Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 September 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2025 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Item 10 – Sports Hub Task and Finish Group Report – page 15 (final sentence of paragraph 10)

Councillor Culver clarified the Task Group view that, in cases where the Council was the sponsor of a project, Executive Members should only speak to the item at a planning committee as the project sponsor. Executive Members should not participate in the debate or vote on the item.

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

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

·      116/143 – These actions arose from a special scrutiny meeting with Thames Water and the Environment Agency and were over a year old. It was agreed that the Committee would request a written update for the Newbury Clay Hill Flood and Drainage Warden.

·      237 – Councillor Cottingham to be chased for a response.

·      239 – The Policy Development Group had met to discuss Viable Villages and would be looking at Transformation. It was noted that the meeting had not taken place on 20 November.

·      246 – Comments were awaited from Councillor Martha Vickers in relation to the work of task and finish groups.

·      247 – It was agreed that this would be done as part of the Transformation review.

·      250 – It was agreed that this action could be closed.

·      253 – Officers to follow up on the request for the Solar Farm Business Case.

·      254 – A response was awaited regarding a finance briefing.

It was agreed that previous recommendations to Executive would be added to the tracker.

Action: Update the tracker with previous recommendations from the Sports Hub and Customer Journey Task Groups.

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.

No declarations of interest were received.

To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions received at the meeting.

Meeting in its capacity as West Berkshire Council’s Crime and Disorder Committee, to receive a presentation from the West Berkshire Community Safety Partnership.

Joseph Holmes (Chief Executive) and Superintendent Colin Hudson (Thames Valley Police (TVP)) presented the Community Safety Partnership Update (Agenda Item 6). The presentation could be accessed here: https://youtu.be/aDHDdoW76ik?list=PL6cepKKElwne9h0GajvDRG65M2AG0Wn_U&t=557.

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       It was confirmed that a ‘positive outcome’ was where a suspect was charged.

·       The relationship between the Police and the Crown Prosecution System was good at a senior level, but it varied on a case-by-case basis at the local level, and the Police felt that they were sometimes asked to hit a high threshold for a criminal charge and capacity was not always sufficient to meet the demand for evidence.

·       It was thought that ethnicity categories for stop and search were self-defined, but Supt Hudson undertook to confirm and report back.

Action: TVP to confirm whether ethnicity categories were self-defined for stop and search.

·       It was confirmed that the majority of violence against women and girls was perpetrated by males.

·       Members asked about how the Police dealt with rural crime. It was explained that a task in coordination group had been formed where partners came together to talk about local issues in the community. Rural crime was reflected as a priority in these meetings. Several rural crime spots in West Berkshire had been prioritised over the last summer with patrols, general engagement events and specific rural crime events. It was thought that rural crime was under-reported. It was recognised that the financial cost of acquisitive crime in rural areas was more significant than in towns. Rural crime would continue to be prioritised.

·       It was suggested that it may be useful to show crime rates per 10,000 population to facilitate comparison with other local authorities. TVP confirmed that West Berkshire was within the top quartile for low crime rates. They did not currently have the analytical tools/capacity to be able to routinely report on that basis, but offered to see if there were other data sets already in the public domain that would provide this information.

Action: TVP to investigate whether crime rates per 10,000 population could be provided for next year’s presentation.

·       Members asked if the Safer Streets initiative would be continued in The Nightingales and if it would be rolled out to other areas. Officers indicated that this was initially funded by central government. It was confirmed that work would continue in the Nightingales once current funding ceased. Similar partnership approaches could be rolled out in other areas, but some measures would be subject to successful bidding in future funding rounds.

·       There was discussion about what would happen following the abolition of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) in 2028. Powers and funding would transfer to the mayor of the relevant strategic authority. Areas without a mayor would revert to Police Authority arrangements that pre-dated the OPCC, which would have representation from constituent local authorities.

·       Concerns were expressed about problems with drugs in Lambourn. TVP confirmed that stop and search powers were often used to look for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To explore options that are available to the Council in order to deliver additional social housing and ensure that it achieves Members target of delivering 1,000 units of social housing by 2030.  Recently several issues have arisen which are directly impacting the traditional mode of delivery for affordable housing locally and nationally.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 7) which described the options available to the Council for the delivery of additional social housing with the aim of achieving the target of delivering 1,000 units of social housing by 2030. The report also outlined several issues which had arisen which directly impacted upon the traditional mode of delivery for affordable housing locally and nationally.

Councillor Denise Gaines (Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing) presented the report. She stated that affordable housing was defined by the charity Shelter as being the provision of decent, safe and secure homes.

The provision of affordable housing was a high priority for the Council. There was awareness of the difficulties faced by residents in getting on the housing ladder in a high cost area, and therefore the need for affordable housing provision. 1300 applications for social housing were currently on the Common Housing Register. Some of these were families in particular need.

The Council had a target of providing 1,000 affordable homes by 2030. 538 had been provided at Q2 in 2023. However, new Government requirements meant that targets would need to increase.

Information was presented on the number of affordable housing completions by tenure type and by Registered Provider (RP).

It was the case that there were limited development opportunities across West Berkshire. Key issues for West Berkshire also included:

·       RPs focusing their financial resources on improving and retrofitting their existing stock to meet the Decent Homes Standards, energy efficiency targets and regulatory requirements to invest in their stock.

·       Viability issues were presenting a significant barrier to RPs providing schemes. Increased construction costs, material shortages and rising labour costs had all detrimentally impacted the viability of new build schemes.

·       RPs not willing to invest in schemes that did not deliver significant scale.

·       RPs unable to agree to the specification of units with developers and refusing to purchase as RPs sought to future proof their acquisitions in anticipation of building regulation changes meaning they were only looking for s106 properties that exceeded current standards.

·       RPs unwilling to secure s106 affordable housing unless a Designated Protected Area (DPA) waiver was agreed for schemes in rural areas to allow shared ownership units to be staircased up to 100%.

·       Developers requiring more flexible s106 clauses with cascade mechanisms to allow for alternatives and avoid the need to vary s106s.

There were however future opportunities and they included:

·       A framework agreement to help facilitate affordable housing delivery.

·       A key deliverable of the Berkshire wide Prosperity Board was affordable housing.

·       Potential partnership opportunities through the emerging Local Government Reorganisation.

·       The need to consider variations to s106 Agreements in cases where viability issues raised by developers had been clearly evidenced.

·       Greater acceptance of commuted sums, in the absence of an affordable housing contribution. To date, the Council had been focused on obtaining affordable housing on site.

·       Petitioning the Government through MPs. Discussions had been held in this regard with Lee Dillon MP, who was on the relevant Government Select Committee.

A presentation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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.

The Chairman introduced the item on Appointment of Task and Finish Groups (Agenda Item 8).

There were no draft terms of reference to approve, and no changes to membership of task and finish groups were proposed.

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

Councillor Chris Read provided an update on the work of the Project Management Task and Finish Group (Agenda Item 9).

The Task Group had met on 20 October – this was the first of two meetings to look at Care Director 6.

The following officers had given evidence:

·       Kate Toone (Project Manager)

·       Phil Cridge (Systems Integration Officer)

·       Melanie O’Rourke (Service Director – Adult Social Care)

This had been a productive session, and officers were commended for their comprehensive preparation and presentations.

Various aspects were reviewed including:

·       The project timeline

·       Major milestones/gateways

·       Project managers’ involvement prior to setting up the project

·       Risk management

·       Tracking/reporting against project tolerances and the point at which it became clear the project was no longer on track

·       The client/supplier relationship over the course of the project

·       Support provided to the project manager by the project board.

The Task Group had started to formulate some initial findings and recommendations, which would be tested and explored at the next session with senior managers.

Suppliers were invited to give evidence, but they declined.

The Task Group had also undertaken a survey of adult social care staff involved in user acceptance testing of Care Director 6.

Councillor Read had arranged a pre-meeting with officers regarding iTrent and an evidence session would be arranged for January. The intention was for iTrent to be covered off in a single session.

It was anticipated that the Task Group would be in a position to report back towards the end of March / beginning of April.

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 considered the Council’s Forward Plan for the period to 31 March 2026 (Agenda Item 10).

It was noted that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan had been approved on 6 November. Members were advised that the consultation responses were included in the Executive papers.

Members asked about the Henwick Worthy Masterplan. Officers confirmed that consultation was underway on the Playing Pitch Strategy, and that an implementation plan would be developed, with Henwick Worthy forming part of this. Liaison was ongoing with various sporting bodies to understand what was achievable on the site. It was noted that the February deadline for Henwick Worthy would be pushed back pending these negotiations, with updated timescales to be confirmed. Until viable options had been agreed for the site, there would be little for the Committee to review. It was noted that the Playing Pitch Strategy was already on the Committee’s work programme (date to be confirmed).

To advise the Committee of the current Corporate Programme.

The Committee considered the Corporate Programme (Agenda Item 11).

Members asked for further details of when the Care Home Strategy could come forward for review.

Action: Officers to confirm when the Care Home Strategy could come forward for review.

It was suggested that the Committee may wish to review the Grazeley Solar Farm. Officers indicated that the business case was still being finalised (as referenced in the list of actions).

Action: Officers to come back with a suggested date for when the Committee could review the Grazeley Solar Farm.

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

The Committee considered its Work Programme (Agenda Item 12).

Members had previously requested an update on the Transformation Programme. It was agreed that this should be reviewed prior to scrutiny of the Council’s budget and that progress should be presented in the form of a performance dashboard rather than a ‘sales pitch’.

Officers highlighted that the Executive would be looking at the Council’s future financial sustainability, including how the Transformation Programme would support this. Governance arrangements would also be revised. Until this had happened, it would be difficult to put together the Transformation Programme, and it was suggested that this may not be available in advance of the budget.

Members noted that previous requests for updates had been deferred by officers. Also, the Executive Portfolio Holder had been asked for details of the costs and benefits of the programme, particularly in relation to asset disposal. The Committee had not been able to determine whether the programme was saving the Council money.

Members did not want the report to be deferred again and asked for a backward look in relation to savings made as well as an indication of the future direction of travel.

Project management and the Business Support Review were identified as important related items, and it was suggested that these be reviewed at the same meeting.

Additionally, the Committee requested an update on the implementation of the Mosaic social care case management system. While the Project Management Task and Finish Group was satisfied that project management practices were improving, there was a need to consider how this was informing decision making, particularly in relation to strategic IT projects such as Mosaic.

Action: Arrange an additional meeting prior to 10 February to review the Transformation Programme, Business Support Review, Project Management, and Mosaic.

Members asked for an update on current flood risk and the Council’s Section 19 report. It was suggested that a review could be programmed for Spring 2026. It was noted that Thames Water was carrying out a range of upgrades to local infrastructure and had developed a Groundwater Development Plan.

Action: Officers to liaise internally and with Thames Water to agree an appropriate time to provide an update.

Members queried if any consideration had been given/whether preparations were in place for a potential drought. Officers to consider when an update could be given on this matter.

Action: Officers to consider when an update could be given on plans in place for a potential drought.

Members noted that the review of the Playing Pitch Strategy would need to be programmed once a timescale for its development was confirmed.

It was noted that a request had been made by a local resident for the Committee to look at transparency around the award of large contracts under delegated authority. Officers indicated that larger projects were included in the Budget, and these had full business cases, which were available to Members. It was explained that senior officers only had delegated authority up to £50,000, with larger contracts requiring Executive or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.