Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1BN

Contact: Anne Hunter  Democratic and Electoral Services Lead Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

24.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

An apology for absence was submitted from Stuart Munro.

 

Rachel Burgess joined the meeting via Microsoft Teams.

25.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 May 2022 and the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 22 June 2022.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council held on 19 May 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor, subject to the final sentence of paragraph 4 of Minute 1 (Statement by Councillor John Halsall) being amended to read:

 

“All development to date has taken place under the Core Strategy, authored by Gary”.

 

The Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council held on 22 June 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

 

26.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

The following Members made a general personal declaration of interest in relation to items on the Agenda:

 

·           Prue Bray as a Director of Berry Brook Homes and WBC Holdings Ltd.

·           Stephen Conway as a Director of Loddon Homes and WBC Holdings Ltd.

·           David Hare as a Director of Optalis Ltd.

·           Clive Jones as a Director of Loddon Homes and WBC Holdings Ltd.

27.

Mayor's Announcements

To receive any announcements by the Mayor

Minutes:

The Mayor informed Members of a number of events attended, including the Pride event and the welcome picnic for newcomers to the Borough, both held on Elms Field. The Mayor thanked all the organisations and volunteers who provided support and advice to residents across the Borough. The Mayor also reminded Members that the new Carnival Hub was due to open on Monday 25 July. The Mayor looked forward to seeing Members at the opening event.

28.

Public Question Time

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

Minutes:

There were no public questions.

29.

Petitions

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

Minutes:

No petitions were received.

30.

Presentation by the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable

To receive a presentation from the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, John Campbell, and the Police and Crime Commissioner, Matthew Barber.

 

The presentation is expected to be approximately 20 minutes in duration after which there will be an opportunity for Member questions of no more than 10 minutes in duration.

Minutes:

The Council received presentations from the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner, Mathew Barber, and the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, John Campbell. Local Policing Commander for Bracknell and Wokingham, Superintendent Helen Kenny, gave details of local data, trends and initiatives.

 

The presentations covered the following points:

 

·           Strong Local Policing – recruiting more police officers, supporting neighbourhood policing and focussing on the crimes that matter most to the public.

 

·           Fighting serious and organised crime – cracking down on county lines gangs and organised crime groups to protect children from abuse and exploitation.

 

·           Fighting fraud and cyber-crime – investing in the technology and resources the police need to protect residents online.

 

·           Improving the criminal justice system – supporting victims of crime, bringing more criminals to justice and reducing reoffending.

 

·           Tackling illegal encampments – ensuring a fair but firm response to illegal encampments and reducing the effect on communities.

 

·           Wokingham Borough initiatives – Operation Outbreak (tackling knife crime through targeted enforcement and engagement; car cruises (a partnership approach).

 

Following the presentation, Members asked the questions set out below:

 

1.            Question from Alistair Neal

 

Talking to residents in Earley there is a lot of concern, and fear, about the targeted burglary of gold jewellery. Can you give any reassurance to residents that this crime is decreasing, and that tackling it is a priority for Thames Valley Police?

 

Answer

The slides show an almost 40% reduction in burglary over the last year or so. This was an aspect of Covid with more people working at home, etc. There have not been any targeted burglaries of gold jewellery in Wokingham of late. The last one was in May. That said, when they do occur they cause concern because the victims feel targeted. There was particular concern in Woodley so our Priority Crime Team held a meeting to discuss those concerns with Woodley and Earley residents. Councillors and business leaders attended. As part of that meeting we shared information on crime levels and recent convictions. More importantly, we talked about better communication channels that we can use to locally to spread information and crime prevention advice.

 

Locally, we have made a commitment that the Priority Crime Team, which consists of a Detective Inspector, a Detective Sargeant and a Detective Constable, will continue to investigate the more complex burglaries such as these. They often span across different police areas and different police forces, so it is really important that we have the right resources and the skilled detectives to investigate this type of offence. Following protracted investigations by this team this year one burglar was convicted of seven family gold burglaries in the Wokingham area. He has been sentenced to four and a half years in prison. I hope that gives some reassurance locally.

 

2.         Question from Rachel Bishop Firth

 

Sir Mo Farrah's revelation that he was illegally trafficked to the UK as a child has made us all more aware of this problem.  Rightly, the UK authorities have confirmed that no action will be taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

31.

Annual Pay Policy Statement 2022-23 pdf icon PDF 433 KB

To consider the Annual Pay Policy Statement.

 

RECOMMENDATION:  That Council approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement for 2022-23, as recommended by Personnel Board.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 49 to 60, which gave details of the Pay Policy Statement for 2022/23.

 

The report stated that, under Sections 38 to 43 of the Localism Act 2011, the Council was required to approve and publish a Pay Policy Statement each year. The Pay Policy Statement enabled residents to understand the Council’s pay policy for senior staff and how it related to the salaries of the lowest paid staff. This provided transparency and enabled residents to assess whether salaries represented value for money.

 

It was proposed by Rachel Bishop-Firth and seconded by Pauline Jorgensen that the Annual Pay Policy Statement, 2022/23, as recommended by the Personnel Board, be approved.

 

RESOLVED: That the Annual Pay Policy Statement for 2022/23, as recommended by the Personnel Board, be approved.

32.

Audit Committee Annual Report 2021-22 pdf icon PDF 235 KB

To receive a report from the Chairman of the Audit Committee on the work undertaken over the past year.

 

RECOMMENDATION: That the Audit Committee Annual Report 2021-2022 be noted.

Minutes:

Council considered the Annual Report of the Audit Committee, set out at Agenda pages 61 to 64.

 

Maria Gee, current Vice-Chair of the Audit Committee, introduced the report which gave details of the remit of the Committee and the issues it had covered during 2021/22, including internal and external audit, risk management, statement of accounts, corporate governance, treasury management and the Council’s corporate complaints process.

 

The report stated that, in September 2021, the Audit Committee undertook a self-assessment against CIPFA’s best practice guidance. The Committee found substantial levels of compliance against best practice but found five areas for further development, including the appointment of an independent member of the Committee.

 

It was proposed by Maria Gee and seconded by Peter Harper that the Audit Committee Annual Report, 2021/22 be noted.

 

RESOLVED: That the Audit Committee Annual Report, 2021/22 be noted.

33.

Standards Committee Annual Report 201-22 pdf icon PDF 320 KB

To receive a report from the Chairman of the Standards Committee on the work undertaken over the past year.

 

RECOMMENDATION: That the Standards Committee Annual Report 2021-2022 be noted.

 

Minutes:

Council considered the 2021/22 Annual Report from the Standards Committee, set out at Agenda pages 65 to 72.

 

Morag Malvern, current Chair of the Standards Committee introduced the report which reminded Members of the role of the Committee in promoting and maintaining the highest standards of conduct (the Nolan Principles) by elected Members representing the Borough, Town and Parish Councils.

 

The report gave details of the number and range of issues covered during the year and the steps taken by the Committee to provide training and support for Members across the Borough. During the year, the Committee considered and recommended adoption of the updated Model Code of Conduct produced by the Local Government Association. The Model Code was subsequently adopted by the Council with some local variations.

 

It was proposed by Morag Malvern and seconded by Graham Howe that the Standards Committee Annual Report for 2021/22 be noted.

 

RESOLVED: That the Standards Committee Annual Report, 2021/22 be noted.

34.

Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board Annual Report 2021-22 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To receive a report from the Chairman of the Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board on the work undertaken over the past year.

 

RECOMMENDATION: That the Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board Annual Report 2021-2022 be noted

Minutes:

Council considered the Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board Annual Report for 2021/22, set out at Agenda pages 73 to 108.

 

David Hare, current Chair of the Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board introduced the report which gave details of the role of the Board in bringing together health, social care and community partners to work on reducing health inequalities locally and improve the overall health and wellbeing of the Borough’s residents.

 

The report gave details of the priorities established by the Board and the specific achievements delivered over the past year in areas such as children in care, community safety, domestic abuse, mental health, long Covid, physical activity and the Wokingham Integrated Partnership.

 

It was proposed by David Hare and seconded by Charles Margetts that the Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board Annual Report, 2021/22 be noted.

 

RESOLVED: That the Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board Annual Report, 2021/22 be noted.

35.

Changes to the Constitution pdf icon PDF 282 KB

To receive a report from the Monitoring Officer setting out proposed changes to the Constitution as considered by the Constitution Review Working Group.

 

RECOMMENDATION that Council agree the following changes to the Constitution, as recommended by the Monitoring Officer, via the Constitution Review Working Group:

 

1)    additional wording to be added to Chapter 4.2, as set out in paragraph 1 of the report;

 

2)    that 4.4.11 (Rules of debate Audit Committee) and 8.4.8 (Rules of debate Licensing and Appeals Committee), 9.1.9 Rules of Procedure (Standards Committee) be removed, and subsequent sections renumbered, as set out in paragraph 1 of the report;

 

3)    additional wording to be added to Rule 4.4.19, as set out in paragraph 2 of the report.

 

Minutes:

Council considered a report, set out on Agenda pages 109 to 112, which proposed changes to the Constitution, considered and recommended by the Constitution Review Working Group.

 

It was proposed by Imogen Shepherd-Dubey and seconded by Prue Bray, that the recommendations set out within the report be approved.

 

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)     additional wording be added Chapter 4.2, as set out in paragraph 1 of the report;

 

2)     paragraph 4.4.11 (Rules of Debate Audit Committee), paragraph 8.4.8 (Rules of debate Licensing and Appeals Committee) and paragraph 9.1.9 Rules of procedure (Standards Committee) be removed and subsequent sections renumbered, as set out in paragraph 1 of the report;

 

3)     additional wording be added to Rule 4.4.19, as set out in paragraph 2 of the report.

36.

Additional Council Meeting

Given that Council does not often manage to get through all its items of business at each meeting it is proposedthat an additional Council meeting be scheduled in October in order to enable the transaction of further Council business.

 

RECOMMENDATION:  That Council agree to amend the timetable of meetings to schedule an additional Council meeting on Thursday 20 October 2022 at 7:30pm.

Minutes:

Council considered a proposal to establish an additional Council meeting in October in order to enable the transaction of more Council business.

 

It was proposed by Clive Jones and seconded by Stephen Conway that the timetable of meetings be amended to schedule an additional Council meeting on Thursday 20 October at 7.30pm.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

RESOLVED That the timetable of meetings be amended to schedule an additional Council meeting on Thursday 20 October 2022 at 7.30pm.

 

37.

Member Question Time

To answer any member questions

 

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for Members to ask questions submitted under Notice

 

Any questions not dealt with within the allotted time will be dealt with in a written reply


Minutes:

In accordance with the agreed procedure the Mayor invited Members to submit questions to the appropriate Members

37.1

Michael Firmager asked the Executive Member for Planning and Local Plan the following question:


Question

Given that coalition Members have criticised the lack of development in Hurst, Twyford and the Northern Parishes, will the Executive Member for Planning explain how many houses the Council plans to build there?

 

Minutes:

 

Given that coalition Members have criticised the lack of development in Hurst, Twyford and the Northern Parishes, will the Executive Member for Planning explain how many houses the Council plans to build there?

 

Answer

As many people will be aware, the emerging Local Plan will set the strategy for managing development, including areas of land for future development, new infrastructure and areas of protected green space. The last administration approved the Revised Growth Strategy Consultation last year.  The consultation proposed several areas of land for new housing across Wokingham Borough, including land in the northern parishes of Charvil, Hurst, Ruscombe, Sonning, and Twyford.  The proposed areas of land across these parishes would together deliver around 460 new homes.  Sites with existing planning permission and other minor developments would be in addition to this.

 

The comments received in response to the consultation are being reviewed and analysed. These will be carefully considered alongside technical information before we decide how to move forward. Clearly it would be wrong of me to pre-determine the Local Plan process and so I cannot comment on future decisions. It should be noted, however, that large parts of the northern parishes form part of the Metropolitan Green Belt surrounding London.  Any changes to Green Belt boundaries through the preparation of the Local Plan would need to demonstrate ‘exceptional circumstances’ to necessitate a change, as set out in national planning policy.

 

Supplementary Question

The Executive Member mentions the Local Plan Update. My understanding is that the Local Plan Update needs to be in place next year. Are you on track?

 

Supplementary Answer

We are working to meet our obligations as well as we can. We had just under 3,000 submissions following the last Local Plan Update consultation and the officers have only just completed assessing them. Once we have gone through that we will be dealing with those particular issues.

37.2

Phil Cunnington asked the Executive Member for Health and Wellbeing the following question:

 

Question

Does the coalition support the principle of a dementia care home in Toutley?

 

Minutes:

 

Does the coalition support the principle of a dementia care home in Toutley?

 

Answer

I would just remind you that we are a Partnership not coalition but yes, the partnership, supports the need for a new Dementia care home as a key priority. Proposals are going to Executive for approval on the 28th of July to take this forward and outline planning permission was granted at planning committee on the 13th of July, so this is all progressing well.

 

Supplementary Question

With the movement of people, potentially from Suffolk Lodge, to any new facility, does that mean that the principle is to retain Suffolk Lodge in order to give additional dementia care resources in the area?

 

Supplementary Answer

As I think you know, Suffolk Lodge is an old home which is much loved but not appropriate for people who are in care at the moment. So we will move people from Suffolk Lodge to the new home. But it will take time. People being moved from one care home to another can shorten their lives and so on. We will be understanding of this and will, therefore, not move them all in one day, but spread out over several months.

37.3

Charles Margetts asked the Executive Member for Planning and Local Plan the following question:

 

Question

Can the lead member for Planning let me know what discussions are underway over the possible development of Rooks Nest Farm?

 

Minutes:

 

Can the lead Member for Planning let me know what discussions are underway over the possible development of Rooks Nest Farm?

 

Answer

Rooks Nest was one of the proposed allocations for housing included in the Revised Growth Strategy Consultation approved by the last administration. As you will be aware, the land is owned by the council.  The new administration has asked officers to look at options for the future use of the land, as alternatives to the consultation proposals for housing.

 

Supplementary Question

I welcome that, as someone who was never in favour of the proposal in the first place. You mentioned that you were planning to ask officers to look for alternatives to the housing scheme. I noted a post on Facebook by Councillor Cornish the other day which said much the same thing, where he was actually asking for responses. I wonder if you would extend that consultation to the general public and the wider population rather than just a select Facebook group.

 

Supplementary Answer

I personally have nothing to do with Facebook, so I don’t know what you are talking about. We are setting up the cross-party working group that was in operation in 2020 and 2021. I have already written to the leaders of the groups and the independents. I have had responses back and the plan is to set up the working group in the very near future, hopefully by the end of July. We will then be going through the various sites across the whole Borough.

 

37.4

Laura Blumenthal asked the Executive Member for Housing the following question:

 

I met with residents of Grovelands Avenue in Winnersh who are concerned about how the Council’s temporary accommodation there will impact on them. The new site is currently being built and their number one request is that there should be no access from the site to the road west of it. The main access is north of the site. Please can you guarantee that their request will be delivered?

Minutes:

 

I met with residents of Grovelands Avenue in Winnersh who are concerned about how the Council’s temporary accommodation there will impact on them. The new site is currently being built and their number one request is that there should be no access from the site to the road west of it. The main access is north of the site. Please can you guarantee that their request will be delivered?

 

Answer

Thank you for question regarding Grovelands Park and the new improved modular temporary accommodation currently being installed. These homes will add to the Council owned and leased portfolio of temporary accommodation to house the homeless in the Borough. The Borough has seen an increase in placing homeless families outside the Borough which has a detrimental impact on those with jobs and children, we hope these new, good quality and well insulated temporary homes will reduce the need to placing households outside the Borough.

 

I can confirm pedestrian access into plot 48 Grovelands will continue via the west of the site when the new modular homes are ready for use, this was shown on the plans for which planning consent was given to the project on the 10th February 2021. This means access will be from the west. Others living in the modular homes on plots 39-47 will access their homes through the north of the site. 

 

The housing team will ensure the site is well managed and maintained to minimise the impact on others living on the Grovelands site.

 

Supplementary Question

Is it possible for the Council to give residents a named contact so, if they have any concerns or questions, they know who to go to? They have told me that, at present, they feel that there is no one they can speak to.

 

Supplementary Answer

That person is me. A Council officer they can speak to is Simon Price.

38.

Minutes of Committee Meetings and Ward Matters

A period of 20 minutes will be allowed for Members to ask questions in relation to the latest circulated volume of Minutes of Meetings and Ward Matters

38.1

Chris Bowring asked the Executive Member for Planning and Local Plan the following question:

Minutes:

 

The Pinewood Centre, in my ward of Wokingham Without, is a much valued facility. I received an assurance from your predecessor, Wayne Smith, last February that WBC would not be building any housing on that site which it owns. Can you reaffirm that commitment?

 

Answer

I have raised the issue of the Pinewood Centre with officers at WBC and we are going through the due process of the Local Plan.

38.2

Rachel Bishop-Firth asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

I would like to ask a ward question about the Tan House railway crossing. Some years ago the level crossing was replaced by a steep temporary structure. This means that to get over the two railway lines people have to navigate both a steep temporary bridge and a second crumbling concrete bridge. The Emmbrook Councillors have been campaigning for a number of years for this to be replaced by an accessible bridge. We are glad to hear that Network Rail are looking to replace this dual bridge structure with a bridge over both railway lines. At present, however, the plan is to replace with a bridge with steps. This means that the crossing still won’t be usable by anyone with a pram or wheelchair and it cannot be part of our cycling network. What steps are we taking to ask Network Rail to replace this bridge with one that can be used by young parents, cyclists and those who need a wheelchair?

 

Answer

I was alerted by officers about the Tan House bridges earlier this month because Network Rail are planning to replace the two bridges – the concrete bridge and the temporary structure, by the end of March 2024. However, only with steps which is absolutely no use whatsoever to us. On 11th July I wrote to John Halsall, not Councillor John Halsall, but John Halsall the Managing Director of Network Rail, Southern Region. In my letter I stated that I wanted to contact him at the earliest opportunity to raise our concerns about the apparent lack of priority given to the needs of the mobility impaired and our Active Travel agenda with regard to that project.

 

To install steps on a bridge in that particular location is a huge missed opportunity for the next 50 years. I also copied in some key people, one of them being Grant Shapps (Secretary of State for Transport), Sir John Redwood (Wokingham MP), Chris Boardman (Active Travel Guru) and Peter Duggan (Department of Transport). I received a response on Monday from John Halsall, Regional Director Network Rail. It was rather disappointing as they appear to be avoiding DDA compliance and the active travel requirements. So, the question to Network Rail is quite simple. We are trying to get them to deliver the right bridge that will be in place at that location for 50+ years. They must take account of the mobility impaired and the emerging LCWIP.

38.3

Abdul Loyes asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

The path in Sandford Park Woodley, running along its south east end, is very uneven, caused by two raised drain covers and at least two large tree roots. It is impossible for pushchairs and wheelchairs and is a trip hazard. Could the Executive Member confirm when it will be made safe and usable for all residents?

 

Answer

I will look into that for you. If you could email me the location that would be most useful.

 

38.4

Charles Margetts asked the Executive Member for Children's Services the following question:

Minutes:

 

I received an email two nights ago from a parent Governor of Bohunt School, who lives in my ward, expressing concern that the announcement made in March that WBC was going to deliver a 6th form, extra Year 7 places and SEND provision at Bohunt School, by September 2023, is not going to be met because of slow progress. I am not expecting Councillor Bray to answer that as she has not had sight of the question and that is not fair. But, what I would ask is: Could she reassure me of the Council’s commitment to proceed with this scheme? Also, would she provide a monthly or regular update to local Members on progress as it advances. Finally, as a Member for Finchampstead, I am keen to support this process and if she wishes to involve local Members, I would be happy to play a constructive part.

 

Answer

As it happens, we had a meeting about this very subject this afternoon. I told the Council officers and representatives of Bohunt School that we will continue to make progress and that I will be keeping local Members informed on a regular basis. I will also extend that courtesy to Graham Howe as my opposite number. So, you can expect an update in the next few days.

38.5

Phil Cunnington asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

There is a small car park on Ashridge Road, opposite the entrance to Keephatch School, surrounded by small local shops. There is a Sainsburys Local next door. Unfortunately, almost without exception at school run times and at other times during the day, large vehicles, often pick-ups or 4 by 4s, mount the kerb and park either side of the entrance on the actual pavements. I wonder if there is any way that we can consider some cost-effective way of providing some non-human bollards to protect the pavements and provide safety for parents and children walking on that very busy route to and from both Keephatch and All Saints schools.

 

Answer

I will look into that and get back to you.

 

 

38.6

Laura Blumenthal asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

The Council’s current cycling consultation proposes removing parking spaces opposite Howth Drive. Please can you guarantee that these parking spaces will not be removed if Reading Borough Council does not give permission for parking spaces to be built on the grass verges behind the houses?

 

Answer

I have received an email from Reading Borough Council. They have said that we can use Port Close for parking.

38.7

Pauline Jorgensen asked the Executive Member for Environment, Sport and Leisure the following question:

Minutes:

 

A local resident who lives near the Laurel Park car park has been locking the gates for the car park at the request of Earley Town Council for many years. I believe that Earley Town Council is now handing the car park back to the Borough Council. The resident has been doing this for a long time to prevent anti-social behaviour. I wonder if WBC would recognise the fact that the resident no longer wishes to perform that activity and would do something about it and, if so, what you intend to do?

 

Answer

If you can email the details to me I will certainly have a look at the situation.

38.8

Shahid Younis asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

The current cycling consultation proposes the removal of bay parking spaces between Bulmershe Leisure Centre and Church Road. The bay parking is often packed and overflowing on the weekends. Please can you share any analysis that has been done on the parking needs and where you propose all these cars will park in the future?

 

Answer

There is some background data behind this. I don’t have that available here so I will get back to you on that.

39.

Statements by the Leader of the Council and Executive Members

To receive any statements by the Leader of the Council, Executive Members, and Deputy Executive Members.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.2.23 the total time allocated to this item shall not exceed 20 minutes, and no Member shall speak for more than 5 minutes

Minutes:

 

Clive Jones – Leader of the Council and Business and Economic Development

 

I and my colleagues were absolutely delighted to take over responsibility for running the administration of the Borough Council at the Annual Council on 19th May. We have formed the Wokingham Borough Partnership with Labour and Independent colleagues. We are working together in a spirit of cooperation that, I have to say, is working very well at the moment.

 

We have been happy to share the Chairs of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees with other parties, something never done before on this Council, though done at a lot of other councils. I am pleased that Independent Councillor Jim Frewin is the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee. We suggested Conservative Councillor Alison Swaddle as the Chair of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee but the Leader of the Opposition turned this down. She also turned down having a Conservative Vice-Chair of the Management Committee. A contrast to this has been the willingness of the Borough’s three Conservative MPs who have actively engaged with us to present plans to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to try to get housing numbers down in Wokingham. We also had a commitment from Michael Gove, the Secretary of State, to meet with us. This, of course, was before he was sacked by Boris Johnson. We hope that Michael Gove’s successor, Greg Clark, will come to Wokingham – we have asked him to visit us.

 

The MPs have met with us in person and both Theresa May and James Sunderland have agreed to work together to lobby the Government in order to get some clarity around the Government’s proposals for reforming Adult Social Care. At the moment, the proposals will create serious financial instability in many Councils across the south of England. There needs to be some clarity about how the massive increase in costs for Adult Social Care will be funded. It cannot be left to local councils to fund the reforms.

 

Currently, there is Government funding for free school meals during school holidays for children who would normally receive them during term time. There is no guarantee that this funding will be extended after this year’s summer holidays. We are all aware that there is a serious cost of living crisis which is hitting us all. The administration and our colleagues are committed to helping the most vulnerable in our community, wherever we can. I can confirm that the Council will support free school meals during the school holidays from the end of the summer holiday through to May 2023. This confirmation will be a great support and comfort for the families receiving free school meals. This support will help them to budget and prioritise their spending at a time when they are being hit from all directions – increases in fuel costs up to £2 per litre; massive increases in in gas and electricity prices; increases in National Insurance; huge increases in food  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

40.

Statement from Council Owned Companies

To receive any statements from Directors of Council Owned Companies.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.2.24 the total time allocated to this item shall not exceed 10 minutes, and no Director, except with the consent of Council, shall speak for more than 3 minutes.

Minutes:

 

Clive Jones – Director of Loddon Homes and WBC Holdings Ltd.

 

There have been a number of changes to the Boards of WBC Holdings, Loddon Homes, Berry Brook Homes and Optalis. Conservative nominated Directors have been replaced with Lib Dems. I would like to thank all those Directors who have served in recent years.

 

There have been meetings of the Boards of Loddon Homes and WBC Holdings. The first Board meeting of Loddon Homes was very productive. The Non-Executive Directors made several comments about the changes in Directors over the past few years, mainly when there had been changes in the Conservative Group leadership. We will be working closely with them in the coming months to agree a strategy for the coming years and we will be going back to having more regular reports from Council-owned companies.

41.

Motions

To consider any motions

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.2.11.2 a maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote


41.1

Motion 480 submitted by Rachel Burgess

 

Wokingham Borough Council must continually review the support offered to families facing financial crisis to ensure a robust safety net is in place for those in need.

 

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic there were already too many families in Wokingham struggling to make ends meet, and now many more families have been thrown into crisis, without the ability to pay their rent, heat their homes or feed their children.

The Local Welfare Provision Scheme exists to provide immediate financial support to households facing an emergency situation.

 

However the number of people helped by this scheme in Wokingham Borough has fallen by 76% since 2016-17, with just 21 people helped in 2020-21.  In 2019-20 just £3,000 was spent providing support through this scheme.  Over the three years to 2020-21 only 23% of the allocated budget was actually spent, on average.

 

Wokingham Borough Council will:

 

·       Review the effectiveness of Wokingham’s Local Welfare Provision Scheme

·       Consult with residents and the voluntary sector to ascertain how those who need crisis assistance can be better supported

·       Ensure residents in need of support can easily access the scheme and work to remove barriers to application

·       Ensure effective signposting of the scheme in conjunction with the voluntary sector

·       Ensure frontline staff are trained so that they are fully aware of the scheme and are able to advise residents on how to apply

·       Consider prioritising the delivery of cash-first support, which is more empowering and respectful to those on lower incomes

·       Aim to provide support within 24-48 hours of a successful application

·       Consider relaxing the qualifying criteria and disclosure requirements for the scheme, ensuring that residents’ dignity is respected throughout.

 

Minutes:

 

The Council considered the following Motion, proposed by Shirley Boyt (due to Rachel Burgess being unable to attend the meeting in person) and seconded by Rachel Bishop-Firth.

 

Wokingham Borough Council must continually review the support offered to families facing financial crisis to ensure a robust safety net is in place for those in need.

 

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic there were already too many families in Wokingham struggling to make ends meet, and now many more families have been thrown into crisis, without the ability to pay their rent, heat their homes or feed their children. The Local Welfare Provision Scheme exists to provide immediate financial support to households facing an emergency situation.

 

However the number of people helped by this scheme in Wokingham Borough has fallen by 76% since 2016-17, with just 21 people helped in 2020-21. In 2019-20 just £3,000 was spent providing support through this scheme. Over the three years to 2020-21 only 23% of the allocated budget was actually spent, on average.

 

Wokingham Borough Council will:

 

·           Review the effectiveness of Wokingham’s Local Welfare Provision Scheme;

·           Consult with residents and the voluntary sector to ascertain how those who need crisis assistance can be better supported;

·           Ensure residents in need of support can easily access the scheme and work to remove barriers to application;

·           Ensure effective signposting of the scheme in conjunction with the voluntary sector;

·           Ensure frontline staff are trained so that they are fully aware of the scheme and are able to advise residents on how to apply;

·           Consider prioritising the delivery of cash-first support, which is more empowering and respectful to those on lower incomes;

·           Aim to provide support within 24-48 hours of a successful application;

·           Consider relaxing the qualifying criteria and disclosure requirements for the scheme, ensuring that residents’ dignity is respected throughout. 

 

Shirley Boyt stated that the number of people assisted by the Local Welfare Provision Scheme (LWPS) had fallen by 89% since 2017. The scheme only helped 10 people in 2021/22, yet there were a growing number of families in the Borough facing poverty. The cost of living crisis was adding to that number of families on a daily basis. The potential of the LWPS was not being realised. The scheme needed to be reviewed and embedded within the Tackling Poverty Strategy. Feedback indicated that many residents were not aware of the scheme or did not know how to access it. An effective LWPS could provide an effective safety net for residents in the longer term

 

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED That:

 

Wokingham Borough Council must continually review the support offered to families facing financial crisis to ensure a robust safety net is in place for those in need.

 

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic there were already too many families in Wokingham struggling to make ends meet, and now many more families have been thrown into crisis, without the ability to pay their rent, heat their homes or feed their children. The Local Welfare Provision Scheme exists to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.1

41.2

Motion 482 submitted by Adrian Mather

 

There needs to be a fundamental change in how we generate and consume energy in all aspects of our lives.  Both electricity generation and distribution are undergoing rapid evolution, in both shape and scale.

 

The distribution grid, must now cope with power flows in both directions.  In scale, electrification of heat and transport will require a quadrupling of electricity capacity.  Local, community-based energy schemes can make a significant contribution to addressing both issues and encourage a sense of local empowerment to tackle climate change.

 

Community schemes encourage local generation and storage to match local demand thus relieving pressure on the grid.  Local schemes would be given new impetus and be able to contribute more renewable energy if local people could buy their electricity directly from local suppliers.  But the disproportionate cost of meeting regulatory approvals makes it impossible to be a local energy supplier at a local scale and so, under the current system, this local energy gets sold back to the central grid.

 

The Local Electricity Bill is a private members’ bill with cross-party support that was introduced unopposed in June 2020.  If this Bill was passed in Parliament it would give the energy regulator, OFGEM, a duty to create a Right to Local Supply.  This would enable local community energy groups to achieve their vision of supplying generated energy back to the local area, help us as a Council to meet our carbon reduction aspirations for the Borough, and also bring multiple benefits to the local community. It is supported by many stakeholders, local authorities, and town councils and currently has the backing of 208 MPs.

Council Agrees to:

 

Resolve to support the Bill.

 

·       Authorise the Leader to contact our MPs to discuss their support for the Bill and how they can enable its passage into law.

·       Authorise the Chief Executive to write to the Minister of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, supporting the aims of the Bill and asking for these aims to be taken into account in the forthcoming Energy White Paper.

 

Minutes:

 

Council considered the following Motion, submitted by Adrian Mather and seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh:

 

There needs to be a fundamental change in how we generate and consume energy in all aspects of our lives. Both electricity generation and distribution are undergoing rapid evolution, in both shape and scale.

 

The distribution grid, must now cope with power flows in both directions. In scale, electrification of heat and transport will require a quadrupling of electricity capacity. Local, community-based energy schemes can make a significant contribution to addressing both issues and encourage a sense of local empowerment to tackle climate change.

 

Community schemes encourage local generation and storage to match local demand thus relieving pressure on the grid. Local schemes would be given new impetus and be able to contribute more renewable energy if local people could buy their electricity directly from local suppliers. But the disproportionate cost of meeting regulatory approvals makes it impossible to be a local energy supplier at a local scale and so, under the current system, this local energy gets sold back to the central grid.

 

The Local Electricity Bill is a private members’ bill with cross-party support that was introduced unopposed in June 2020. If this Bill was passed in Parliament it would give the energy regulator, OFGEM, a duty to create a Right to Local Supply. This would enable local community energy groups to achieve their vision of supplying generated energy back to the local area, help us as a Council to meet our carbon reduction aspirations for the Borough, and also bring multiple benefits to the local community. It is supported by many stakeholders, local authorities, and town councils and currently has the backing of 208 MPs.

 

Council Agrees to:

 

Resolve to support the Bill.

 

·           Authorise the Leader to contact our MPs to discuss their support for the Bill and how they can enable its passage into law;

 

·           Authorise the Chief Executive to write to the Minister of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, supporting the aims of the Bill and asking for these aims to be taken into account in the forthcoming Energy White Paper.

 

Adrian Mather stated that passing the Local Electricity Bill would enable community energy groups to provide energy for the local community. This would bring multiple benefits and support the Council’s carbon reduction aims.

 

Gregor Murray stated that, whilst he supported the aims of the Motions, he would be voting against it as it duplicated the work he had delivered in his Executive Member role.

 

Sarah Kerr stated that, whilst noting the earlier work on this subject, the Motion had been submitted following procedural advice. The passing of the Motion by Council would strengthen the actions that could be taken. Moreover, as the Council had a new administration, it was sensible for the new leader to reinforce the earlier contact with the Government.

 

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED That:

 

There needs to be a fundamental change in how we generate and consume energy in all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.2

41.3

Motion 483 submitted by Sarah Kerr

 

We are in a cost-of-living crisis.  One of the factors is the sharp increase in energy bills.  Insulating homes and generating renewable energy directly on homes not only helps our communities during this difficult time but has the added benefit of helping us reach our carbon neutral aspirations. 

 

Little progress has been made in reducing emissions from the energy used for heating and cooling buildings in the UK.  This is mainly due to the UK’s poor standards of building insulation and an ageing housing stock, coupled with a heavy reliance on fossil fuels for heating. 

 

In Wokingham Borough, housing is the largest source of carbon emissions, which needs to be tackled urgently if we are to become carbon neutral by 2030.  Progress has been made in insulating some of the Borough’s housing stock through the ECO and GHG-LAD schemes which assists low income and vulnerable residents.  The majority of households do not qualify however, and insulation is just one of the tools that homeowners can use in reducing their carbon emissions. 

 

In order to stimulate the market, the barriers of consumer inertia and the lack of trust and understanding need to be addressed.  Investing hard earned income into home improvements can be daunting, especially when there’s a wide range of options and combinations to consider, each property is unique, and there are cowboy tradespeople in the industry. 

 

To overcome this, this Council seeks to facilitate the creation of a home decarbonisation service, to provide impartial advice for residents on the options available for:

 

·                 home insulation,

·                 alternatives to gas for heating,

·                 generating renewal energy, and

·                 energy storage,

·                 and to assist with assessing value for money from these options. 

 

Officers are requested to prepare a business case assessing the feasibility and options for delivering such a service and make a recommendation as to whether it should be operated in house, or as a shared service with other local authorities, as a partnership with the voluntary sector or others, or through a 3rd party, with the business case to be presented to council at the September 2022 meeting.

Minutes:

Sarah Kerr stated that, under Rule 4.2.13.9, she wished to withdraw the Motion.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Motion 483 be withdrawn.

41.4

Motion 484 submitted by Charles Margetts

 

Wokingham Borough Council believes in promoting alternatives to car travel wherever possible. The Council notes the successes of previous administrations in creating sustainable and active travel alternatives, such as greenways and footpaths, as well as working with bus companies to provide bus services across the Borough.

 

The rail service between from Earley to London Waterloo, including Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle and Wokingham, is ridiculously slow. The journey usually takes one hour and ten minutes to cover a distance of 36 miles to London. Some years ago, a scheme was proposed for trains on this line to not stop at intermediate stations between Twickenham and Waterloo, reducing journey times down by 15 minutes.

 

This Council calls on South Western Railway to implement measures to speed up journey times and make their service more competitive.

Minutes:

 

Council considered the following Motion proposed by Charles Margetts and seconded by Paul Fishwick.

 

Wokingham Borough Council believes in promoting alternatives to car travel wherever possible. The Council notes the successes of previous administrations in creating sustainable and active travel alternatives, such as greenways and footpaths, as well as working with bus companies to provide bus services across the Borough.

 

The rail service between from Earley to London Waterloo, including Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle and Wokingham, is ridiculously slow. The journey usually takes one hour and ten minutes to cover a distance of 36 miles to London. Some years ago, a scheme was proposed for trains on this line to not stop at intermediate stations between Twickenham and Waterloo, reducing journey times down by 15 minutes.

 

This Council calls on South Western Railway to implement measures to speed up journey times and make their service more competitive.

 

It was proposed by Charles Margetts and seconded by Paul Fishwick, that the Motion be amended as follows:

 

Wokingham Borough Council believes in promoting alternatives to car travel wherever possible. The Council notes the successes of previous administrations in creating sustainable and active travel alternatives, such as greenways and footpaths, as well as working with bus companies to provide bus services across the Borough. The Council has supported sustainable transport in the past and will continue to do so in future.

 

The rail service between from Earley to London Waterloo, including Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle and Wokingham, is ridiculously slow. The journey usually takes one hour and ten minutes to cover a distance of 36 miles to London. Some years ago, a scheme was proposed for trains on this line to not stop at intermediate stations between Twickenham and Waterloo, reducing journey times down by 15 minutes.

 

This Council calls on South Western Railway to implement measures to speed up improve journey times from the Wokingham Borough stations to London Waterloo and to make their these services more competitive.

 

Charles Margetts stated that the current journey time from Wokingham to London Waterloo was 1 hour 11 minutes. In 1975 the same journey took 45 minutes on the fast train. It was important to speed up the journey time for a number of reasons. A quicker journey would reduce the number of travellers currently driving to other stations to catch a quicker train. It would open the potential for significant economic benefits to the area. It would encourage more visitors to our leisure and retail facilities. Most importantly, it would reduce pollution from excess car journeys as passengers tried to find quicker routes.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposed amendments were approved.

 

Council then voted on the substantive Motion.

 

Upon being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED That:

 

Wokingham Borough Council believes in promoting alternatives to car travel wherever possible. The Council has supported sustainable transport in the past and will continue to do so in future.

 

The rail service between from Earley to London Waterloo, including Winnersh, Winnersh  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.4

41.5

Motion 485 submitted by Gary Cowan

Wokingham Borough Council:

 

·       is concerned about the number of cases reported to the RSPCA each year, regarding pets given as prizes via fairgrounds, social media and other channels in England - and notes the issue predominantly concerns goldfish

·       is concerned for the welfare of those animals that are being given as prizes

·       recognises that many cases of pets being as prizes may go unreported each year

·       supports a move to ban the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Wokingham Borough Council land.

 

The Council agrees to:

 

·       ban outright the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Wokingham Borough Council land.

·       write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land. 

 

Minutes:

Council considered the following Motion, proposed by Gary Cowan and seconded by David Cornish.

 

Wokingham Borough Council:

 

·           is concerned about the number of cases reported to the RSPCA each year, regarding pets given as prizes via fairgrounds, social media and other channels in England - and notes the issue predominantly concerns goldfish

·           is concerned for the welfare of those animals that are being given as prizes

·           recognises that many cases of pets being as prizes may go unreported each year

·           supports a move to ban the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Wokingham Borough Council land.

 

The Council agrees to:

 

·           ban outright the giving of live animals as prizes in any form, on Wokingham Borough Council land.

·           write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land.

 

Gary Cowan stated that the Motion was self-explanatory. Giving animals as prizes was abhorrent and not acceptable in the 21st century.

 

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED That:

 

Wokingham Borough Council:

 

·           is concerned about the number of cases reported to the RSPCA each year, regarding pets given as prizes via fairgrounds, social media and other channels in England - and notes the issue predominantly concerns goldfish

·           is concerned for the welfare of those animals that are being given as prizes

·           recognises that many cases of pets being as prizes may go unreported each year

·           supports a move to ban the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Wokingham Borough Council land.

 

The Council agrees to:

 

·           ban outright the giving of live animals as prizes in any form, on Wokingham Borough Council land.

·           write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land.