Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for inability to attend the meeting (if any).

Apologies were received from Councillors Denise Gaines and Alan Macro, and from Richard Somner and Jo Stewart.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 8 June 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.

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.

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

A full transcription of the public and Member question and answer sessions is available from the following link: Transcription of Q&As.

Councillors or Members of the public may present any petition which they have received. These will normally be referred to the appropriate Committee without discussion.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

Purpose: the Council received a petition for debate at Full Council on the 1 December 2022. The petition set out “We, the undersigned, call upon WBC to adopt the following policy without delay: WBC will ensure that it charges the correct amounts of money due to it for any and all services for which it levies charges and will reimburse any resident or service user who has been charged in error or has been charged where no charge should have been levied.”

The petition was tabled for a debate as it had over 1,500 signatories. Following verification by officers the total verified signatories was below this threshold so has become an ‘ordinary petition’. The response to the petition therefore needs to return to a subsequent Executive.

Resolved that Executive:

·         Notes the petition and resolves to continue to ensure that the Council complies with the intent of its policy framework in income collection.

·         Aims for the Council to provide the best possible customer experience, and recently published its Customer Charter, which details the service levels it aspires to provide. It also explains what recourse is available to individuals or businesses who feel these have not been met. This would include those individuals or businesses who believe that they have been charged incorrectly or have been charged where no charge should have been levied. It is not the Council’s intention, nor will it be policy, to issue and collect charges that are incorrect or are not chargeable if appropriate procedures and form completion have been properly undertaken.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 14 July 2023, then it will be implemented.

Councillor Jeff Brooks introduced and proposed a report (Agenda Item 6), which provided a response to a petition presented to Council on 1 December 2022 requesting that ‘WBC ensure that it charges the correct amounts of money due to it for any and all services for which it levies charges and will reimburse any resident or service user who has been charged in error or has been charged where no charge should have been levied.’

Councillor Brooks apologised to the petitioner for the length of time it had taken to provide a response and commented that the constitution would be amended to include a four month timeframe for responding to petitions.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon queried how recommendation 2.3 within the report differed from the practice of the previous administration. Councillor Brooks acknowledged that he had not looked but was content with the statement as to how the current administration would act.

Councillor Iain Cottingham seconded the recommendations within the report.

RESOLVED that: Executive

·         Note the petition and resolve to continue to ensure that the Council complies with the intent of its policy framework in income collection.

·         Aims for the Council to provide the best possible customer experience, and recently published its Customer Charter, which details the service levels it aspires to provide. It also explains what recourse is available to individuals or businesses who feel these have not been met. This would include those individuals or businesses who believe that they have been charged incorrectly or have been charged where no charge should have been levied. It is not the Council’s intention, nor will it be policy, to issue and collect charges that are incorrect or are not chargeable if appropriate procedures and form completion have been properly undertaken.

Purpose: to report on the receipt of a 1208 signature petition entitled ‘Save the ReadiBus’, which calls on the Administration to ‘review their decision on funding the ReadiBus service; making sure that this important community service remains available for those who need it, when they need it, for the long term’.

The Council provides funding for community bus services operating in the district, which is distributed based on operating costs, allowing enhanced basic payments for different vehicle types operated, the types of customers served, with the predominant factor being passenger journeys from the previous year.  The Council has approved funding for this to continue in 2023/24, as part of the budget set on the 2 March 2023.

Resolved that Executive:

·         Note the request detailed within the petition, and approve the removal of the confidentiality clause from the service level agreement (SLA) with community transport operators.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 14 July 2023, then it will be implemented.

Councillor Lee Dillon introduced and proposed a report (Agenda Item 7), which provided a response to a petition presented to Council on 12 January 2023 requesting that the Council ‘review their decision on funding the ReadiBus service; making sure that this important community service remains available for those who need it, when they need it, for the long term’.

Councillor Dominic Boeck suggested that a confidentiality clause was standard in contract templates and acted to safeguard both parties. Councillor Dillon responded that it was no longer a standard clause given the recommendation within the report, but acknowledged that there may be a need to include such a clause in the case of a commercial contract.

In response to a query from Councillor Ross Mackinnon, Councillor Dillon confirmed that the clause would also be removed from the thirteen other community transport operator contracts within West Berkshire.

Councillor David Marsh commented that he strongly supported the recommendations within the report and the previous report.

Councillor Martin Colston seconded the recommendations within the report.

RESOLVED that:  Executive

·         Note the request detailed within the petition, and approve the removal of the confidentiality clause from the service level agreement (SLA) with community transport operators.

Purpose: to provide an assessment of childcare sufficiency in West Berkshire.

Resolved that:

·         The Early Years Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2022 was reviewed by the Executive Committee to inform elected members on how we are meeting our duty to secure sufficient childcare.

·         Executive Committee recommend the report is actively promoted on the Council’s websites to make it accessible to parents/carers and other interested parties.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 14 July 2023, then it will be implemented.

Councillor Heather Codling introduced and proposed a report (Agenda Item 8), which demonstrated the childcare sufficiency within West Berkshire.

Councillor Dominic Boeck thanked Councillor Codling for presenting the report and commended the work of officers in the early years setting, particularly during the challenging time during the Covid pandemic.

Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that the report would be useful evidence for the Scrutiny Commission due to the forthcoming requirement from September 2026 to review wraparound care.  

Councillor Culver noted that page 44 of the Agenda pack referred to Victoria Ward which did not exist in West Berkshire, and further listed West Ilsley rather than Ridgeway as part of the Downlands Ward. It was agreed that the relevant amendments would be made to the report.

Councillor David Marsh queried whether there were any steps that the Council could take to encourage and attract more staff to the sector. Councillor Codling responded that she would be working with officers to address the issue. 

Councillor Adrian Abbs seconded the recommendations within the report.

Resolved that:

·         The Early Years Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2022 was reviewed by the Executive Committee to inform elected members on how we are meeting our duty to secure sufficient childcare.

·         Executive recommend the report is actively promoted on the Council’s websites to make it accessible to parents/carers and other interested parties.

Purpose: to provide details of forthcoming supply, service and works contract awards that will have a contract value in excess of £2.5m and as such will require approval from the Executive during the next quarter.  This report provides the Executive with visibility of all high value contracting activity and the opportunity to request further information regarding any of the contracts identified.  It follows the work by a Constitution task group over last two years and resulting recommendations.

Resolved that Executive:

·         Delegate authority to an individual (Service Director, Head of Service or Executive Director) to proceed with the award of the contracts in table [4.11] in consultation with the portfolio holder following the completion of the appropriate tender process and Procurement Board approval of a Contract Award report.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 14 July 2023, then it will be implemented.

Councillor Jeff Brooks introduced and proposed a report (Agenda Item 9), that provided details of forthcoming supply, service and works contract awards that would have a contract value in excess of £2.5m and as such would require approval from the Executive during the next quarter. Councillor Brooks noted that the Berkshire Community Equipment Service was a particularly large contract as it covered the whole of Berkshire.

Councillor Adrian Abbs noted the two environmental contracts which would provide further electric vehicle charging points within Council car parks, and rooftop solar panels on Council buildings.

Councillor Heather Codling highlighted the Kennet Valley Expansion Project which would provide an additional twelve spaces for Primary aged SEMH/ASD pupils.

In response to a query from Councillor David Marsh, Councillor Abbs confirmed that the Electric Vehicle charging points would be within dedicated bays for electric vehicles.

Recommendation (Vote to be taken in Part II):

·         Executive to delegate authority to an individual (Service Director, Head of Service or Executive Director) to proceed with the award of the contracts in table [4.11] in consultation with the portfolio holder following the completion of the appropriate tender process and Procurement Board approval of a Contract Award report.

Purpose: Scrutiny Commission has reviewed the request to call-in the Executive decision taken of 23 March 2023 in respect of ‘Newbury Sports Hub - revised costs and seeking permission to sign Development Management Agreement (EX4332)’ as set out in the Council’s Constitution (Part 6.9 sections 13-17).

The call-in was reviewed by the Scrutiny Commission on 20 June 2023. This report presents the findings of Scrutiny Commission for the Executive to consider.

Resolved that Executive:

Reconsiders its original decision of 23 March 2023 in respect of ‘Newbury Sports Hub - revised costs and seeking permission to sign Development Management Agreement (EX4332)’, with particular consideration given to the following aspects:

·         costs incurred;

·         the Council should conduct a new value for money review taking into account:

o   business plan based on increased costs;

o   penalty fees associated with not proceeding with the original scheme as planned;

o   any implications for the new Leisure Contract; and

o   the need to revisit the Playing Pitch Strategy should the Sports Hub not be progressed.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      the item has been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, or has been the subject of a review undertaken by another body within the preceding six months.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

Councillor Janine Lewis introduced and proposed a report (Agenda Item 9), relating to a Call-In of a previous Executive Decision concerning Newbury Sports Hub.

Councillor Carolyne Culver as Chair of Scrutiny Commission commented that neither herself nor Councillor Lewis had seen the report prior to its publication. Councillor Culver stated that her comments should in no way be seen as a criticism of the author of the paper, but noted that the recommendation that the Council undertake a new value for money review had not been agreed by Scrutiny Commission at its meeting on 20 June 2023.  Councillor Culver suggested that the report implied that Scrutiny Commission agreed that the Sports Hub project should proceed, whereas minutes from the meeting reflected that no value for money review had been agreed.

Councillor Culver further noted that the ‘Implications and Impact Assessment’ section of the report did not reflect the comments made at Scrutiny Commission. Councillor Culver requested that Executive take note of the Scrutiny Commission’s recommendations when making any future decision on the project. Councillor Lee Dillon agreed that due attention would be paid to the Scrutiny Commission’s proposals. 

Councillor Howard Woollaston suggested that Newbury Football Club would now have at least three to four years without a viable pitch to play on, when they could have had a pitch the following year had the project proceeded.

Councillor David Marsh suggested that the statement within the ‘Property implication’ section of the report that ‘An alternative option would involve construction of a facility on an alternative site, which has not yet been identified’ was incorrect as the Executive had identified an alternative site.

Councillor Dillon explained that the report was part of due process and that a report outlining the Executive’s fully phased plan for the Faraday Road site would be returning to a future Executive meeting. 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon expressed doubt that a better facility than that proposed at the Sports Hub could be provided at Faraday Road. 

Resolved that: Executive

Reconsiders its original decision of 23 March 2023 in respect of ‘Newbury Sports Hub - revised costs and seeking permission to sign Development Management Agreement (EX4332)’, with particular consideration given to the following aspects:

·         costs incurred;

·         the Council should conduct a new value for money review taking into account:

o   business plan based on increased costs;

o   penalty fees associated with not proceeding with the original scheme as planned;

o   any implications for the new Leisure Contract; and

o   the need to revisit the Playing Pitch Strategy should the Sports Hub not be progressed.

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

Councillor Lee Dillon clarified that the Executive were members of the Liberal Democrats and not the Liberal party, and consequently any questions referring to Liberal policy in the future would not be answered.

A full transcription of the public and Member question and answer sessions are available from the following link: Transcription of Q&As.

RECOMMENDATION: that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items as it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information of the description contained in the paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 specified in brackets in the heading of each item. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution refers.

RESOLVED that: members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as contained in Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution also refers.

(Paragraph 6 – information relating to proposed action to be taken by the Local Authority)

Purpose: to provide details of forthcoming supply, service and works contract awards that will have a contract value in excess of £2.5m and as such will require approval from the Executive during the next quarter.  This report provides the Executive with visibility of all high value contracting activity and the opportunity to request further information regarding any of the contracts identified.  It follows the work by a Constitution task group over last two years and resulting recommendations.

Resolved that Executive:

·         Delegate authority to Procurement Board as stated in main report.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 14 July 2023, then it will be implemented.

(Paragraph 6 - information relating to proposed action to be taken by the Local Authority)

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 12), concerning details of forthcoming supply, service and works contract awards that would have a contract value in excess of £2.5m and as such would require approval from the Executive during the next quarter.

RESOLVED that: the recommendations in the exempt report be agreed.

Other options considered: the approval of a consolidated contract award report is considered the most efficient way of meeting the governance requirements of the Constitution, therefore no alternative proposals are being made.