Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 July 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2025 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive an update on recommendations and actions following the previous Committee meeting.

Members reviewed the actions from the previous meetings. The following points were noted:

Members agreed to suspend standing orders to allow Ms Paula Saunderson to address the Committee on action points 116 and 143 in relation to activity of Thames Water and the Environment Agency.

116 and 143 (Thames Water and Environment Agency) – Councillor Carolyne Culver explained that an update on progress with the business case had been requested.

Ms Saunderson noted that evidence of severe pollution at the Northbrook had been presented when the issue was first raised in October 2023. Since that time, concerns had been raised of contamination from historic landfill which created a health hazard with ground water flooding in residential gardens. Thames Water had conducted research on the issues and had reported that no evidence had been found of foul water contaminating the Northbrook. The Environment Agency had advised that pollution testing of the Northbrook was not a priority for them at the present time with a number of competing priorities to manage.

Ms Saunderson asked that the Council take action as corporate landlord by requesting that testing take place of non-dissolvable pollutants and for cameras to be installed to monitor the situation and help identify ways to resolve it.

Councillor Culver confirmed that these would be actions for the Council to consider undertaking as landlord.

212 (Faraday Road Football Ground) – Councillor Nigel Foot explained that an update on the project plan and objectives for Faraday Road would be provided at the Executive on 25 September 2025.

223 (Thatcham Sewage Works) – Councillor Culver explained that the concerns with the sewage works being at capacity and action needing to be taken as a result were being progressed by the relevant Portfolio Holders (Councillors Stuart Gourley and Denise Gaines).

156, 157 and 232 (Waste Strategy) – discussion on the Waste Strategy was scheduled on the Work Programme for March 2026. This would need to cover implications of the move to three weekly black bin collections.

(Councillor Ross Mackinnon joined the meeting at 6.40pm)

236, 237 and 238 (Corporate Programme) – actions remained outstanding. It was however noted that the action relating to iTrent implementation would be incorporated within the work of the Project Management Task Group.

239 (Policy Development Group) – the next meeting of the Policy Development Group was provisionally scheduled for 2 October 2025 to discuss viable villages.

240 (Capital Financing Report Outturn 2024/25) – a response to the query as to why the project ‘Special Education Mental Health and Autism Spectrum Disorder Reduced Provision’ had slipped had been circulated prior to the meeting. This explained that £214,210 (the High Needs Provision Capital Allocations (HNPCA) Grant) had been slipped to 2025/26 to meet outstanding commitments, complete post occupation security works and final retention release.

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 Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Items 7 (Library Service) and 10a (Sports Hub) by virtue of the fact that he was the Shadow Portfolio Holder for both of these areas, but 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 debates and any votes on these matters.

To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions received at the meeting.

Purpose: To provide an update on the Council’s Transformation Programme.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 6) which provided an update on the outcomes delivered to date by the Council’s transformation programme, additional projects supported, recent departmental restructuring and leadership changes, and the planned development of a new forward looking transformation plan. This was an invest to save programme aiming to achieve efficiencies and effectiveness across the Council.

Councillor Vicky Poole, the Portfolio Holder for Transformation and the Corporate Programme, introduced the report. The transformation programme had been running for a two year period and in that time transformation had become widely embedded across the organisation. A number of successes had been achieved and in particular, Councillor Poole highlighted the Walnut Close temporary accommodation project. This had done much in supporting individuals who were homeless or at risk of becoming homeless as well as achieving cost avoidance and savings.

Gabrielle Mancini (Service Director for Transformation, Customer and ICT) explained that the decision was made two years ago to pull together transformation projects and the Service Director role was created to take this forward. Six projects were identified for the original programme based on the potential for savings and the outcomes that could be achieved. These six projects were as follows:

·       Business Support Review

·       Strategic Asset and Locality Service Delivery Model

·       Place Service Improvement Plan

·       Corporate Recruitment Review

·       Review of care home provision

·       Review of home to school transport

The LGA Peer Review, conducted in January 2024, endorsed the principles of the transformation programme, alongside noting the spread of projects across the Council. This contributed to holding an internal restructure which resulted in centralising transformation to better track progress and achieve benefits. Policy Development Group (PDG) meetings would be taking place to further progress transformation work.

Councillor Jeff Brooks took the opportunity to highlight further successes. Greater efficiencies had been achieved in recruitment processes and retention (as part of the Employee Value Proposition). Annual savings in the region of £5m-£6m were being achieved from reduced employment of freelance/temporary contractors.

He did however acknowledge that work to review care home provision had not progressed as had been hoped as private sector organisations had not come forward to potentially run the Council’s care homes. That said, greater efficiencies had been delivered in the care homes and savings achieved, whilst continuing, most importantly, to support residents with their care needs.

Councillor Brooks added that service areas were progressing transformation, beyond the six specific projects. Transformation was embedded across projects that were being run from the centralised team. Transformation was a continually evolving process that would continue to work to improve services as well as making savings.

Councillor Carolyne Culver highlighted the need to be clear on net costs, including officer time, to fully understand the level of savings being made. She then invited questions and comments from Members, and a number of points were discussed in the debate.

Efficiencies achieved in relation to home to school transport were contractual and in terms of route optimisation. It was noted that transport costs for SEND  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to review the performance of the library service since the introduction of its new funding model in April 2025.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 7), the purpose of which was to review the performance of the Library Service since the introduction of its new funding model in April 2025.

It was reported that the new offer to develop additional library services, which were chargeable, was set within the context of the current financial challenges faced by the Council.

Councillor Nigel Foot, the Portfolio Holder for Culture, Leisure, Sport and Countryside, presented the report. He started by giving his view that the team of officers and volunteers delivered an exceptional service to library users.

He gave some background to the funding situation for the Library Service over past years. The budget had reduced and so too had the level of officer resource, Wash Common Library had closed (although it had since reopened and was being successfully run by the local community), and the mobile library had reduced. Voluntary financial contributions had been sought from town and parish councils but it had not been possible to achieve the target that had been set.

The new funding model introduced in April 2025 followed a decision to move away from seeking these voluntary contributions as it was considered an unfair approach with some parishes paying for the services, while others were not able to.

The decision was also taken to cease the mobile library service as usage was limited and the cost of replacing the vehicle was high. As an alternative, pop-up libraries and community bookshelves had begun operating. The number of visitors at these three pop-up libraries were exceeding those seen by the mobile library and it was the intention to increase their number. The pop-up libraries had proved invaluable to parishes who could be offered bespoke services. They were also an ideal place to share key information with residents.

A number of points were raised and questions asked during the debate. Summarised as follows:

·       This was noted as a positive report.

·       Felicity Harrison, Culture and Libraries Manager, agreed to provide national library trend data for comparison with the picture in West Berkshire.

·       There had been a shortfall in the revenue budget for the Library Service over recent years, but additional Council funding of £92,900 had been added to the Library Service budget to cover this shortfall through an investment bid. The income from the chargeable services being offered was additional to the base budget and it was therefore felt that the budget had moved to a sustainable and more stable position for the future as part of the new funding model.

·       E-library services had moved to being provided by a single provider and this had enabled clearer marketing of the services to take place, and this would be increased.

·       Councillor Foot explained his intention to attend many parish and town council meetings both to promote the services being offered and as a chance to gain information on local needs.

·       It was explained that it was possible to access data on library users, i.e. their postcodes, to help build the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Purpose: The capital financing performance provided to members reports on the underspends or overspends within the Council’s approved capital programme and associated capital financing implications. This report presents the provisional outturn position for financial year 2025/26 as forecast at Quarter 1 against the approved capital programme and summarises the financing implications for financial year 2026/27.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 8) which presented the provisional outturn position for the 2025/26 financial year, as forecast at Quarter One, against the approved Capital Programme and summarised the financial implications for the 2026/27 financial year.

Councillor Jeff Brooks, Leader of the Council, presented the report on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources. He explained that approximately £73m of the current year’s Capital Programme was expected to be delivered.

The aim was to achieve 70-75% in year delivery of the Programme but it seemed unlikely that this would be achieved for 2025/26. Councillor Brooks advised that a complicating factor in achieving this percentage was the reprofiling of projects from the previous year. It was also the case that some projects could roll forward from year to year due to a number of factors, and improvements at Theale Railway Station was given as an example of this.

Councillor Brooks also highlighted the financial support that needed to be given to the growing pressure of the High Needs Block (HNB) within Education. This was expected to have a negative impact on what could be funded from the Capital Programme in the coming years.

A number of points were raised and questions asked during the debate. Summarised as follows:

·       It was felt to be the case that providers on a project could be the cause of delays. A delayed project would likely see an increase in costs due to inflation, which was a reason for seeking delivery of projects in year.

·       It was clarified that the sum of money identified for a project was not held in an account, funding for a project was brought forward at the appropriate time from, for example, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or from money received from Government grants.

·       Appendix A to the report (reprofiling requests) only listed major projects whereas the figure in paragraph 2.1(a) of the report gave the full figure. Shannon Coleman-Slaughter (Service Director for Finance, Property and Procurement) agreed that a full list could be provided.

·       The projects identified for reprofiling generally became clearer during the course of the year as progress with a project became clearer. Councillor Brooks clarified that while every attempt was made to take a project forward, slippage could occur. This could be for factors outside of the Council’s control. However, the intention would remain to deliver the project and in some cases delivery could take place over a number of years.

·       It was acknowledged that there was a risk of some grant funding being lost if the project in question was reprofiled. Energy projects carried a particular risk. However, it was clarified that the majority of annually reoccurring grants were awarded for a particular purpose and not a specific project.

·       £16m was the original budget for the solar farm, but slippage in the project had led to this figure growing to £19m. Councillor Brooks assured Members that a strong business case remained for this project and he agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Purpose: To report on the financial performance of the Council’s revenue budgets. This report is Q1, the first report of the 2025/26 financial year. The report details the variance between the budget set in February 2025 and the current forecast of the year end position. This allows the Executive and Scrutiny Commission to consider the authority’s current financial position.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 9) which outlined the financial performance of the Council’s revenue budgets at Quarter One of 2025/26. The report detailed the variance between the budget set in February 2025 and the current forecast of the year end position.

Councillor Jeff Brooks, Leader of the Council, presented the report. He explained that the forecast net overspend at Quarter One was £681k after the application of transformation funding. He felt this was a satisfactory position at this point in the financial year against a net budget of £183.4m. Efforts would continue to be made to manage the forecast position throughout the year.

A number of points were raised and questions asked during the debate. Summarised as follows:

·       Greater clarification would be provided of the graphs presented in paragraph 6.2 of the report.

·       Approximately half of the budgeted savings for 2025/26 were on track to be delivered and it was queried if that position was likely to be maintained. Councillor Brooks explained that some risks to achieving the savings had been identified. Shannon Coleman-Slaughter (Service Director – Finance, Property and Procurement) added that Finance were in constant contact with service areas and received quarterly reports as part of ongoing efforts to achieve as many savings as possible.

·       Triple Value Impact (TVI) was an organisation which specialised in process management and had advised the Council on transformation projects to pursue with the aim of achieving savings. This included the provision of software and toolkits to assist with projects. Councillor Brooks explained that a number of options had been put to the Council and it had taken time to decide which ones were best to pursue. As a result, this had delayed the achievement of savings.

·       It was felt that a more suitable term should be used for savings not expected to be achieved rather than ‘ragged red’.

·       Net variance of £2.9m was noted for Transformation, Customer and ICT.

·       The £608k saving in Adult Social Care had been identified from work to achieve efficiencies in care homes.

·       It was noted that high costs could be incurred as a result of pressures within social care.

·       Short term borrowing was required to be repaid in under one year. Some of this borrowing would need to be refinanced and it was agreed that the Committee would be provided with information on the profiling of this short term debt. Borrowing that needed to be repaid in future years was considered long term borrowing.

·       A transformation cost tracker had been circulated to the Committee. Shannon Coleman-Slaughter explained that this covered all transformation activity across the Council and not just the activity in the official Transformation Programme. The areas listed in the cost tracker were all being applied to the revenue budget.

·       There was concern that some items in the cost tracker could be considered as revenue costs. In response, Shannon Coleman-Slaughter explained that thorough reviews were undertaken of how transformation funding was being used. In the previous financial year,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive updates from the chairmen of task and finish groups appointed by the Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee.

Purpose: This report presents the findings of the Sports Hub Task and Finish Group, which sought to determine whether there was a strategically and financially sound business case for the Monks Lane Sports Hub, whether the project was well managed, and whether reliable and consistent advice was given to members about the project to assist them in their decision-making roles. The report makes recommendations based on the evidence gathered, which (if implemented) would help to inform the Council’s approach to future sports and leisure projects.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 10a) which presented the findings of the Sports Hub Task and Finish Group (the Task Group). The Task Group had sought to determine whether there was a strategically and financially sound business case for the Monks Lane Sports Hub, whether the project was well managed, and whether reliable and consistent advice was given to Members about the project to assist them in their decision making roles.

The report proposed recommendations based on the evidence gathered which, if implemented, would help to inform the Council’s approach to future sports and leisure projects.

Councillor Carolyne Culver presented the report and started with thanking her fellow Members of the Task Group: Councillors Jeremy Cottam, Paul Dick, David Marsh and Chris Read. She also thanked Gordon Oliver, the Clerk to the Task Group, and the internal and external witnesses who gave evidence to the Task Group.

Objective One: To determine whether the Sports Hub project was value for money

The Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS), adopted in February 2020, identified the relocation of the Faraday Road pitch as a top priority. The budget to do so (£5.6m) proved to be insufficient and, as a result, the alternative was to create six new 3g pitches over a five year period.

Costs were analysed by the Task Group as was information provided by Newbury Community Football Group (NCFG). The NCFG suggested a more cost effective approach could have been achieved. They had a business case to reopen Faraday Road approved by Sport England for £1.1m. Sport England and the Football Foundation had offered to fund 75% of the cost of works.

The Council had invested £214k-£219k into the Sports Hub but this outlay had been lost.

The Task Group felt that reopening Faraday Road would have been better value for money than the Sports Hub project.

Objective Two: To determine whether the project would have delivered on the Council’s strategic objectives

The Task Group felt that there was greater potential to progress the PPS via the use of Faraday Road. The Sports Hub facility did not have the same potential as Faraday Road in terms of the level of football (tier of football) that could be achieved.

There was concern over limited public consultation.

Objective Three: To determine whether the project was well managed

Councillor Read outlined the concern that lessons identified as part of previous scrutiny reviews had not been learnt, i.e. from the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE). There had also been a particular difficulty in being provided with a timeline for the Sports Hub project.

These were points that would be reflected upon as part of the Project Management Task and Finish Group.

Objective Four: To determine whether reliable and consistent advice was given to Members about the project to assist them in their decision-making roles

In summary, the Task Group did not feel that reliable and consistent advice was provided to Members at planning committees or meetings of the Executive.

A particular concern was the changing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

Purpose: To present an update on the work of the Project Management Task and Finish Group.

The Committee considered a verbal report on progress with the Project Management Task and Finish Group (Agenda Item 10b). Councillor Chris Read, the Chairman of the Task Group, gave the following update:

The Task and Finish Group held its first evidence session on 1 September, which was focused on how the Council currently manage its projects, and the following officers attended to give evidence. Councillor Read gave thanks for their time and input:

·       Sarah Clarke – Executive Director (Resources)

·       Gabrielle Mancini – Service Director (Transformation, Customer and ICT)

·       Kate Pearson (Service Lead - Commissioning & Procurement)

·       Melanie Best (Transformation & Programme Manager)

The session explored a variety of aspects including:

·       Project management methodology

·       Training

·       Project governance arrangements

·       Document management

It was clear that the project management methodology had improved significantly over time, informed by lessons learned from previous projects.

The Task Group had asked to see examples of various project documents to understand in more detail how the adopted project management methodology worked in practice. This included examples from positively run projects.

Members were informed that further changes were coming, with plans to centralise the project management resource so all project managers would come under the auspices of the Programme Management Office, rather than sitting within services. This should help to achieve a more consistent approach and encourage peer learning.

Discussions had begun on some of the issues around Care Director 6 and iTrent Phase 1, which would inform the Task Group’s work over the coming sessions.

For Care Director 6, the Task Group would be surveying the front-line staff who were involved with testing/using the new software to seek their views, as well as talking to the project sponsor, project managers, and technical staff. An invitation would also be extended to the supplier to give evidence, although it was recognised that they were not compelled to do so.

The next meeting was provisionally arranged for 20 October. Looking forward, it was felt realistic to aim to complete this work and prepare the draft report in February 2026, prior to bringing the report to Scrutiny Committee on 17 March 2026.

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

This item was not discussed as there were no terms of reference to approve, and no changes were proposed to the membership of existing task and finish groups.

Purpose: To advise the Committee of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council’s Executive, and for Members to decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Committee noted the Council’s Forward Plan for the period covering 1 September 2025 to 31 December 2025.

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

The Committee considered its Work Programme (Agenda Item 13) and discussed a number of forthcoming items.

Ridgeway Council Proposal – an Extraordinary meeting date had been provisionally arranged for this item on 1 October 2025. However, it was noted that the dates to bring this proposal forward were changing.

(Post meeting note: the dates to consider the Ridgeway Council Proposal had been confirmed for Extraordinary meetings of:

Council on 4 November 2025

Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee on 10 November 2025

Executive on 12 November 2025).

Social Housing – a briefing note had been requested to help inform the scrutiny of this topic. Members felt that it would be beneficial to invite social housing providers to the meeting to discuss issues. The Council’s Housing Officers would be liaised with on this point.

Clare Lawrence (Executive Director for Place) advised that much activity was ongoing in this area. This followed changes to the way that Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) were funded and to the Government’s approach to affordable housing. Clare Lawrence suggested that the Committee be provided with information including some context of the current situation, areas of challenge and potential solutions.

Thames Water and the Environment Agency – scrutiny of this area needed to be programmed. This would need to include coverage of work on flood alleviation schemes, implications of the Section 19 report in relation to flooding and issues raised in relation to the Northbrook highlighted earlier in the meeting.

Pedestrianisation – it was felt that the proposal to bring an update on this topic to the meeting in March 2026 was correct as this would allow time for officers to consider the responses received to the public consultation.