Agenda item

(a)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor David Rendel:

“It has been discovered that at least one parcel of land within West Berkshire has been deemed subject to escheat to the Crown at common law (i.e. the company which used to own the land went into liquidation, and as a result the land is now ownerless). This parcel therefore falls to be dealt with by the Crown Estate, on whose behalf the firm of Burges Salmon acts. As Burges Salmon has made clear in a letter to Councillor Rendel, "The Crown Estate does not propose to take any action which might be construed as an act of management, possession or ownership in relation to the Property, since to do so may incur upon it liabilities with which the Property is, or may become encumbered." This means that the rights of access across this land which are enjoyed by a number of local householders, as laid out in their title deeds, are gradually being spoiled by a total absence of any management of the land, including a failure to repair, for example, pothole damage. Moreover the local householders have no legal means to enforce the carrying out of such maintenance, even though any costs involved would be recoverable from those householders.

This council will therefore write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with a copy to each of the three local MPs, to request that he institutes as soon as possible a review of the way in which land deemed subject to escheat to the Crown is managed, and that following the review he should speedily propose legislation to ensure that in future such land is passed into the ownership of a Local Authority body who will then be made responsible for its proper maintenance."

(b)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Royce Longton:

“This Council

Welcomes the Coalition Government's decision to delay the deadline for implementing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for 12 months until April 2015;

Notes that the existing system involving "Section 106" financial contributions from developers, which CIL will replace, has proved to be fair and generates about one third more in capital receipts than is expected under CIL; also that West Berkshire's operation of Section 106 was endorsed by Government as exemplary under both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Administrations; but that Ward Members and local councils in this District are not always involved in every stage of the process;

Therefore we call:

a. On the Leaders of both Parties on this Council to continue pressing for retention of the S106 system by writing to the Minister of Planning; and

b. On the Planning Department to amend its procedures so as to ensure that local town and parish councils and Ward Members are involved from the outset in the allocation of S106 funds, from the pre-application stage through to post-construction of new developments.”

(c)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers:

“This Council

Notes that large areas of employment land, including sites in “Protected Employment Areas”, near the centre of Newbury have been vacant or derelict for years;

Further notes:

a)      that the Local Plan Inspector in his report on the Core Strategy of July 2012 said that a review of the District’s Employment Land Requirement should be completed during the next stage of the Local Plan preparation;

b)     the global and national economy has changed in its land requirements, as exemplified by this Council’s TimeLord programme and the rapid move to online shopping and business-to-business activity;

c)      that the vibrancy of Newbury is being damaged by allowing edge-of-town-centre empty sites;

d)     the resistance of our planning department to the NPPF’s call for planning decisions to take account of ‘market signals’;

e)     the buoyant market for new housing in areas occupied by low quality commercial property (such as the Travis Perkins site);

f)       the benefits to certain demographics of affordable homes near facilities such as rail stations and night-time economy, combined with minimal need by such households for outdoor private ‘amenity space’;

Therefore calls:

1. For the Employment Boundary Review to be given the highest priority in the Local Plan Programme, with cross-party Member input to the Terms of Reference of this work in recognition of the public concern about waste land and empty offices, and meanwhile
2. For greater flexibility to be given to mixed use redevelopment, with significant housing, on land designated for employment near Newbury town centre.”

(d)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Keith Woodhams:

“Council will be aware that the Local Government Association has received funding from the Department of Transport (DfT) to undertake strategic reviews of local authorities’ highways departments.

These peer reviews bring together the LGA’s proven peer review approach, with very significant sector specific knowledge available through the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP).

This motion proposes that this Council commissions a peer led review of the Highways Department on the lines outlined below.

The peer reviews are being led by Surrey County Council and have already been undertaken by Cambridgeshire, Blackpool and Oxfordshire councils. Each review involves a team of peers from local government who spend time on site at the council to fully review its practices so that the authority can reflect on its processes and improve the way it works. These reviews focus on a wide range of people working in the Local Authority and key findings are delivered rapidly. The major cost to the Council would be officer support.

Surrey County Council advised that the DfT has agreed that they will fully fund a further 4 reviews this year and are in discussions with a number of Council’s who have expressed an interest in a review. If for any reason any of these do not proceed this year they would be able to offer a review to another authority at no charge.

West Berkshire Council therefore agrees that it will invite the LGA to undertake a peer review of the West Berkshire Council Highways Department as soon as possible.”

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 23(a) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor David Rendel relating to the way in which land deemed subject to escheat to the Crown was managed.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Rendel and seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly:

“It has been discovered that at least one parcel of land within West Berkshire has been deemed subject to escheat to the Crown at common law (i.e. the company which used to own the land went into liquidation, and as a result the land is now ownerless). This parcel therefore falls to be dealt with by the Crown Estate, on whose behalf the firm of Burges Salmon acts. As Burges Salmon has made clear in a letter to Councillor Rendel, "The Crown Estate does not propose to take any action which might be construed as an act of management, possession or ownership in relation to the Property, since to do so may incur upon it liabilities with which the Property is, or may become encumbered." This means that the rights of access across this land which are enjoyed by a number of local householders, as laid out in their title deeds, are gradually being spoiled by a total absence of any management of the land, including a failure to repair, for example, pothole damage. Moreover the local householders have no legal means to enforce the carrying out of such maintenance, even though any costs involved would be recoverable from those householders.

This Council will therefore write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with a copy to each of the three local MPs, to request that he institutes as soon as possible a review of the way in which land deemed subject to escheat to the Crown is managed, and that following the review he should speedily propose legislation to ensure that in future such land is passed into the ownership of a Local Authority body who will then be made responsible for its proper maintenance.”

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Rendel and seconded by Councillor Crumly:

That the Council:

“It has been discovered that at least one parcel of land within West Berkshire has been deemed subject to escheat to the Crown at common law (i.e. the company which used to own the land went into liquidation, and as a result the land is now ownerless). This parcel therefore falls to be dealt with by the Crown Estate, on whose behalf the firm of Burges Salmon acts. As Burges Salmon has made clear in a letter to Councillor Rendel, "The Crown Estate does not propose to take any action which might be construed as an act of management, possession or ownership in relation to the Property, since to do so may incur upon it liabilities with which the Property is, or may become encumbered." This means that the rights of access across this land which are enjoyed by a number of local householders, as laid out in their title deeds, are gradually being spoiled by a total absence of any management of the land, including a failure to repair, for example, pothole damage. Moreover the local householders have no legal means to enforce the carrying out of such maintenance, even though any costs involved would be recoverable from those householders.

This Council will therefore write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with a copy to each of the three local MPs, to request that he institutes as soon as possible a review of the way in which land deemed subject to escheat to the Crown is managed, and that following the review he should speedily propose legislation to ensure that in future such land is passed into the ownership of a Local Authority body who will then be made responsible for its proper maintenance and would receive from central government funding for any related financial implications.”

The Amended Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

(Councillor Richard Crumly left the meeting at 9.06pm)

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 23(b) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Royce Longton relating to the delay in the Implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Longton and seconded by Councillor Alan Macro:

“This Council:

Welcomes the Coalition Government's decision to delay the deadline for implementing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for 12 months until April 2015;

Notes that the existing system involving "Section 106" financial contributions from developers, which CIL will replace, has proved to be fair and generates about one third more in capital receipts than is expected under CIL; also that West Berkshire's operation of Section 106 was endorsed by Government as exemplary under both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Administrations; but that Ward Members and local councils in this District are not always involved in every stage of the process;

Therefore we call:

a. On the Leaders of both Parties on this Council to continue pressing for retention of the S106 system by writing to the Minister of Planning; and

b. On the Planning Department to amend its procedures so as to ensure that local town and parish councils and Ward Members are involved from the outset in the allocation of S106 funds, from the pre-application stage through to post-construction of new developments.”

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Longton and seconded by Councillor Macro:

“This Council:

Welcomes the Coalition Government's decision to delay the deadline for implementing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for 12 months until April 2015;

Notes that the existing system involving "Section 106" financial contributions from developers, which CIL will replace, has proved to be fair and generates about one third more in capital receipts than is expected under CIL; also that West Berkshire's operation of Section 106 was endorsed by Government as exemplary under both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Administrations; but that Ward Members and local councils in this District are not always involved in every stage of the process;

Therefore we call:

a. On the Leaders of both Parties on this Council to continue pressing for retention of the S106 system by writing to the Minister of Planning; and

b. On the Planning Department to amend (review) its procedures so as to ensure that local town and parish councils and Ward Members are involved from the outset in the allocation of S106 and CIL funds, from the pre-application stage through to post-construction of new developments.”

The Amended Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 23(c) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers relating to protected employment areas near Newbury Town Centre.

The Chairman informed the Council that should the motion be approved, under Procedural Rule 4.5.8 it would be referred to the Head of Planning and Countryside to draft a report that would be brought to a future Council meeting for consideration after being considered by the Planning Policy Task Group.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Vickers and seconded by Councillor David Allen:

“This Council

Notes that large areas of employment land, including sites in “Protected Employment Areas”, near the centre of Newbury have been vacant or derelict for years;

Further notes:

a)      that the Local Plan Inspector in his report on the Core Strategy of July 2012 said that a review of the District’s Employment Land Requirement should be completed during the next stage of the Local Plan preparation;

b)     the global and national economy has changed in its land requirements, as exemplified by this Council’s TimeLord programme and the rapid move to online shopping and business-to-business activity;

c)      that the vibrancy of Newbury is being damaged by allowing edge-of-town-centre empty sites;

d)     the resistance of our planning department to the NPPF’s call for planning decisions to take account of ‘market signals’;

e)     the buoyant market for new housing in areas occupied by low quality commercial property (such as the Travis Perkins site);

f)       the benefits to certain demographics of affordable homes near facilities such as rail stations and night-time economy, combined with minimal need by such households for outdoor private ‘amenity space’;

Therefore calls:

1. For the Employment Boundary Review to be given the highest priority in the Local Plan Programme, with cross-party Member input to the Terms of Reference of this work in recognition of the public concern about waste land and empty offices, and meanwhile
2. For greater flexibility to be given to mixed use redevelopment, with significant housing, on land designated for employment near Newbury town centre.”

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED that it would be referred to the Head of Planning and Countryside to draft a report that would be brought to a future Council meeting after being considered by the Planning Policy Task Group.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 23(d) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Woodhams relating to a peer review of the Highways Department.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Woodhams and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“Council will be aware that the Local Government Association has received funding from the Department of Transport (DfT) to undertake strategic reviews of local authorities’ highways departments.

These peer reviews bring together the LGA’s proven peer review approach, with very significant sector specific knowledge available through the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP).

This motion proposes that this Council commissions a peer led review of the Highways Department on the lines outlined below.

The peer reviews are being led by Surrey County Council and have already been undertaken by Cambridgeshire, Blackpool and Oxfordshire councils. Each review involves a team of peers from local government who spend time on site at the council to fully review its practices so that the authority can reflect on its processes and improve the way it works. These reviews focus on a wide range of people working in the Local Authority and key findings are delivered rapidly. The major cost to the Council would be officer support.

Surrey County Council advised that the DfT has agreed that they will fully fund a further 4 reviews this year and are in discussions with a number of Council’s who have expressed an interest in a review. If for any reason any of these do not proceed this year they would be able to offer a review to another authority at no charge.

West Berkshire Council therefore agrees that it will invite the LGA to undertake a peer review of the West Berkshire Council Highways Department as soon as possible.”

The Motion was put to the vote and declared LOST.