Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Gary Cowan, Peter Dennis, John Halsall and Pauline Helliar-Symons.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 January 2024.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 18 January 2024 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

To receive any declarations of discloseable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and any non-registrable interests relevant to any matters to be considered at the meeting.

Councillor Andrew Gray declared a personal interest in Item 114.1 – Housing Revenue Account Budget 2024/25 – on the grounds that he owned a leasehold property in the Borough and the Council held the freehold.

To receive any announcements by the Mayor.

The Mayor informed Members that she had attended the recent Chinese New Year celebrations in the Borough. During the traditional celebrations the Mayor had met a number of residents who had moved to the Borough from Hong Kong. These residents informed the Mayor that they had been made to feel welcome and had settled happily into the local community. This reflected well on the Borough and its residents.

To answer any public questions.

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice.

The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of the Council.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Council or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.  For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

In accordance with the agreed procedure the Mayor invited members of the public to submit questions to the appropriate Members.

Question:

Residents are struggling to understand why the LPU (Local Plan Update) has still not been released, given that the public consultation on this proposal ended on the 24th January 2022, over two years ago. It has more recently been timetabled, by the Executive Member for Planning and Local Plan, for publication in November 2023, yet we still have not seen it, nor do we have a new timetable for publication. When will see the updated LPU?

Residents are struggling to understand why the Local Plan Update (LPU) has still not been released, given that the public consultation on this proposal ended on the 24th January 2022, over two years ago. It has more recently been timetabled, by the Executive Member for Planning and Local Plan, for publication in November 2023, yet we still have not seen it, nor do we have a new timetable for publication. When will see the updated LPU?

Answer

As you are aware, the government published proposed reforms to national planning policy in December 2022 for consultation.  Some of the proposals were on matters very important to our communities, especially the suggestion to allow past over delivery of housing to be taken into account when preparing local plans. 

Our programme for the local plan, which proposed publication of the local plan in November, was based on when the government said it would confirm its national planning policy reforms.  Unfortunately, the government missed its timetable several times, not confirming the changes in the Spring, or Autumn of 2023 but eventually in mid-December 2023.

Given the delay to publication of the expected national planning policy reforms, the alternative would have been to proceed without taking changes into account.  Our judgement, like many other local authorities, was to wait for the government.

Now that the national policy reforms have been confirmed, Officers are actively reflecting on them and progressing work which will lead to a recommendation to Council on the local plan.

The formal programme will be updated through a future report to the Executive, however I would expect a report to be taken to Council on the next stage of the local plan in the summer.

Supplementary Question

You say that you want to give everyone the chance to get involved in the Planning process in your draft Statement of Community Involvement. Yet, whenever I come here and ask questions about the LPU I seem to be given excuses. Are you really interested in getting people involved in the Planning process?

Answer

Yes, and there will be that opportunity when it comes.

Question:

The Coppid Beech P&R has been open for more than two months, I’ve passed it on at least two dozen occasions and am yet to see a single user. That’s great in respect of carbon net zero but not so good for council finances. In fairness my wife did see a car in there, but it was a remote-controlled toy operated by a six-year-old – I suspect he didn’t pay the parking fee.

Clearly the millions spent building the car park are lost but I’d like to know the full operating loss to date taking account of the budgeted income, actual income (if any) and running costs?

The Coppid Beech P&R has been open for more than two months, I’ve passed it on at least two dozen occasions and am yet to see a single user. That’s great in respect of carbon net zero but not so good for Council finances. In fairness, my wife did see a car in there, but it was a remote-controlled toy operated by a six-year-old – I suspect he didn’t pay the parking fee.

Clearly the millions spent building the car park are lost but I’d like to know the full operating loss to date taking account of the budgeted income, actual income (if any) and running costs.

Note: For Councillors’ benefit a photo showing operating costs being incurred in the year before the P&R opened was included.

Answer

Firstly, I wish to point out that on numerous occasions I highlighted to the previous administration that a Park & Ride facility located at Coppid Beech was a poor investment of funding. The business case was weak it required the car park to be 90% full to break even and only got through the benefit cost ratio scoring on potentially saving personal injury accidents between the Park & Ride and the town centre. Unfortunately, it went ahead, and this administration has now inherited this project.

Park & Ride sites have struggled since Covid nationally and locally and Mereoak, which was operating successfully before Covid, has gradually increased usage to 60% of its pre-pandemic level.

Coppid Beech usage as a car park for the frequent Lion 4 / X4 service into Wokingham and Bracknell town centres is anticipated to be low but opening it and to consider potential options for its usage were considered to be the best way forward at the moment.

Due to a change in working patterns the demand for park and ride nationally has reduced. Consequently, no income target was set for this financial year. To date there have been 78 parked vehicles using the site. 36% of users were using the EV charging bays. The cost of operating the site to date is £4,122, of which £1,343 is covered by grant funding. The largest proportion of cost to date relates to an annual maintenance charge for the parking machines. Income to date is £220, therefore the operating loss to the Council to date is £2,559.

When making the decision to open the park and ride it was made clear that if it is not used then it may close again. It is too early to decide on the site’s future. However, it should be noted that there is month on month growth in the number of users parked. We are actively talking to partners and seeking opportunities to encourage further use of the site.

Supplementary Question

The gamble to build a speculative, zero use car park has clearly failed and I presume that there is no Plan B. The site has good bus and road connections and, thus, would be ideal for housing, thereby saving a few  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.2

Question:

Why can’t the preliminary schedule for road cleaning be posted on the web site, which would enable the public to provide feedback? The routes and frequency should all be in accordance with both the consultation results from last year and the 2024-2025 budget. Aspirations are hard to monitor.

Why can’t the preliminary schedule for road cleaning be posted on the web site, which would enable the public to provide feedback. The routes and frequency should all be in accordance with both the consultation results from last year and the 2024-2025 budget. Aspirations are hard to monitor.

Answer

It is our intention to make the schedules available on our website. However, the new contract changes are still bedding in and we want to make sure that the revised routes have been fully tested over several cycles throughout the spring. We have the street cleansing data from the Autumn/Winter period which has been adjusted and we need to ensure the annual schedule is working efficiently before publishing this information. We expect the schedules to be uploaded in the summer.

To receive any petitions which Members or members of the public wish to present.

There were no petitions submitted.

The following budget reports will be taken as one Agenda Item and a period of 1½ hours will be allowed to debate the item.

The Council considered four reports which together comprised a single Agenda item:

·           The Housing Revenue Account Budget 2024/25 as set out on Agenda pages 47 to 56;

·           The Capital Programme and Strategy 2024/27 as set out on Agenda pages 57 to 96;

·           The Treasury Management Strategy 2024/27 as set out on Agenda pages 97 to 150;

·           The Medium-Term Financial Plan 2024/27 – including the Revenue Budget Submission 2024/25 as set out on Agenda pages 151 to 294.

The Mayor reminded Members that a total of 90 minutes would be set aside for the debate.

During the debate, it was moved by Councillor Prue Bray and seconded by Councillor Imogen Shepherd-Dubey that, in accordance with Rule 4.2.12.m, the time allowed for the Budget debate be extended by 20 minutes to allow all Members who wished to speak the opportunity to do so.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That the Budget debate be extended by 20 minutes.

Madam Mayor,

We live in difficult times.  Over the last two years, the Council has been confronted with the twin challenges of inflation and rising demand for statutory services, especially in adult and children’s social care.  Significant numbers of our residents are affected by the cost-of-living crisis, or grapple with serious mental and physical health challenges.  In these most testing of financial circumstances for all councils, we need to focus on two fundamental requirements – first, to do all we can to help those for whom life is a struggle now, and second, to lay the foundations for a better future.

Before I say more on how these two requirements have shaped the budget, I want to express my gratitude to the Chief Finance Officer, the senior officers in the Corporate Leadership Team, and staff across the Council for their hard work in preparing this budget.  As always, Councillors are indebted to our professional officers, without whom we could do nothing. I am also grateful to my executive colleagues. While they have all played their part superbly, I particularly want to thank Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, the Executive Member for Finance.

My thanks are likewise due to the members of the all-party Community and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee for their thorough and thoughtful scrutiny of the draft budget.  During the scrutiny process, which stretched over many months, Executive Members were required to answer questions on the budget lines for which they have responsibility.  To reinforce that transparency, the approved budget papers will be published on the Council’s website with a clear indication of which Executive Member is responsible for the different areas of the budget.

I am very grateful to members of the public for their support for our campaign for fairer funding by central government, especially the more than 1,000 Borough residents who wrote to the Secretary of State backing our cause.  Sadly, the opposition did not support our campaign; indeed, they chose to defend the government’s underfunding of Wokingham rather than stand up for Wokingham, as we have done.  Opposition Members have persisted for many months with the politically motivated claim that Wokingham is well funded, conveniently forgetting that they argued the complete opposite when they ran the Council.  They might want to ponder further whose side they are truly on – our residents’ or the government’s. Just as we are on our residents’ side, so they are on ours.  I’m pleased to say that their letter-writing was worth the time and effort: at the end of last month, we received the welcome news that the government had belatedly decided that, in view of our challenges with inflation and rising demand for statutory services, especially in adult and children’s social care, we would be given an extra £1.6 million.  Unfortunately, this extra core revenue funding, though it helps, is nowhere near what we need to tackle the pressures created by inflation and continuing increases in demand for social care. 

Even after the government’s latest contribution, we still have an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.1

Madam Mayor,

I would like to start with an item of agreement. I too would like to thank all the officers for their help and hard work in producing this Budget. I would also like to thank the Executive Members for answering lots of questions in Scrutiny, which was very useful. Also the supporting officers, but…

In April Liberal Democrats promised residents they would “offer financial competence and compassion.” They have done neither.

Failing to deliver Bohunt Sixth Form, allowing building costs to spiral and telling teenagers in July they will need to find alternative Sixth Form places for September, is not competence or compassion. Telling businesses it is “too easy to blame Wokingham Borough Council” for a fall in shoppers when the Council has doubled parking charges and funded free Christmas bus travel to take shoppers out of the Borough is not competence or compassion. Letting flats at Carnival Hub sit empty and half finished, allowing building costs to increase is not competence and failing to finish these flats for people trying to get on to the housing ladder is not compassion. It is…

•           failure to act,

•           failure to take responsibility,

•           failure to put Wokingham Borough residents above short term political opportunism.

Liberal Democrats are all talk and little action. Many successes, they’ve claimed come from work by previous Conservative administrations, with the Lib Dems always trying to claim the credit.  Every poor choice, and Lib Dems blame everyone but themselves. They repeatedly warn the Council is on the “brink of bankruptcy”. Yet last year, the Council’s Chief Financial Officer’s report said that the Council’s Finances were in good shape under the previous Conservative administration. In 2020, under the Conservatives, Wokingham Borough was rated in the top 20 for financial sustainability by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy.

When the Conservative Group left office, the Council’s Core Spending Power was £151 million. The Council’s Core Spending Power for this coming year is £174.8 million thanks to Council tax payers and increased government grants.

With an extra £23.8 million the Lib Dems tell us they still don’t have enough.

While we receive less revenue support grants than other areas, it’s fiction that Wokingham Borough Council has less money than other councils to spend on services. Our Core Spending Power per household is more than any other Council in Berkshire apart from Slough, and more than most Unitary Councils in England.

It is right for any administration to lobby Government for their area, but it is shameful to misrepresent the Council’s financial position to residents. And it is not right to cause alarm to residents and staff by peppering communications with references to bankruptcy and redundancy.

Despite having more money to spend than other councils, the Liberal Democrats can’t live within their means. They have lost control of the Council’s finances and are plugging the gaps by taking from reserves. Lib Dems made a big fuss about reserves when they were in opposition – now they plunder  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.2

That Council consider the recommendations of the Executive in respect of the Housing Revenue Account Budget for 2024/25.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve:

1)              The Housing Revenue Account budget for 2024/25 (Appendix A);

2)              Council house dwelling rents be increased by up to 7.7% effective from 1^st April 2024 in line with the council’s Rent Setting Policy that was approved by Executive on 26^th October 2023.

3)              Garage rents to be increased by 8.33% effective from April 2024;

4)              Shared Equity Rents to be increased by 7.7% effective from April 2024;

5)              Tenant Service Charges to be increased over the next three year to achieve full cost recovery effective from April 2024;

6)              The Housing Major Repairs (capital) programme for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix B;

7)              Sheltered room guest charges for 2024/25 remain unchanged at £9.50 per night per room.

It was proposed By Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the Housing Revenue Account Budget, 2024/25, as set out on Agenda pages 47 to 56 be approved.

Voting on the item was as follows:

RESOLVED That:

1)            the Housing Revenue Account budget for 2024/25 (Appendix A) be approved;

2)            Council house dwelling rents be increased by up to 7.7% effective from 1^st April 2024, in line with the Council’s Rent Setting Policy that was approved by Executive on 26^th October 2023;

3)            garage rents be increased by 8.33%, effective from April 2024;

4)            Shared Equity Rents be increased by 7.7% effective from April 2024;

5)            Tenant Service Charges be increased over the next three years to achieve full cost recovery, effective from April 2024;

6)            the Housing Major Repairs (Capital) Programme for 2024/25, as set out in Appendix B, be approved;

7)            sheltered room guest charges for 2024/25 remain unchanged at £9.50 per night per room.

That Council consider the recommendations of the Executive in respect of the Capital Programme and Strategy 2024-2027.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council consider the recommendations of the Executive in respect of the Capital Programme and Strategy 2024-2027 and approve.

1)    the Capital Strategy for 2024 - 2027 - Appendix A;

2)    the three-year capital programme for 2024 - 2027 – Appendix B noting that approval is sought for 2024/25 schemes only.

3)    the draft vision for capital investment over the next five years - Appendix C;

4)    the use of developer contribution funding (s106 and CIL) for capital projects as set out in Appendix D. Approval is sought up to the project budget.

5)    the Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) will exercise, where possible the flexible use of capital receipts policy, as issued by the Secretary of State under section 15(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 2003.

6)    approve delegation for the delivery (including awarding and signing of the contract) of the South Wokingham Distributor Road to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place & Growth in agreement with Lead member for Finance and Lead Member for Highways subject to the scheme being fully funded from Homes England Grant and Developer Contributions.

It was proposed By Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the Capital Programme and Strategy, 2024/27, as set out on Agenda pages 57 to 96 be approved.

Councillor Andy Croy requested that a separate vote be taken on Recommendation 5).

Voting on Recommendations 1), 2), 3), 4) and 6) was as follows:

Voting on Recommendation 5) was as follows:

RESOLVED That:

1)     the Capital Strategy for 2024 - 2027 (Appendix A), be approved;

2)     the three-year Capital Programme for 2024/27 (Appendix B) be approved,  noting that approval is sought for 2024/25 schemes only;

3)     the draft Vision for Capital investment over the next five years (Appendix C), be approved;

4)     the use of developer contribution funding (S106 and CIL) for Capital projects as set out in Appendix D, be approved - approval is sought up to the project budget.

5)     the Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) exercise, where possible, the flexible use of Capital receipts policy, as issued by the Secretary of State under section 15(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 2003;

6)     delegation for the delivery (including awarding and signing of the contract) of the South Wokingham Distributor Road to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place & Growth, in agreement with Lead Member for Finance and Lead Member for Highways, be approved, subject to the scheme being fully funded from Homes England Grant and Developer Contributions.

That Council consider the recommendations of the Executive in respect of the Treasury Management Strategy 2024-2027.

RECOMMENDATION:  Council is recommended to approve:

1)    The Treasury Management Strategy as set out in Appendix A including the following additional appendices;

·       Prudential Indicators (Appendix B)

·       Annual Investment Strategy 2024/25 (Appendix C)

·       Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) policy (Appendix D)

It was proposed By Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the Treasury Management Strategy, 2024/27, as set out on Agenda pages 97 to 150 be approved.

Voting on the item was as follows:

RESOLVED: That Council note the Treasury Management Strategy as set out in Appendix A including the following additional appendices:

·           Prudential Indicators (Appendix B);

·           Annual Investment Strategy 2024/25 (Appendix C);

·           Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) policy (Appendix D).

To receive the Medium Term Financial Plan 2024-2027 including Revenue Budget Submissions 2024/25.

RECOMMENDATION:  That Council:

1) Approve the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2024/27, including the budget

submission for 2024/25 and the Summary of Budget Movements (SOBM);

2) Approve the statutory resolution that sets out the 2024/25 council tax levels (as

set out in Appendix A to the report)

3) Approve that in the event that there are any changes to the provisional precept of the Fire Authority or parishes, arising from their precept setting meetings being held before the end of February, the Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) is delegated authority to enact all relevant changes to the MTFP, Statutory Resolution and council tax levels.

It was proposed By Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the Medium Term Financial Plan, 2024/27, including the Revenue Budget Submission, 2024/25, as set out on Agenda pages 151 to 294, be approved.

It was proposed by Councillor Tony Skuse and seconded by Councillor Andrew Gray, that a new Recommendation 1) be inserted into the recommendations in the report, as follows:

1)     approve an additional item in the appropriate part of the MTFP:

“Woodley Town Centre CCTV System”, to the value of £15,000. The £15,000 matches the £15,000 of funding secured from the Police and Crime Commissioner’s office. The consequential of this amendment to be reflected in all other financial reports.

Councillor Stephen Conway confirmed that the proposed amendment was acceptable.

In line with the requirements of the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) England (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken. Individual votes were taken on each of the, now four, Recommendations as follows:

Recommendation 1)

Approve an additional item in the appropriate part of the MTFP:

“Woodley Town Centre CCTV System”, to the value of £15,000. The £15,000 matches the £15,000 of funding secured from the Police and Crime Commissioner’s office. The consequential of this amendment to be reflected in all other financial reports.

Recommendation 2)

The Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2024/27, included in the Budget Submission for 2024/25 and the Summary of Budget Movements (SOBM), be approved.

Recommendation 3)

The Statutory Resolution that sets out the 2024/25 Council Tax levels (as set out in Appendix A to the report) be approved.

To approve the Council Plan Extension 2024-25.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the Council Plan Extension 2024-25.

Council considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 295 to 324, which set out a proposal to extend the current Council Plan for one year and the rationale for making changes to the plan.

The report stated that the Council Plan set priorities and direction for its work. As the plan needed to be aligned to the emerging Community Vision (expected in June 2024) there would be a gap between the current plan ending and a new plan starting. The transitional (interim) Council Plan would take effect from 1 April 2024 and would be published alongside a SMART delivery plan for 2024 /25. The proposed transitional Council Plan 2024/25 was appended to the report.

It was proposed by Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the recommendation in the report be approved.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That the Council Plan extension, 2024/25, be approved.

To establish a Joint Committee – The Berkshire Prosperity Board.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves:

1.     the establishment of a fully constituted Joint Committee (to be known as the Berkshire Prosperity Board) from May 2024 to deliver a Berkshire-wide vision for inclusive green and sustainable economic prosperity.

2.     that the proposed constitution for the Joint Committee as set out in Appendix A -Functions and Procedure Rules for a Joint Committee, Appendix B - Responsibilities of the accountable body and Appendix C - Governance structure is approved subject to review by each member Council within 6 months.

3.     that the Chief Executive be delegated to reach a legally binding Agreement between the member Authorities setting out the supporting arrangements and responsibilities between the Authorities, particularly that between the Lead Authority, known as the Accountable Body and the other member Authorities and go through the relevant democratic process if required. Such Agreement also to be approved by the s151 Officer.

4.     that Wokingham Borough Council act as the Accountable Body for the Prosperity Board.

Council considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 325 to 333, which set out proposals to establish a Joint Committee (to be known as the Berkshire Prosperity Board). The aim of the Board was enable the Berkshire Authorities to transform Berkshire’s productivity through responsive, agile collaboration. This would involve presenting a stronger case for investment, collective lobbying of the Government and other agencies and developing an advantageous position in readiness for potential devolution proposals.

The report set out the proposed constitution and governance structure for the Board and sought authority for the Chief Executive to engage in developing a legally binding agreement with the other Berkshire Authorities. It was proposed that the Council act as the Lead Authority (Accountable Body) for the Board. Subject to approval, the first Board meeting would take place in May 2024. The Board would meet four times a year with each of the Berkshire Authorities leading on one of the proposed thematic workstreams – health and inequalities, education and skills, affordable housing, sector development, strategic infrastructure and Net Zero.

It was proposed by Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the recommendations in the report be approved.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED That Council approve:

1)     the establishment of a fully constituted Joint Committee (to be known as the Berkshire Prosperity Board) from May 2024 to deliver a Berkshire-wide vision for inclusive green and sustainable economic prosperity;

2)     the proposed constitution for the Joint Committee as set out in Appendix A -Functions and Procedure Rules for a Joint Committee, Appendix B - Responsibilities of the accountable body and Appendix C - Governance structure is approved subject to review by each member Council within 6 months;

3)     that the Chief Executive be delegated to reach a legally binding Agreement between the member Authorities setting out the supporting arrangements and responsibilities between the Authorities, particularly that between the Lead Authority, known as the Accountable Body and the other member Authorities and go through the relevant democratic process if required. Such Agreement also to be approved by the s151 Officer.

4)     that Wokingham Borough Council act as the Accountable Body for the Prosperity Board.

To consider a proposal to approve a period of absence on the grounds of ill health for Councillor Gary Cowan.

RECOMMENDATION:  Council is recommended to:

1)       note that Councillor Gary Cowan has not been able to attend meetings in-person of the Council due to ill-health since his attendance at Council on 21 September 2023;

2)       approve Councillor Gary Cowan’s non-attendance at meetings of the Council due to ill-health until his current term of office ends in May 2024, pursuant to Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Council considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 335 to 336, which sought approval for a period of absence from meetings by Councillor Gary Cowan.

The report stated that, if a Member failed to attend any meeting of the relevant Authority throughout a period of six consecutive months, they ceased to be a Member of the Authority (subject to certain exceptions). However, the Authority could approve a Member’s non-attendance for specified reasons.

Due to ill health, Councillor Cowan had not been able to attend any meetings since his attendance at Council on 21 September 2023. It was uncertain whether Councillor Cowan would be able to attend any meetings in the upcoming months. Consequently a request had been submitted to approve an extension to the six month rule to enable Councillor Cowan to remain in office until his current term of office ended in May 2024.

It was proposed by Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the recommendations in the report be approved.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED That Council:

1)     note that Councillor Gary Cowan has not been able to attend meetings of the Council in person, due to ill health, since his attendance at Council on 21 September 2023;

2)     approve Councillor Cowan’s non-attendance at meetings of the Council, due to ill-health, until his current term of office ends in May 2024, pursuant to Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider proposals from the Returning Officer to re-designate two polling places for the elections on 2 May.

RECOMMENDATION:  That Council agree that the following Polling Places are designated for the elections to be held on 2 May 2024:

1)             St John’s Church, Woodley be designated as the polling place for polling district KCEb and KDEb in Bulmershe & Coronation Ward instead of St John’s Ambulance, HQ, Woodley;

2)             Shinfield Players Theatre be designated as the polling place for polling district SAE2a in Shinfield Ward instead of White Knights Primary School

3)             The Assistant Director Governance be delegated authority, in consultation with the relevant Ward Member(s), to re-designate any polling place in the Borough which becomes unavailable.

Council considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 337 to 346, which gave details of proposed changes to designated Polling Places in advance of the elections to be held on 2 May 2024.

The report stated that alternative venues were required to replace two previously agreed locations – St John’s Ambulance HQ, Woodley and Whiteknights Primary School, Shinfield.

It was proposed by Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray, that the recommendations in the report be approved.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED That:

1)     St John’s Church, Woodley be designated as the polling place for polling district KCEb and KDEb, in Bulmershe and Coronation Ward, instead of the St John’s Ambulance, HQ, Woodley;

2)     Shinfield Players Theatre be designated as the polling place for polling district SAE2a, in Shinfield Ward, instead of Whiteknights Primary School;

3)     the Assistant Director Governance be delegated authority, in consultation with the relevant Ward Member(s) to re-designate any polling place in the Borough which becomes unavailable.