Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 17 April 2012.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 10 May 2012.

Councillor Jeff Brooks in the Chair.

Councillor Jeff Brooks informed the Commission that as apologies had been received from Councillor Brian Bedwell, he would be chairing this meeting.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 May 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Item 4, 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 David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Item 10, 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.

To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

(Councillor Marcus Franks declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4 by virtue of the fact that he was employed by Sovereign Housing Association. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission received an update on actions from the previous meeting.  Comments were received regarding the following items:

2.1 – An additional, verbal update was received with regard to encouraging school governing bodies to include Councillors in their membership. The Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People had contacted the Head Teacher at St Bartholomew’s School and received a positive response, and Kennet School already had Councillors sitting on their Board.  Park House School was still to be approached.

2.3 – Councillor Tony Vickers expressed surprise that the Portfolio Holder for Housing had shown no concern regarding the numbers of people presenting as homeless.  He was concerned that the Portfolio Holder had misunderstood the issue raised at the last meeting of the Commission.  Councillor Vickers clarified that the issue had not related to the red performance indicator that measured the number of people presenting as homeless where homelessness was relieved, but to the number of people who were homeless, had completed a form through the Council’s Housing team, and were considered to be homeless as a result.  He informed the Commission, that there had been a four-fold increase in numbers at each of these stages.

Councillor David Rendel asked for the letter that had been sent to the Portfolio Holder for Housing to be circulated amongst the members of the Commission in order to understand the questions that had been responded to.  Councillor Rendel believed that the original question had referenced the increase in people who had applied for housing, and those who had been found to be homeless; however the response given related to people who did not require housing or where housing had been found.  He noted that the number of applications had increased, and concluded that the percentage of those classed as homeless had decreased as a result. Councillor Rendel considered that the Council’s ability to deal with people who applied as homeless was worsening and expressed concern at the magnitude of the increase in homeless applications from 36 to 169 between 2010/11 and 2011/12.  Councillor Rendel noted that when compared to the 50 places available, 169 applications was a significant issue.

Councillor Emma Webster agreed with the comments raised by Councillor Vickers, and noted that she believed the performance indicator to be irrelevant to this matter, and the real issue lay beneath.  Councillor Webster requested that a second letter be sent, this time to the new Portfolio Holder for Housing, which reiterated the Commission’s concern.  Councillor Webster reminded the Commission that it was within their remit to convene a task group to scrutinise this issue further if adequate information was not forthcoming.

The Chairman reminded the Commission that the original request had been to arrange a crisis meeting with involved agencies,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider any items called-in by the requisite number of Members following the previous Executive meeting.

No items were called-in following the last Executive meeting.

Purpose: To review the Individual Decision relating to a proposed 50mph speed limit on the A4 Bath Road, Padworth.

The Commission considered a report concerning the Call In Item ID2470 – A4 Bath Road, Padworth – proposed 50mph speed limit which was approved by Individual Decision on 26 April 2012.

Councillor Brooks noted that although Councillor Dominic Boeck had signed the Call In, his ability to debate the issue as a member of the Commission had not been compromised.

(Note: 6:40pm - Councillor Virginia von Celsing joined the meeting)

Andrew Garratt summarised the background to this item, informing the Commission that in 2006 the national guidance for setting speed limits was altered.  As a result, the Council undertook a review of the speed limits on all ‘A’ and ‘B’ roads, and concluded that this section of the A4 in Padworth should be considered as a candidate for a reduced speed limit.  The proposal was considered by the Speed Limit Task Group consisting of two Officers, two Councillors and the Police, who requested further information before making their recommendation.  Additional surveys were carried out along the section of road, and in December 2010, the Task Group recommended that a 50mph speed limit be set for the single carriageway section.  During the consultation period, one objection was received.

Councillor David Betts clarified that several sections of the A4 had been reviewed by the Task Group, but that only this section had been identified for a reduction in the speed limit.  He further advised that Beenham Parish Council had contacted him to express their support for the new speed limit.

In response to questions received from the Commission, Andrew Garratt was able to clarify that:

·        There were a number of reasons for the recommendation to have been put forward.  These included the changes to national guidelines, the number of accidents, the current mean speed of vehicles, and the nature of the development and junctions along the stretch of road; 

·        There were a number of businesses and residential developments in this location with traffic entering and exiting those sites;

·        Over the last three years there had been 14 injury accidents, four of which had involved turning movements;

·        There had been three survey locations each identifying different mean speeds, the highest of which was 42mph.

Councillor Brooks asked for clarification as to why a speed limit was required when the mean speed limit along the road was lower than the proposed limit.  Andrew Garratt explained that the decision was not based solely on the mean speed of vehicles.  The number of accidents was also considered and guidance indicated that a visible speed limit would highlight the need for greater caution.

Councillor Vickers asked whether speed had been a contributory factor in the accidents that had occurred.  Andrew Garratt responded that it had been a factor in many of them especially where they involved a car moving at low speed when turning or preparing to turn onto or off the road being hit by a car travelling at speed.

The Commission considered the causes of two fatal accidents and were advised that one occurred in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Purpose: To consider any items proposed for a Councillor Call for Action.

There were no Councillor Call for Action.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

Councillor Vickers presented a petition containing 67 signatures requesting that the Council remedy the condition of development land in Craven Road.

Purpose: To update the Commission on preparations and events taking place within West Berkshire.

The Commission received a verbal report (Agenda Item 9) concerning preparations for the Olympic Games.

Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge introduced the item and made the following points:

·        The West Berkshire Enjoy website was up and running;

·        A newsletter had been prepared and distributed which contained a list of all the events occurring both for the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games;

·        Little progress had been made in organising a recognition event for local athletes taking part in the Olympic Games as details were still awaited from LOCOG of all those taking part;

·        The torch relay would reach West Berkshire on 11 July 2012, arriving in Calcot at 09:47.  The Council were considering security alongside logistical issues in partnership with local communities.

·        Approximately 12,000 children from schools across the area were preparing to watch the torch travel through the district.  The identification of suitable drop off and pick up points, as well as other facilities (for example toilets), were being considered along with locations on the route for the children to stand. 

·        Local businesses were being kept informed and potential issues being highlighted, such as avoiding deliveries during the relay, and ensuring employees could get to work.

Chris Jones informed the Commission that the torch relay would travel through Calcot, Theale, Thatcham, and Newbury town centre before a half hour stop at the Pinchington Lane Tesco store, after which it would be leaving West Berkshire. 

Councillor Webb requested clarification as to how the torch would progress through the area.  Chris Jones replied that for sections of the journey, the torch would be within a vehicle, and listed the following sections of the route as those where the torch would be carried by a runner:

·        1.6km through Calcot;

·        1.1km along Theale High Street;

·        3km through Thatcham, from Kennet Leisure Centre to Henwick Worthy Sports Ground;

·        From the BP garage on the A4 to Bear Lane in Newbury;

·        From Newbury Retail Park entrance to its final stop outside Tesco.

Councillor Beck enquired how communication was taking place with businesses as he expressed concern that small businesses might not be fully aware of the implications of the relay, and a single delivery taking place during the event could have serious consequences.  Councillor Jackson-Doerge explained that dialogue was ongoing with Newbury Town Council and Theale Parish Council amongst others to speak directly with businesses, and a leaflet was being produced for all businesses to raise awareness of what to expect on the day. 

Chris Jones informed the Commission that LOCOG had stringent rules regarding their branding and as a result the Trading Standards and Licensing teams were involved in the arrangements for and running of the day in order to ensure that these standards were maintained by local businesses.  However he noted that LOCOG appeared to be exercising their rules in a sensible manner.

Councillor Vickers asked whether LOCOG’s strict rules around advertising would be enforced in the area.  Chris Jones clarified that the intention was to prevent ‘guerrilla advertising’ aimed at hijacking camera coverage.  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel.

(Councillor David Rendel declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that his wife was a GP in West Berkshire. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel (HSP).

Councillor Webb reported that the Health Scrutiny Panel had not met since the last meeting of the Commission and was due to meet on 19 June 2012.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Resource Management Working Group.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 12) on the work of the Resource Management Working Group (RMWG).

Councillor Vickers reported to Members that the next meeting of the RMWG, scheduled for 12 June 2012, had been delayed until 2 July 2012 due to essential information not being available until this time.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from May to August 2012 and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan (Agenda Item 12) for the period covering May 2012 to August 2012.

Resolved that the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive, agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission, the Health Scrutiny Panel and the Resource Management Working Group for 2012/13.

The Commission considered its work programme and that of the Health Scrutiny Panel and Resource Management Working Group for 2011/12.

David Lowe advised the Commission that:

·        The Pot Holes Task Group was concluding and a report could be expected at the next meeting of the Commission;

·        The Housing Allocations Task Group had met for its first meeting.  He anticipated that this would be an ongoing piece of work that would not result in a final report, but would form part of the wider policy development process.  He confirmed that information from the Task Group would be presented to the Commission prior to any decision taken at Council.

Councillor Brooks proposed that the Commission review the provision of youth clubs across the district and how they might be encouraged.  Councillor Webb queried why this review needed to be carried out.  Councillor Brooks explained that the proposed review would consider why youth clubs were forming in some areas and not others.

Councillor Vickers commented that the RMWG would be considering asset management and how long the process of recycling assets took. 

Councillor Rendel asked whether the issue of Taceham House was fully Part 2.  Nick Carter explained that Part 1 issues to understand what the Council was seeking to achieve had been discussed, and the remaining contractual issues would be considered as Part 2 items.  Nick Carter offered to confirm this in writing.

RESOLVED that:

·        A review into the provision of youth clubs in West Berkshire be added to the work programme;

·        A written confirmation of the status of remaining discussions regarding Taceham House be circulated to Members of the Commission.