Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 20 June 2023 and 17 July 2023.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 20 June 2023 and 17 July 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

Members noted the updates on actions from the previous meetings.

In relation to the Call-In of the Executive Decision on Newbury Sports Hub (revised costs and permission to sign the Development Management Agreement), it was noted that the Commission had asked for costs to be provided. Officers had confirmed that a report would go to Executive in November, and that this would not come back to the Scrutiny Commission, which was the correct process.

The Chairman had attended the meeting of the Executive on 6 July 2023 where the Scrutiny Commission’s recommendations in relation to the call-in had been presented. She had read out a statement to say that she was unhappy with the report, which she felt conflated the content of the call-in with the Scrutiny Commission resolution. The report had not been approved by her nor the Executive Portfolio Holder, and it was requested that this be addressed for future reports from the Scrutiny Commission. Also, she requested that where multiple officers contributed to a report, all names should be included on the report, or it should be changed to the most senior officer who signed it off.

Members noted that Mr Alan Pearce had written to the Leader, Scrutiny Commission Chairman and Chief Executive seeking reimbursement of his legal costs for the judicial review. The Western Area Planning Committee had been told that the Sports Hub would be a replacement for the Faraday Road facility, but District Planning Committee had been told that it would not be a replacement. Two reports to Executive had indicated it was a replacement, but at the Judicial Review, the Council had stated that it was not a replacement. The Chairman indicated that it was the role of the Scrutiny Commission to hold the Executive to account and to be transparent.

It was noted that there was still money in the Capital Budget for the Sports Hub and planning permission was extant. It was suggested that the Commission may wish to review this matter again after the next meeting of the Executive and call witnesses as part of that review. A previous call-in request in January 2022 had asked for a Task and Finish Group to be set up to review the Sports Hub. The Chairman indicated that she would discuss this with Councillor Lee Dillon, who had been one of Members who had submitted that call-in request.

The Chairman indicated that she would be briefed by officers on the Executive report on the Sports Hub, and she undertook to share any figures about costs incurred with the other Members of the Commission and give them the opportunity to provide feedback.

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.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

Purpose: Meeting in its capacity as West Berkshire Council’s Crime and Disorder Committee, to receive a presentation from the Building Communities Together Partnership.

Paul Coe (Interim Executive Director – People) and DCI Emily Evans (Thames Valley Police) presented the Community Safety Update (Agenda Item 6).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Residents wanted 20 mph speed limits in Eastbury and Lambourn High Street, and to reduce the speed limit to 40 mph on sections of the B4000, but there was opposition from Thames Valley Police (TVP). Members also asked about enforcement of speeding and traffic offences.

·       It was confirmed that the Traffic Team was shared with Hampshire Police. Although they did carry out enforcement, it was more challenging for them to cover villages.  Neighbourhood Teams also carried out enforcement on occasions. The Police could respond to local concerns about safety by campaigning for reductions in speed limits and Members were encouraged to contact their local sergeant. The Police also supported community speed watch initiatives.

·       Members highlighted ongoing drugs problems in Lambourn.

·       It was explained that the Police relied on local intelligence, particularly in smaller villages. Sharing information allowed them to target particular areas. Patrols were being stepped up in parts of Hungerford in response to local issues with drugs.

·       Members requested details of officers in the local neighbourhood teams.

Action: DCI Evans to provide details of neighbourhood officers.

·       Speeding issues on A339 Sandleford Link were highlighted as a concern and there had been a recent fatality there. Also, issues with speeding were highlighted on Lambourn Road and Grove Road. Members asked about the use of speed enforcement vans.

·       It was confirmed that TVP did not use speed enforcement vans, but they did undertake patrols. This was reliant on having the right number of officers. Due to the uplift in officers, the recent focus had been on supporting front-line teams.

·       It was noted that the Home Secretary had said that every theft should be investigated, but the Chair of the Police Federation had indicated that officers were “stretched beyond human limits”. Members asked if TVP had sufficient resources and sought assurance that local thefts would be investigated.

·       TVP stated that all burglaries to dwellings were attended by Police officers. Where possible, the Burglary Team attended in the first instance to collect evidence. A recent burglary in Speen had been linked to a Slough offender who had subsequently been arrested. Statements would always be taken for thefts where there was a witness. TVP used a triage system – lower level offences may have a slower response, but they would always be investigated. Although TVP was stretched, crime levels were manageable.

·       Members appreciated the PCSOs in their areas, but asked for greater notice of surveys in future to allow messages to be disseminated within the community.

·       Issues were highlighted with young men racing cars on Sunday evenings through Aldermaston ward. This had been raised with TVP previously, but Members had been informed that there was little that could be done. However, Members felt that intelligence could be gathered about their activities to stop this activity.

·       Members were encouraged to report offences as they occurred.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Purpose: To report on the financial performance of the Council’s revenue budgets. This report is Quarter One for the 2023/24 financial year.

Joseph Holmes (Executive Director – Resources) presented the Revenue Financial Performance Report for Quarter One 2023/24 (Agenda Item 7).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members asked for clarification about the financial pressures facing the Planning Service.

·       It was explained that fees did not cover the cost of processing planning applications, resulting in a subsidy to the taxpayer of around £5 million per year nationally. Planning fees were set by central government and a bill was going through Parliament seeking to increase them, but this had been delayed. The uplift in fees had been expected earlier in the year, so an in-year financial pressure had resulted.

·       Concerns were expressed that the Council may not have sufficient funds to achieve its net zero carbon emissions ambitions, and it was suggested that the wording in the Environmental Impacts section of the report should be amended to reflect this.

·       Officers felt that the short-term environmental impact related to this particular paper would not affect the Council’s net zero ambitions. This would be more relevant for the budget reports for 2024/25.

·       Members asked what assets the Council was looking to sell, and whether care homes may be sold.

·       It was stated that all assets were under review. Assets not currently in use could be realised more quickly. Any proposals would require Executive approval. It was confirmed that the sale of care homes was not being considered at this time.

·       There was a question about the impact of the People Directorate’s recruitment and retention programme.

·       Officers indicated that this was starting to be effective with an increase in the number of permanent staff and a reduction in agency staff. Monthly agency spend with Commensura had fallen from around £750,000 per month to circa £570,000. There had been positive articles in the trade press about the benefits of working at West Berkshire Council. The change was considered to be a step in the right direction, but more work was needed.

·       Members noted that the biggest overspend was in Children’s and Family Services. There was little that could be done to reduce placement and legal costs, which meant that agency costs had to be the key focus. Members asked what factors were proving attractive in recruiting permanent staff.

·       26 agency staff had transferred to permanent roles in the last four months. The new Talent Attraction Business Partner was felt to be instrumental in encouraging new staff to join the Council. Officers also highlighted that the Council was trying to grow its fostering and adoption offer, since this was cheaper than residential homes, with better outcomes for children.

·       Members asked about recruitment outside the Commensura contract.

·       Spend on agency staff was around £12 million in 2022/23, of which nearly £10 million was through the Commensura contract. Reasons for recruiting through other providers included: the need to recruit to specialist posts; and the need to recruit rapidly during the pandemic or in response to unexpected changes in government policy. The Financial Review Panel (FRP) was key to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Purpose: The capital financing performance report provided to Members reports on the under or over spends against the Council’s approved capital programme and associated capital financing implications.  This report presents the provisional outturn position for financial year 2023/24 as forecast at quarter one, and future borrowing requirement for financial year 2024/25 which is funded from the Council’s revenue budget.

Joseph Holmes (Executive Director – Resources) presented the Capital Financing Report for Financial Year 2023/24 Quarter One (Agenda Item 8).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members asked how the Council’s borrowing to income ratio compared to those of other local authorities.

·       It was noted that the Officer for Local Government (Oflog) had this information on its website. West Berkshire was towards the top of the fourth quartile or bottom of the third quartile. Some of the local authorities towards the top of the list were those who had featured in the news in recent weeks.

·       Clarification was sought as to why the Council was ‘overborrowed’.

·       Officers indicated that the Council had not undertaken borrowing in the last four years apart for the Community Bond. This was because a number of schemes had been delayed. Also, during Covid, the Council had a strong cash balance, which prevented the need to borrow. Delaying long-term borrowing was beneficial, since current interest rates were higher than they had been recently.

·       A question was asked about the extent to which borrowing costs were exposed to shocks in the financial system.

·       It was confirmed that borrowing rates were fixed at low interest rates. The Council did undertake some short-term borrowing for cash flow purposes. In the longer term, interest rates were forecast to fall and the Council did not want to be tied into higher rates in the long-term. It was noted that some local authorities were overexposed to higher short-term rates.

·       It was noted that no reprofiling had been requested. Members asked if there was a cut-off date for requests in order not to lose the funding.

·       It was explained that the Council had moved to a 10 year capital strategy, which offered additional flexibility for the capital programme. Requests for reprofiling had to be made before year end. Requests were approved through the Executive and would come through the Scrutiny Commission.

·       Members asked about the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) scheme.

·       Officers indicated that some funding had been received for the LRIE scheme from the Local Enterprise Partnership and this would be used before the Council’s own funds. Securing external grants was a common reason for reprofiling spend.

·       A question was asked about why funds had been reprofiled for Brookfields School and whether this would have an impact on SEND children.

·       It was confirmed that the school was in a more positive position with respect to its own capital reserves, so there had been a discussion about who was going to pay for what elements. As a result, the Council’s spend had been pushed back.

·       Members noted that the SEND Strategy Infrastructure Delivery had been pushed back and asked why.

·       Officers indicated that options were being considered for this, including delivering better value through the government. However, the Council was committed to spend in this area.

·       Concern was expressed about deferring IT spend, and Members sought reassurance around security patching and ongoing support.

·       Officers confirmed that there support would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Purpose: To agree the terms of reference and membership for any task and finish groups that the Scrutiny Commission may wish to appoint to undertake in-depth scrutiny reviews.

The Commission considered appointments to task and finish groups and any associated terms of reference (Agenda Item 9)

It was noted that Members of the Covid and Recovery Task and Finish Group would be:

·       Councillor Dominic Boeck

·       Councillor Carolyne Culver

·       Councillor Patrick Clark

·       Councillor Paul Dick

·       Councillor Erik Pattenden

Councillor Dominic Boeck volunteered to act as Chairman of the Task and Finish Group.

It was noted that the Task Group was originally scheduled to meet in September, but this had to be pushed back to October for various reasons. Conversations had started with officers regarding evidence for the first session.

Action: Gordon Oliver to liaise with Councillor Dominic Boeck regarding the Covid and Recovery Task and Finish Group.

Purpose: To receive an update from the Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee.

The Chairman read out the following update from Councillor Martha Vickers on the work of the Health Scrutiny Committee (Agenda Item 10):

“On Tuesday this week, the Health Scrutiny Committee met for the second time this municipal year. The two substantive items on the agenda were Access to Primary Care and Continuing Healthcare.

“Representatives from Primary Care and the Integrated Care Board (ICB) presented papers and answered Members questions. The key issues discussed regarding Access to Primary Care included the Capacity and Access Improvement Plan, the use of Additional Roles, and communications with the public. The Continuing Healthcare item focussed on the peer review report and the ICB updated Members on the progress with the All Age Continuing Care Transformation Plan.

“There were also updates provided by the ICB and Healthwatch West Berkshire.

“The next Health Scrutiny Committee is on 12 December 2023. On the agenda will be children’s mental health and emotional wellbeing, and maternal mental health.  The Health Scrutiny Committee is in the process of determining the work programme for meetings in 2024. Members are welcome to put forward suggestions for items to be considered in the work programme.”

Members were advised to contact Councillor Vickers directly if they had any questions about the work of the Health Scrutiny Committee.

RESOLVED to note the update.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council’s Executive and to decide whether to review any of these items prior to the meeting indicated in the Forward Plan.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Executive Forward Plan for the period covering 1 August to 30 November 2023 (Agenda Item 11).

There was a question about what constituted a key decision. This was a decision that would have a significant impact on more than one ward, and / or a spend of £500,000 or more. 

Resolved that the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission.

The Commission considered its work programme for the 2023/24 municipal year (Agenda Item 12).

Members noted the following:

·       A proposal had come from Corporate Board for the Scrutiny Commission to review the Council’s proposals to improve Recruitment of Foster Carers.

·       A work planning session was planned for 19 September with Members of the Executive, senior officers, and Scrutiny Commission Members. This would make use of the PAPER methodology.

·       Members highlighted the Libraries Service as a topic for review. It was noted that the service was stretched because some parish councils were not contributing financially. The requested contributions represented a significant proportion of the parish councils’ precepts, and contributions were seen as double taxation. Some parishes had contributed to secure the mobile library service. It was noted that data was available about the number of residents in each parish who used the libraries. Members were discouraged from solely focusing on parish contributions. It was suggested that a minimum service could be to retain Newbury Library and close the others, but that would be unacceptable. Members noted that the service was last reviewed in 2017.

Action: Gordon Oliver to discuss the issues raised in relation to the Libraries Service with the Culture and Libraries Manager.

·       Residents had highlighted concerns about Royal Mail. Some areas were only getting post once a week. It was noted that the Royal Mail could be asked to attend, but could not be compelled to do so.

Action: Gordon Oliver to make an initial approach to the Royal Mail regarding attendance at a future meeting of the Scrutiny Commission.

RESOLVED that the work programme be noted.