Agenda item

To receive any Motions submitted in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Council's Constitution.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 12 – Motion A) submitted in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs relating to the Experimental Traffic Order for Newbury Town Centre.

The Chairman informed Council that should the Motion be proposed and seconded, then it would be referred to the Executive for consideration, in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.6.1, as the detail of the Motion fell within the remit of the Executive.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Adrian Abbs and seconded by Councillor Ross Mackinnon:

That the Council:

“Modify the Experimental Traffic Order for Newbury Town Centre which allowed for the trial of an alternative traffic flow model for Newbury Northbrook Street, Park Way and Wharf Road.

This Council notes the ongoing experimental traffic order restricting vehicle access to Newbury High Street from 10:00am to 11:00pm. While intended to foster pedestrian safety, economic support of business and environmental benefits, the current closure may inadvertently limit accessibility for key demographics and constrain local trade, particularly during evening hours.

This motion proposes an alternative trial scheme that:

1.    Permits One-Way Vehicular Flow:
Allow traffic to enter Newbury Bartholomew St in a single south-to-north direction via Northbrook Street, with return access facilitated through Park Way. This flow maintains a controlled environment while improving connectivity and reducing congestion on feeder roads.

2.    Alternative of traffic return via A339

If for some reason it in not possible to use Park Way and Wharf Road as the north to south route then the A339 can be designated as the route from north to south in the town.

3.    Introduces Short-Stay Parking Incentives:
Establish free short-stay parking bays—limited to 15-30 minutes—along designated sections of the Bartholomew Street and Northbrook Street. These locations would be monitored via time-discs or possibly digital enforcement mechanisms to ensure turnover.

Rationale and Community Benefit:

·       Economic Revitalisation:
Offering limited-time free parking encourages brief shopping visits and supports “in-and-out” transactions critical to retailers.

·       Cultural and Nightlife Engagement:
Enhanced evening access and short-stay flexibility promote casual dining, entertainment, and spontaneous engagement with nightlife—key to nurturing a vibrant town centre.

·       Inclusion and Accessibility:
Facilitates visits by older residents, families with young children, and individuals with limited mobility, who may be disadvantaged under the current arrangement.

·       Better correlation with Time of Year
As winter comes pedestrian traffic is likely to fall and easier access to shops, restaurants and event locations gains greater value.

·       Environmental Monitoring:
The trial should run concurrently with environmental and traffic flow assessments to ensure impacts remain within sustainable thresholds.

This Council urges officers to explore feasibility, consult stakeholders including residents and local businesses, and prepare a report outlining implementation logistics, costs, and KPIs for review within three months.”

Councillor Abbs spoke to the Motion and explained that he was pleased that pedestrianisation had been introduced for the hours outlined. This was something he had campaigned for whilst part of the Liberal Democrat Group.

However, he felt it was timely to review its implementation and progress, alongside the Newbury BID. In particular, there was a need to consider the safety concerns highlighted for pedestrians that he had become aware of from local businesses and retailers, he had also conducted a local survey. This produced a minimal level of positive response and highlighted some negative aspects.

Councillor Stuart Gourley, responding as Portfolio Holder, gave thanks for the Motion. He highlighted that the trial period was still ongoing and the consultation was nearing its conclusion. Residents and businesses had been encouraged to respond to the consultation. The views/data collected from the consultation would be considered in full as part of determining the future approach.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 12 – Motion B) submitted in the name of Councillor Justin Pemberton to make clear the Council’s commitment to the communities in the east of the district and seek to protect them from being moved to the neighbouring Reading Borough Council.

The Chairman informed Council that should the Motion be proposed and seconded, then it would be debated in order to facilitate the discharge of business in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.6.3.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Justin Pemberton and seconded by Councillor Matt Shakespeare:

That the Council:

“Makes a clear commitment to communities in the east of the district and seek to protect them from being moved to the neighbouring Reading Borough Council.

Council notes that the wards of Pangbourne, Theale, Tilehurst and Purley, Tilehurst Birch Copse and Tilehurst South and Holybrook have historically always been part of West Berkshire or its predecessor Authorities. Council Members believe that West Berkshire Council must make clear its commitment to the communities of the above-mentioned wards and seek to protect them from being moved to neighbouring authorities, as Reading Borough Council is currently seeking to do.

Council notes that the affected wards contain individual communities and villages with unique characteristics. Several are self-sufficient in that they contain shopping centres, hospitality services, leisure facilities and centres of employment. Council notes that the areas affected by Reading Borough Council’s proposal have never been part of Reading Borough Council, and that our eastern communities have long been part of West Berkshire – with links which date back to 1894, when Council came together under Bradfield Rural District Council. Council does not believe that these areas will be served well by becoming part of a more metropolitan-focused local authority.

Council also recognises that many of the services provided to these residents by West Berkshire Council are of higher quality than those provided by Reading Borough Council to their residents, and that residents value this. But in any event, Council does not agree with Reading Borough Council’s proposal to absorb the above-mentioned wards and therefore reaffirms its commitment to these wards and to resist any such attempts – in the strongest possible terms.

Council therefore resolves to request that:

•             The Leader and Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation write to the Leader and Chief Executive of Reading Borough Council to inform them that we strongly oppose Reading Borough Council’s proposal and to ask them not to press on with their proposal to incorporate any part of West Berkshire into Reading Borough as part of the reorganisation process.

•             The Leader and Portfolio Holder write to the MP for Reading West and Mid Berkshire informing her of the Council’s strong opposition to Reading’s proposal to extend their boundary to include any part of West Berkshire.

•             The Leader write to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Local Government and Homelessness (MHCLG) to seek assurance that the current geography of West Berkshire will remain intact in whatever new Unitary Authority area is decided upon at the end of the reorganisation process.”

Councillor Pemberton spoke to the Motion. The Ridgeway proposal for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) would keep local government and local democracy effective and accountable. It would recognise and support local communities.

It was important under LGR to consider who was best placed to provide services to residents. Evidence showed this to be West Berkshire Council (WBC). The Council consistently outperformed its neighbours across comparable metrics. The Council’s Members and Officers worked very hard to serve the residents of West Berkshire.

Councillor Pemberton considered the proposal by Reading Borough Council (RBC), to incorporate eastern areas of West Berkshire into their boundary, to be rushed and ill-considered. There were a number of concerns which included a lack of clarity over how local services would be delivered, no recognition of parish councils in the east of the district (RBC had no parishes), as well as concerns for schools in the east of West Berkshire.

Residents living in the communities in the eastern area were proud to live in West Berkshire, regardless of whether they worked and went shopping in Reading. They were pleased that they were supported by a parish council.

Councillor Pemberton was concerned that eastern areas of the district would not receive the same level of local representation at RBC. RBC’s proposals should be rejected.

Councillor Pemberton concluded by stating that he felt it was right for WBC to retain its boundaries and keep looking after its residents. This would still apply under the potential Ridgeway authority.

Councillor Richard Somner attended a recent meeting of Holybrook Parish Council where LGR proposals were discussed with much support for West Berkshire Council. He thanked West Berkshire’s Councillors and officers for their attendance, as well as the Parish Councillors and local residents in attendance.

He felt that Lee Dillon MP could also be contacted to assist on this matter.

Councillor Somner stated that he was not convinced by RBC’s proposal. He was concerned at RBC’s lack of quality education results and delayed highways spend/action. He was supportive of the sound Ridgeway proposal.

Councillor Clive Taylor voiced concern at the suggestion in this Motion that communities in the east of the district needed to be protected from being moved to RBC. Many communities in the east were closely integrated with Reading.

All parties on RBC were supportive of their proposal.

Councillor Taylor felt there were reasons on which to be concerned for residents living in the east of West Berkshire. The existence of the Pincents Hill development in West Berkshire’s Local Plan, delays to the rebuild of the Calcot schools, the financial pressures being felt by WBC. Further concerns included bin collections and access to pharmacies.

Councillor Taylor felt there was scope for both WBC’s and RBC’s proposals to happen to a degree. He was opposed to the Motion and the letters that were proposed to be written.

Councillor Adrian Abbs pointed out that while there might be some level of discontent felt by some residents, this did not necessarily mean they wanted to be away from WBC. It was important that residents were able to have their say on the proposals, with decisions informed by residents’ views that were statistically significant.

Councillor Jo Stewart recently attended a meeting of Tilehurst Parish Council in order to hear residents’ views. She had lived in Calcot for many years and, prior to becoming a Councillor, had queried why services were provided by WBC. However, since becoming a Councillor, she had been able to see how much better the service provision of WBC was in comparison to RBC.

Councillor Jeff Brooks had, together with his colleagues, visited many parishes in the east of the district with more to follow. The majority view was that people wanted to stay with WBC and were pleased with the services provided. This view should be made known to local MPs.

A high number of services provided by WBC were operating at a better level than in RBC and efforts would be made to continue to improve. One example was the Care Quality Commission (CQC) ratings. This was Requires Improvement for RBC, whereas WBC was rated as Good.

Councillor Alan Macro pointed out that RBC’s Liberal Democrat Councillors were not supportive of Reading’s proposal. He highlighted that residents living in his Ward (Theale) had their local needs met from the local area. They utilised WBC’s services.

A Parish Poll would soon be conducted to give Theale residents the opportunity to vote on whether they would wish to remain part of West Berkshire.

Councillor Stuart Gourley compared waste collection rates between the two local authorities. Waste capacity at RBC on a two weekly collection frequency was lower than WBC’s on a three weekly frequency.

Councillor Heather Codling highlighted Ofsted ratings. 80% of secondary schools in RBC were rated as Good or Outstanding. This was 92.3% in WBC.

89% of primary schools achieved this rated in RBC, with 93.6% achieving that in WBC.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon stated that the Conservative Group supported this Motion. He did however raise a concern that, at the present time, many residents were dissatisfied at the move to three weekly bin collections and did not feel they were being listened to.

Councillor Tony Vickers recalled the consultation undertaken as part of the last LGR when residents living in the east were clear they wanted to be part of WBC.

Councillor Shakespeare spoke of his Ward (Pangbourne). He praised the area and its supportive community. He wanted Pangbourne to remain a rural village and remain part of WBC.

He was concerned that RBC, initially, had conducted no consultation and imposed its proposal on its residents. When they did consult, it was limited.

Councillor Shakespeare was hopeful that the views of residents were recognised by Central Government.

Councillor Pemberton stated his concern at the approach taken by RBC. LGR should be a democratic process, but Reading had not considered the views of residents.

The statistics showed that residents living in the east of the district overwhelmingly wanted to stay living in WBC. West Berkshire’s residents would continue to be listened to.

Councillor Pemberton explained that Lee Dillon MP was not listed in the Motion as the east of the district was not part of his constituency. However, he was aware that Mr Dillon was involved in much work behind the scenes with his colleagues in South Oxfordshire on the Ridgeway proposal.

The Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 12 – Motion C) submitted in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks relating to the installation of sprinklers or other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) in the Council’s own building stock.

The Chairman informed Council that should the Motion be proposed and seconded, then it would be referred to the Executive for consideration, in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.6.1, as the detail of the Motion fell within the remit of the Executive.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Billy Drummond:

That the Council:

“Commit to the installation of sprinklers or other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) in the Council’s own building stock when constructing new buildings, significant extensions and relevant refurbishment of existing buildings

This Council:

Recognises that sprinklers and other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) save lives, protect property, reduce the impact of fire on the environment, reduce interruption to business and improve safety for individuals in the community in general and firefighters.

Supports the National Fire Chiefs’ Council position on sprinklers and will write to Central Government to express support for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings.

Commits to the installation of sprinklers or other AFSS within its own building stock when constructing new buildings, significant extensions and relevant refurbishment of existing buildings or as a retrofitted solution when undertaking major refurbishments of existing buildings where the extent of the refurbishment makes the fitting of sprinklers viable.

Promotes and supports the installation of sprinklers or other AFSS for all new or refurbished buildings and particularly those that present the most significant risk to the occupants, public and firefighters and will do this through planning application and building control processes.”

Councillor Brooks referred to the Council’s existing fire suppression policy which was introduced in 2013. This required that all new buildings and extensions be subject to the policy, but only if they adhered to a constrictive set of criteria which limited installation of AFSS.

The purpose of this Motion was to strengthen the existing policy. This would include a commitment to install sprinklers or other AFSS in the Council’s own building stock with, in the vast majority of cases, a presumption in favour of installation.

Most importantly, this was about saving lives. No deaths had occurred in the UK from fire in buildings fitted with sprinklers.

Sprinklers and AFSS also protected properties from damage. It was clarified that sprinklers/AFSS were only activated at an extremely high heat.

This move was being called for by Fire Chiefs nationally

Councillor Iain Cottingham, responding as Portfolio Holder, gave his full support to taking this matter through to the Executive for consideration.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 12 – Motion D) submitted in the name of Councillor Ross Mackinnon relating to decisions made that went contrary to the majority of residents’ opinions via a public consultation.

The Chairman informed Council that should the Motion be proposed and seconded, then it would be referred to the Executive for consideration, in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.6.1, as the detail of the Motion fell within the remit of the Executive.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Ross Mackinnon and seconded by Councillor Dominic Boeck:

“That where a decision is made contrary to the majority of residents’ opinions via a public consultation, then an explanatory statement should be made explaining the reasons for doing so

1.    This Council considers that individual members, the Executive, and the Council itself should always be honest and transparent with, and accountable to, the residents of West Berkshire.

2.    This Council notes with approval that the foreword to the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto for the 2023 West Berkshire Council elections included the following commitment:

“A Liberal Democrat administration will be one that listens to you, and gives you a real say in the decisions that affect our area.”

3.    This Council recognises that in the event that:

i.               residents are asked for their views on a particular proposal or policy via a public consultation, and

ii.              residents’ responses indicate a majority either for their approval or for their disapproval of that proposal or policy, and

iii.             following the consultation process the relevant decision-making body (Council, Executive or Individual Executive Member) makes a decision not in accordance with the majority of residents’ responses, then

there is a risk that public trust in the Council, the public’s feeling that they are listened to, and the public’s feeling that they have a real say in the decisions that affect our area, will be diminished.

4.    This Council therefore considers that in the event a decision is made contrary to the majority of residents’ opinions expressed via a public consultation, then a statement should be published on the Council’s public website no more than 14 days after the making of the decision, written by:

the Chairman of Council in respect of a Council decision, or

the Leader of the Council in respect of an Executive decision, or

the relevant Individual Executive Member in respect of an Individual Executive Member decision,

clearly informing residents that a decision has been made contrary to the majority of residents’ opinions expressed via a public consultation, and explaining the decision-maker’s rationale for making that decision not in accordance with that majority of residents’ opinions.”

Councillor Mackinnon considered this to be a topical Motion and a useful one to raise following the debate on the black bin collection petition where the view of residents had not been taken into account.

The purpose of this Motion was to ensure that residents were treated with courtesy and respect, and informed in cases where decisions were made that went contrary to public opinion. In such cases, a statement should be issued by the Council that explained the reasoning for making the decision.

Councillor Jeff Brooks, responding as Portfolio Holder, commented that this sounded a reasonable suggestion. However, he made it clear that the Liberal Democrat Administration did not ignore residents or consultation responses. He was confident in stating that residents were listened to and treated with respect. This was supported by the comments made by Councillor Brooks as part of the petition debate. It was unfortunately the case however that it was not always possible to please all residents in some cases. It was sometimes necessary to make decisions that were for the greater good.

Councillor Brooks continued by explaining that, in the main, the actions proposed within the Motion were taking place. Documentation to support decision making was made public with consultation responses included. However, he acknowledged that this an area on which the Council could improve.

He added the view that while there could be well organised objection to a proposal, there could well be a large silent majority who were in favour of it.

Councillor Brooks concluded by advising that he was reviewing previous consultations to identify cases where decisions were made that went contrary to the feedback received from members of the public.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 12 – Motion E) submitted in the name of Councillor David Marsh requesting a review of the Council’s investments and those of the Berkshire Pension Fund.

The Chairman informed Council that should the Motion be proposed and seconded, then it would be debated in order to facilitate the discharge of business in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.6.3.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor David Marsh and seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver:

That the Council:

“Resolves to review its own investments and request that those of the Berkshire Pension Fund are reviewed to identify any direct or indirect holdings in companies that are supplying arms, military technology, or logistical support which enable breaches of international law in Gaza.

West Berkshire Council recognises its responsibility to ensure that public money, including its own investments and those of the Berkshire Pension Fund, is used in a manner consistent with our values of peace, human rights, and respect for international law.

Council notes with grave concern the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the verdict of the United Nations commission of inquiry that a genocide of the Palestinian people, as defined by international law, is taking place (“killing members of a group, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to destroy the group, and preventing births”).

Council notes that a number of local authorities in the UK are supporting the divestment of pension funds from companies which are facilitating serious breaches of international law by, for example, supplying military technology to Israel or financing illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Council therefore resolves to:

Request that the Executivereview its own investments and request that those of the Berkshire Pension Fund are reviewed to identify any direct or indirect holdings in companies that are supplying arms, military technology, or logistical support which enable breaches of international law in Gaza.

Work with its asset managers to take steps to end such investments and strongly request, through its representative, that the Berkshire Pension Fund does the same.

Report back to Council within three months on progress made.”

Councillor Marsh stated the importance of ensuring that investments were ethical. He believed this was supported by the majority of residents.

Councillor Marsh outlined the many severe concerns from the conflict in Gaza which had resulted in a significant and tragic loss of life. He gave his view that the attack of Hamas on Israel in October 2023 did not justify the response from Israel.

There was concern at the potential arming of this conflict from investments and Councillor Marsh highlighted the need to ensure that the Council’s investments and those of the Berkshire Pension Fund did not in any way go towards that. Many other local authorities had already sought to undertake this or a very similar action. Disinvestment should be ensured, which would be the right thing for the Council to do, albeit in a small way.

The Motion was opened up for debate and Members across the Chamber shared their sadness at the tragic loss of life and the impact on survivors, and many made comments in that regard.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon commented that there were two sides to the conflict, which had commenced following the Hamas attack on Israel. Israel had the right to defend its borders. He supported the Pension Fund in holding investments in companies that was in accordance with the UK Government’s legislation and advice.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam represented the Council on the Berkshire Pension Fund Committee and would raise this issue at the Committee’s next meeting in December, but added that activity on this matter had already commenced.

Councillor Cottam supported the Motion, specifically disinvestment where there were breaches of international law.

Councillor Jeff Brooks felt it was right that Council was debating this issue, no matter how difficult a subject it was. He supported disinvestment where there were breaches of international law.

Councillor Richard Somner voiced the importance of not investing in any organisation that could be supporting any conflict that went contrary to international law. In such cases the Council should withdraw any investment and look to the Berkshire Pension Fund to do the same.

Councillor Tony Vickers felt it had been right for the debate to be held as it was a matter of high public interest. There needed to be a recognised framework for international law.

Councillor Culver stated that the Council should do all it possibly could to not invest its funds in the wrong way. This was a small action that could be taken by the Council. To date, 17 other local authorities had passed a similar Motion.

She added that a significant number of peace vigils had been held in Newbury.

Councillor Marsh acknowledged that while the Motion related to the conflict in Gaza, he recognised the points made about other conflicts across the world. The severity being felt in Gaza was however hugely significant and this was recognised by a number of international organisations.

Councillor Tony Vickers reclarified the recommendation in the Motion. He added that he would be abstaining from the vote.

The Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.