Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 November 2013.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

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. (Note: There were no questions submitted relating to items not included on this Agenda.)

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.

(CSP: 2 & 7)

Purpose: To propose the introduction of a Community Champion Award Scheme which recognises the contribution volunteers make to West Berkshire.

Resolved that the proposed Community Champion Award Scheme be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 27^th December 2013, then it will be implemented.

(CSP: 2, 4, 8 & 9)

Purpose: To inform Members that under the Localism Act 2011 (Regulation 110 Duty to Cooperate) that the unitary authorities in Berkshire have produced two Memorandums of Understanding to guide work on Strategic Planning and on Minerals and Waste Planning.

Resolved that the Council enter into the Memorandums of Understanding in relation to Strategic Planning and Minerals and Waste Planning.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 27^th December 2013, then it will be implemented.

(CSP: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9)

Purpose: To report Q2 outturns against the key accountable measures and activities contained in the Council’s performance framework, and to report by exception those measures/activities not achieved or behind schedule and cite remedial action/the impact it has had.

Resolved that progress against the key accountable measures and activities contained in the Council’s performance framework be noted.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning Quarter 2 outturns against the key accountable measures and activities contained in the Council’s performance framework and which reported, by exception, those measures/activities not achieved or behind schedule and cited remedial action being taken and the impact it had had.

In introducing the report, Councillor Roger Croft explained that across this reporting framework as a whole, 48 key accountable measures were captured. Of these, 11 were annual measures – reported once a year. Therefore, the Council was able to report against 37 outturns.

Of these 37, 30 were reported as green – on track for meeting target by year end and 7 were reported as amber – behind schedule but still intended to reach intended outturn by year end.

The report began with contextual measures concerning the State of the District and Councillor Croft made particular reference to:

·               the fall in domestic burglaries of 32%

·               a 24% drop in the number of ‘working age’ Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants compared to Quarter 2 last year

·               the fact that unemployment in West Berkshire was 1.3%, which was an indicator of the vibrant economy in West Berkshire

·               a 39% drop in youth unemployment bringing it down to 264 people or 2.5% compared to a South East claimant rate of 3.6%.

The report then considered measures of volume indicators for Council services and some changes had been made to the report to illustrate volume indicators in a graphical format. Councillor Croft highlighted the following points from this section of the report:

·               A 22% drop in clients aged over 65 in receipt of a community based service.

·               A 19% drop in safeguarding referrals received.

·               A 21% increase in Looked After Children cases going up from 127 in the same quarter last year to 154 this year.

·               A 32% increase in Freedom of Information requests.

Councillor Croft then turned to the section which considered performance against the Council’s main strategic priorities and highlighted the following points:

·               Caring for and protecting the vulnerable had 23 reported measures, 17 green and 6 amber.

·               Promoting a Vibrant District had 7 reported measures, 6 green and 1 amber.

·               Improving Education had 3 reported measures, all reporting green.

·               Protecting the Environment had 3 measures, all reporting green.

Councillor Croft commended the report and asked the Executive to note the report and the explanatory notes.

Councillor Alan Law referred to the low number of JSA claimants which he believed demonstrated his view that while West Berkshire had been affected by the economic downturn, it was now leading the country in improved employment figures. He also pointed out that during the course of the last year, the number of young people claiming JSA was down by 39%.

Councillor Roger Hunneman made reference to the 4 measures reported as amber which related to vulnerable older people and adults, and stated that he would like to see more action being taken to improve performance in this area. This was an area he would continue to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

(CSP: 1, 5, 6 & 8)

Purpose: This report recommends the delegation of procurement functions in respect of public health contracts to the Director of Public Health to facilitate the joint procurement of such contracts by the six Berkshire unitary authorities.  It is also recommended that authority be delegated for the amendment of the inter-authority agreement entered into by the Berkshire authorities put in place upon the transfer of the public health function to local authorities, to provide for the management, administration and operation of contracts to be jointly procured.

Resolved that:

(1)         the Executive delegates to the Director of Public Health Authority to jointly procure with the other Berkshire unitary authorities contracts for the future provision of public health services, subject to consultation on each such procurement with the Joint Public Health Advisory Board;

(2)         the Executive waives the use of its Contract Rules of Procedure relating to these joint procurements and that the contract standing orders of Bracknell Forest Borough Council apply in accordance with the Joint Agreement and following consultation with the Joint Public Health Advisory Board;

(3)         authority be delegated to the Head of Public Health and Wellbeing (in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Head of Legal Services) to negotiate and conclude an amendment to the inter-authority Public Health agreement, to provide for the administration, management and operation of future jointly procured Public Health contracts.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision this would cause the Council serious financial implications or could compromise the Council's position.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning the delegation of procurement functions in respect of public health contracts to the Director of Public Health to facilitate the joint procurement of such contracts by the six Berkshire unitary authorities. It was also recommended that authority be delegated for the amendment of the inter-authority agreement entered into by the Berkshire authorities put in place upon the transfer of the public health function to local authorities, to provide for the management, administration and operation of contracts to be jointly procured.

Bracknell Forest Borough Council would act as the host authority with the Director of Public Health being available to each of the unitary authorities so that she could discharge the functions of the Director of Public Health on behalf of each of them.

The joint agreement entered into on 31^st March 2013 had not included the future procurement of renewal or replacement public health contracts but it was felt that the joint procurement of such contracts would be in the interests of all Berkshire unitaries through the achievement of economies of scale. In order to put in place such an arrangement the joint agreement would need to be amended largely due to the fact that the existing agreement could be terminated on notice expiring on 31^st March 2016 whilst future jointly procured contracts were likely to extend beyond that date.

RESOLVED that:

(1)          The Executive delegates to the Director of Public Health Authority to jointly procure with the other Berkshire unitary authorities contracts for the future provision of public health services, subject to consultation on each such procurement with the Joint Public Health Advisory Board.

(2)          The Executive waives the use of its Contract Rules of Procedure relating to these joint procurements and that the contract standing orders of Bracknell Forest Borough Council apply in accordance with the Joint Agreement and following consultation with the Joint Public Health Advisory Board.

(3)          Authority be delegated to the Head of Public Health and Wellbeing (in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and Head of Legal Services) to negotiate and conclude an amendment to the inter-authority Public Health agreement, to provide for the administration, management and operation of future jointly procured Public Health contracts.

Reason for the decision: To enable shared procurements of public health contracts to be undertaken by the Berkshire unitary authorities economically, efficiently and effectively.

Other options considered: The Council could carry out its own individual procurement of public health contracts but at increased cost both financially and in terms of staff resources.

(CSP: 2, 4 & 6)

Purpose:  To consider the sale of the former Control Tower at Greenham Common.

Resolved that:

(1)    Subject to confirmation of the funding package detailed in Part II that the Control Tower and associated land be offered to Greenham Parish Council, but

(2)    In the absence of such confirmation by 24^th January 2014 then the Control Tower be offered to one of the other bidders.

It is recommended that Officers in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to be given delegated authority to agree the terms of the sale to the purchaser and to exchange contracts by 31^st March 2014.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 27^th December 2013, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning the sale of the former Control Tower at Greenham Common.

Councillor Alan Law outlined the process that had been undertaken for the consideration of selling the Control Tower. As the Control Tower was listed as a property of community value the Community Right to Bid process outlined in the Localism Act had to be followed.

The property was put on the open market in the Spring of 2013 and seven offers were received. Following consideration of these offers by the Asset Management Group, a shortlist of three offers was formed. All three shortlisted candidates were invited to provide a presentation of their schemes which was followed by a question and answer session. The information obtained from the presentations and that previously supplied was then assessed on the following basis:

(1)          Capital receipt offered.

(2)          Capital funding secured.

(3)          Funding to run the community offering and strength of business plan.

(4)          Financial covenant strength and track record of applicant.

(5)          Contribution to local economy – e.g. which groups would benefit, use of building by local interest groups, availability of public access.

(6)          Interaction/consideration with adjoining use of Greenham Common.

There was also a need to take account of additional factors such as the petition submitted, signed by 1,292 signatories, which requested that the Control Tower should be in the hands of the community, for the benefit of the community; and the fact that the Community Right to Bid process had to be followed for the first time.

Councillor Law considered that the community benefit of the Greenham Parish Council bid outweighed the difference between their offer and that of the other shortlisted candidates and he therefore endorsed the recommended action outlined in the report for the Control Tower and associated land to be offered to Greenham Parish Council. However, this was subject to confirmation and acceptance of the funding package detailed in the Part II report by 24 January 2014. In the absence of this confirmation by 24 January 2014, the Control Tower would be offered to one of the other bidders.

Councillor Pamela Bale, who was Portfolio Holder for this area of activity when the Control Tower was listed as an asset of community value under the Community Right to Bid, was pleased that the stage had been reached where an acceptable offer had been received.

Councillor Hilary Cole, Portfolio Holder for Countryside, looked forward to the time when the Control Tower would be developed as this would enhance Greenham Common and make it more attractive for the community.

Councillor Gordon Lundie commented that he had watched with interest the developments of this site for some time. Members were of the view that it should be developed for the benefit of the community, which would allow for the reflection of the important role of the Greenham Common Base and that played by peace groups on the site. He was delighted with the proposal being recommended to the Executive.

Councillor Lundie was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

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

A question standing in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams on the subject of diverting heavy lorries via Newtown Straight to the A34 to avoid using Newbury Town Centre was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Transport (Operational), Emergency Planning and Newbury Vision.

“What was the involvement of the Portfolio Holder in the sudden decision to withdraw the extended SWEP (Severe Weather Emergency Protocol) arrangements for those who find themselves here without shelter in winter?”

A question standing in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers on the subject of the withdrawal of the extended Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Strategy & Performance, Housing, ICT & Corporate Support, Legal and Strategic Support.

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 9.10.4 of the Constitution refers.

(Paragraph 3 - information relating to financial/business affairs of particular person)

(Paragraph 5 - information relating to legal privilege)

(CSP: 2, 4 & 6)

Purpose:  To consider the sale of the Control Tower, Greenham Common.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 27^th December 2013, then it will be implemented.

(Paragraph 1 - information relating to an individual)

(Paragraph 2 - information identifying an individual)

(CSP: 8)

Purpose:  To set out the staffing implications which are likely to result from the setting of the Council’s 2014/15 revenue budget.

To seek approval to make the redundancy payments associated with the required staffing implications.

Resolved that the recommendations set out in the exempt report be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision this would cause the Council serious financial implications or could compromise the Council's position.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.