the Hungerford Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) Steering Group. However, she had stood down from this role over two years ago and since that time the NDP had been subject to independent Examination. Councillor Gaines therefore reported that she had no personal or any other interest to declare, and she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Following advice from the Monitoring Officer for those Members in receipt of a Local Government Pension, Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Billy Drummond, Denise Gaines and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 12 (Motion e). They reported that as their interest was a personal interest and not an other registrable interest nor a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

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

Councillor Phil Barnettpresented a petition containing 50 signatures requesting a pedestrian crossing on Hambridge Road.

Councillor Alan Macropresented a petition on behalf of Theale residents which contained 403 signatures and which objected to Reading Borough Council’s proposal to extend its boundary to include Theale. Theale had a clear physical separation from Reading and was a self contained village.

Councillor Matt Shakespeare presented a petition on behalf of residents living in Pangbourne, Tidmarsh and Sulham. The petition contained 582 signatures which supported these parishes remaining part of West Berkshire Council.

The Chairman thanked the Members for presenting their petitions which would be forwarded to the relevant officers for review and response.

Petition for debate: black bin collections

A petition for debate had been submitted for this meeting which made a request of Council to pause the changes and reconsider the three weekly black bin collection policy. It was eligible for debate as the number of signatories exceeded 1500.

Councillor Stuart Gourley gave thanks for the receipt of the petition and responded to the main points raised in the petition, as follows:

·       It would be costly to pause the three weekly collection policy.

·       Councillor Gourley understood the concerns that had been raised, but highlighted that the majority of residents were managing well with this change. Support was however available to residents and 3% of households had applied for additional support.

·       Larger bins had been made available for 585 households. Additional recycling containers had also been issued (approximately 27,000).

·       The equality impact assessment was published with the budget papers in February 2025.

·       The objectives for making this change were to improve the recycling rate and reduce black bin waste.

·       Councillor Gourley explained that it was important to make these changes and not delay them. New legislation was due to be introduced by the Government in 2027/28 in relation to emissions from waste which could result in a significant tax bill, in the region of £1.4m per annum, if these changes were not introduced.

·       This would provide greater value for money to tax payers and help to protect essential front line services.

Mr Richard Garvie, petition organiser, highlighted the following from the petition:

·       He also wanted to see an increase in recycling. However, was concerned that support measures had not been put in place.

·       Clear eligibility criteria needed to be published for receiving larger bins.

·       Mr Garvie felt it was important to understand how many applications for support had been approved and how many applications had been rejected.

·       There was concern that the consultation was only a box ticking exercise. This view was supported by comments in the petition. Mr Garvie felt that communication with residents on this matter had been poor.

·       Residents’ views needed to be heard and appropriate support put in place.

Councillor Shakespeare stated that financial pressures were being felt by local authorities across the country. Many other local authorities had already moved to three weekly black bin collections and more would follow. He was pleased that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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.

There were no public questions received.

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

There were no proposed changes to the membership of Committees.

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 28 July 2025.

B)       The Personnel Committee has not met.

C)       The Governance Committee met on 29 July 2025 and 30 September 2025.

D)       The District Planning Committee has not met.

E)       The Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee met on 16 September 2025.

F)       The Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee met on 11 September 2025.

G)       The Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee met on 30 September 2025.

H)       The Health and Wellbeing Board met on 24 September 2025.

I)        The Joint Public Protection Committee met on 6 October 2025.

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

The Hungerford Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) has been subject to independent examination. The Examiner has recommended that the NDP with modifications can proceed to referendum (see Appendix C). However, the Examiner’s decision is not binding and only West Berkshire District Council (WBDC) can decide if the NDP progresses to referendum. This report provides the evidence for the Council to make that decision.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning whether the Hungerford Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) should progress to referendum.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Denise Gaines and seconded by Councillor Justin Pemberton:

That the Council:

“Endorses the Decision Statement on the Hungerford NDP which concludes that the Hungerford NDP, with the inclusion of modifications, meets the Basic Conditions.

Because the modified Plan meets the Basic Conditions, it is recommended that:

(a)  The Plan should proceed to referendum;

(b)  Upon a successful ‘yes’ vote at referendum, agreement is sought that the Hungerford NDP is adopted immediately after the votes have been counted so that it becomes part of the Development Plan for West Berkshire; and

(c)  The authority to make minor alterations and corrections to the Hungerford NDP as set out within the Decision Statement (see Appendix D), prior to its proceeding to referendum, be delegated to the Executive Director for Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing.”

Councillor Gaines explained that the NDP had been subject to independent examination and the Examiner had recommended that the NDP, with modifications, could proceed to referendum. However, it was for Council to decide if the NDP progressed to referendum. The report provided evidence for the Council to make that decision.

Councillor Gaines outlined the recommendations. She explained that a lengthy process had been undertaken to bring the NDP to this point. This included numerous consultations and resident participation. The purpose of the NDP was to guide development in the area. If successful at referendum, the NDP would be adopted as part of West Berkshire Council’s Local Plan.

Councillor Adrian Abbs voiced his support for the proposal. He emphasised the importance of maximising Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions to help communities undertake good work in their areas.

Councillor Howard Woollaston explained that he had carefully reviewed the NDP as he had lived near to Hungerford for many years. He congratulated the Steering Group on its work, recognising that much time and effort had gone into producing the NDP.

Councillor Clive Taylor advised that the Tilehurst NDP had been in place for ten years and was aware of the extensive amount of work that needed to be put into the production of an NDP. He commended the Hungerford NDP.

Councillor Tony Vickers, another of the Ward Members for Hungerford, clarified that he had no personal involvement in the production of the NDP. He commended the Town Council and the Steering Group for all their hard work in producing this splendid document.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon provided comment on behalf of Councillor Dennis Benneyworth’s (another of the Hungerford Ward Members). Councillor Benneyworth had received correspondence from residents both in support of the NDP and objecting to it. It was therefore appropriate for residents to vote at the referendum.

Councillor Pemberton noted his huge respect to the Hungerford NDP Steering Group for all their work. It was something to be proud of. He hoped that residents would give their support to the NDP. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To provide Council with oversight of the annual Youth Justice Plan for 2025/26 which is submitted to the Youth Justice Board.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 11) which provided Council with oversight of the annual Youth Justice Plan for 2025/26 which was submitted to the Youth Justice Board.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Heather Codling and seconded by Councillor Nigel Foot:

That the Council:

“agree and formally endorse the Youth Justice Plan 2025/2026. The Youth Justice Support Team is a statutory service with contributions from partners including Police, Probation and Health, as such the plan has been formed in conjunction with those partners and been through a consultation process with the Youth Justice Management Group and the Building Communities Together Partnership where those partners are present.”

Councillor Codling stated that the Council was very privileged to have a Youth Justice service that was recognised as Outstanding, and had been so for many years.

As explained the Plan was prepared with partner organisations, but it also incorporated views from young people.

Key aims of the Plan included:

·       Prevention in offending and a reduction in re-offending.

·       A commitment to transforming the lives of children and young people who had gone through difficult and traumatic times.

·       Helping children and young people to live a life free of crime and full of possibilities, helping them to achieve their full potential.

The Plan had been endorsed by the Youth Justice Management Group and the Building Communities Together Partnership.

Councillor Dominic Boeck added his praise for the report and the work of the Youth Justice service. He noted that many of the excellent interventions were supported by grant funding and Councillor Boeck was concerned that this funding was due to come to an end. He queried what action was being undertaken to ensure this funding was maintained.

Councillor Foot agreed this document was something to be proud of. He praised all those involved for their work and for the achievement of an Outstanding service. He was pleased to note that the main points recorded in the Plan from children and young people were aligned with those raised by volunteers. Councillor Foot felt this highlighted the good connection between the children and young people, and the volunteers.

Councillor Codling explained that the grant funding referred to was renewed annually by the Youth Justice Board. She would work hard to ensure that the funding remained for West Berkshire.

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 (Agenda item 12 – Motion A) submitted in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs relating to the Experimental Traffic Order for Newbury Town Centre.

The Chairman informed Council that should the Motion be proposed and seconded, then it would be referred to the Executive for consideration, in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.6.1, as the detail of the Motion fell within the remit of the Executive.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Adrian Abbs and seconded by Councillor Ross Mackinnon:

That the Council:

“Modify the Experimental Traffic Order for Newbury Town Centre which allowed for the trial of an alternative traffic flow model for Newbury Northbrook Street, Park Way and Wharf Road.

This Council notes the ongoing experimental traffic order restricting vehicle access to Newbury High Street from 10:00am to 11:00pm. While intended to foster pedestrian safety, economic support of business and environmental benefits, the current closure may inadvertently limit accessibility for key demographics and constrain local trade, particularly during evening hours.

This motion proposes an alternative trial scheme that:

1.    Permits One-Way Vehicular Flow:
Allow traffic to enter Newbury Bartholomew St in a single south-to-north direction via Northbrook Street, with return access facilitated through Park Way. This flow maintains a controlled environment while improving connectivity and reducing congestion on feeder roads.

2.    Alternative of traffic return via A339

If for some reason it in not possible to use Park Way and Wharf Road as the north to south route then the A339 can be designated as the route from north to south in the town.

3.    Introduces Short-Stay Parking Incentives:
Establish free short-stay parking bays—limited to 15-30 minutes—along designated sections of the Bartholomew Street and Northbrook Street. These locations would be monitored via time-discs or possibly digital enforcement mechanisms to ensure turnover.

Rationale and Community Benefit:

·       Economic Revitalisation:
Offering limited-time free parking encourages brief shopping visits and supports “in-and-out” transactions critical to retailers.

·       Cultural and Nightlife Engagement:
Enhanced evening access and short-stay flexibility promote casual dining, entertainment, and spontaneous engagement with nightlife—key to nurturing a vibrant town centre.

·       Inclusion and Accessibility:
Facilitates visits by older residents, families with young children, and individuals with limited mobility, who may be disadvantaged under the current arrangement.

·       Better correlation with Time of Year
As winter comes pedestrian traffic is likely to fall and easier access to shops, restaurants and event locations gains greater value.

·       Environmental Monitoring:
The trial should run concurrently with environmental and traffic flow assessments to ensure impacts remain within sustainable thresholds.

This Council urges officers to explore feasibility, consult stakeholders including residents and local businesses, and prepare a report outlining implementation logistics, costs, and KPIs for review within three months.”

Councillor Abbs spoke to the Motion and explained that he was pleased that pedestrianisation had been introduced for the hours outlined. This was something he had campaigned for whilst part of the Liberal Democrat Group.

However, he felt it was timely to review its implementation and progress, alongside the Newbury BID. In particular, there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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.

Continuation of meeting – in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 3, point 10.8, Council supported the motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore proceeded with the remainder of the meeting.

Details of the Member question and answer session is available from the following link: Q&As.