Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from Councillor Gregor Murray. Michael Firmager attended the meeting as a substitute.

To confirm the Minutes of the extraordinary meetings held on 17 October, 26 October and 29 November, and the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2022.

The Minutes of the extraordinary meetings of the Committee held on 17 October, 26 October and 29 November, and the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Matters Arising

·         Could the action regarding whether WBC was responsible for unaccompanied asylum seekers who left care to go to University be chased;

·         Could assurances be given that our in-development and planned solar farms would be connected to the grid in good time, as there were reports of other large sites having to wait up to 15 years to be connected.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 this committee.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Committee 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

There were no public questions.

To answer any member questions.

There were no Member questions.

To consider an update on the work carried out to date in relation to the Combatting Drugs Partnership.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 47 to 50, which provided an update on the work carried out to date in relation to the Combatting Drugs Partnership.

Due to the Lead Officer being unwell, Members raised a number of points which they would like to see included when this item returned.

Ian Shenton, Executive Member for Environment, Sport and Leisure, attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following points and queries:

·         How spread was the drugs problem within the Wokingham Borough Council Area? Executive Member response – Further information would be provided when this item returned to the Committee;

·         What actions were being considered to break the cycle of demand? Executive Member response – Further information would be provided when this item returned to the Committee;

·         Could further comment be provided regarding the relatively high levels of ‘drug driving’? Executive Member response – Further information would be provided when this item returned to the Committee;

·         What was being done to combat the use of Nitrous Oxide, especially amongst school children? Executive Member response – Further information would be provided when this item returned to the Committee.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Ian Shenton be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      The above comments and questions be included within a more detailed report at a future meeting of the Committee.

To receive any changes to bids previously presented to the Committee, in addition to updates on actions from previous MTFP meetings.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 51 to 84, which provided an update to Capital and Revenue bids following receipt of the Local Governance Finance Settlement.

The report presented updates to actions raised at previous meetings of the Committee, in addition to updated bids.

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey (Executive Member for Finance) and Graham Ebers (Deputy Chief Executive (Director of Resources and Assets)) attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following points and queries:

·         Had the process of budget scrutiny, and associated suggestions, offered any further savings options? Officer response – Whilst suggestions may not have had a direct effect in this year’s budget, many of the suggestions would provide useful insights into future bids and budgets;

·         What other options had been considered for the Toutley Depot scheme? Officer response – Other options included everything from partial refurbishments, partial completion, through to full completion. A considerable amount of work had been put into considering what works could be foregone within the capital programme;

·         Were the effects on increasing our insurance excesses worthwhile when considering changes to premiums? Officer response – Specific details would be included within individual tenders;

·         It was noted that the £1.8m additional funding via the Local Government Finance Settlement or the additional £2m in expenditure regarding national living wage increases to Adult Social Care staff was not included within the original assumptions presented to the Committee, which had been based off of the best estimates available at that time;

·         How were negotiations related to additional grant income from the better Care Fund progressing? Officer response – Both the nature of the calculation and improving the calculation were important issues. This was not a straightforward issue, and further detail would be provided as a written answer;

·         It was noted that Council Tax did not cover all expenditure, and other income streams including retained business rates and grants were used to fund the revenue budget;

·         It was noted that a chart, which broke down the income sources available to the Council, was contained within the Chief Finance Officer’s report;

·         It was noted that the proposals before the Committee represented a balanced budget, which was a statutory requirement;

·         How much did the DSG recovery (plus 1%) represent? Officer response – The regulations relating to this expenditure had changed, and would now represent an approximate £1.25m spend in year 1, an approximate £2.25m spend in year 2, and an approximate £3.86m spend in year 3. We had limited control over this spend as this was about early intervention, support, partner working and complex needs;

·         The Committee had been previously advised that reserves could not be used this year. Why was reserve utilisation of £1.4m being proposed? Executive Member and officer response – The £1.4m was being taken from the re3 equalisation fund rather than the General Fund, and the re3 fund had no obvious use at this time. The critical reserve was the General Fund, and the narrative given to Local Authorities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

To agree the draft Terms of Reference for the Local Cycling, Walking and Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) Task and Finish Group.

The Committee considered the draft Terms of Reference for the LCWIP Task and Finish Group, set out on agenda page 85.

It was noted that the Group would be considering the high-level LCWIP document, which would be used to facilitate future bids to Active Travel England for Future Schemes. It was likely that the Group would meet on two occasions, prior to producing a short summary report for consideration by the Committee in early March and subsequently the Executive later in March.

It was requested that plans and other documents submitted to the Group for consideration be well formatted and of a good resolution, as these were issues during the consultation.

It was suggested that expert groups including SusTrans be considered as witnesses by the Group.

RESOLVED That the Terms of Reference be agreed, subject to the addition of expert groups including SusTrans to be considered as witnesses by the Group.

To consider the Committee’s work programme for the remainder of the municipal year.

The Committee considered their work programme for the remainder of the municipal year, set out in agenda pages 87 to 90.

The Committee received an update on the work of the Preferred Registered Providers Task and Finish Group, who had come to the end of their review and would be submitting their report to the Committee and the Executive in March. In response to queries, it was requested that officers ascertain how a Preferred Registered Provider might be removed from the list, and whether Loddon Homes was selected for many developments.

RESOLVED That

1)      Callum Wernham be thanked for attending the meeting;  

2)      The work programme be noted;

3)      Officers ascertain how a Preferred Registered Provider might be removed from the preferred list, and whether Loddon Homes was selected for many developments.