Agenda and draft minutes

Council - Thursday, 24th October, 2024 7.30 pm

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

Contact: Priya Patel  Head of Democratic and Electoral Services

Media

Items
No. Item

42.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Marc Brunel Walker, Melanie De Jong, Peter Harper, Stephen Newton and Séona Turtle.

 

Councillor Paul Fishwick attended the meeting online.

43.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 240 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 September 2024.

 

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 19 September 2024 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

44.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Stephen Conway declared a Personal Interest in Item 56 Statement from Council Owned Companies on the grounds that he was a Non Executive Director of WBC Holdings.

 

Councillor Prue Bray declared a Personal Interest in Item 56 Statement from Council Owned Companies on the grounds that she was a Non Executive Director of WBC Holdings.

 

Councillor David Hare declared a Personal Interest in Item 56 Statement from Council Owned Companies on the grounds that he was a Non Executive Director of Optalis.

45.

Mayor's Announcements

To receive any announcements by the Mayor.

Minutes:

The Mayor wished former Councillor Sarah Bell well for the future and thanked her for her work as a member of the Council and as part of the Personnel Board and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committees in particular.

 

The Mayor informed Members of some events and charities that he had supported included Alexander Devine Children’s Hospice, Age Concern Twyford and the Woodley Concert Band. 

 

Age Concern Twyford had done an incredible fundraising campaign and raised enough money for a state-of-the-art minibus, which would enable Age Concern to take their residents on trips including visits to the seaside.  The Richard Young Art Gallery had raised £175 for the charity CLASP, by auctioning a painting of Westminster.

 

46.

Public Question Time pdf icon PDF 52 KB

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:

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

46.1

Jim Frewin asked the Executive Member for Finance and Governance the following question:

 

Question: 

The first Lib Dem led administration budget appeared to introduce fees (previously free) for the burial of children, infants and still born babies. 

 

This potential introduction of fees, in the tragic circumstances of the loss of a child, has been previously challenged on multiple occasions, with the Executive Member giving assurances that NO parents would need to pay these fees, and that action would be taken to clarify this in Wokingham documentation and online services. Unfortunately, no promised action has been taken. 

 

Can the Executive Member for Finance please confirm that NO parent in these unfortunate circumstances have been asked to pay these fees since their ‘introduction’? 

 

Minutes:

 

Question 

The first Lib Dem led administration budget appeared to introduce fees (previously free) for the burial of children, infants and still born babies. 

 

This potential introduction of fees, in the tragic circumstances of the loss of a child, has been previously challenged on multiple occasions, with the Executive Member giving assurances that NO parents would need to pay these fees, and that action would be taken to clarify this in Wokingham documentation and online services. Unfortunately, no promised action has been taken. 

 

Can the Executive Member for Finance please confirm that NO parent in these unfortunate circumstances have been asked to pay these fees since their ‘introduction’? 

 

Answer 

Thank you for your question, Jim.

 

We have never charged and have no plans to charge, families for the burial of a child.

 

As previously stated, the funeral costs for anyone under the age 18 or a baby stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy are claimed from the central government’s Children’s Funeral Fund by the appointed undertaker.  The costs of the funeral in the unfortunate circumstances of the death of a child do not have to be paid by the parents or family. 

 

Wokingham Borough Council will charge the funeral director for its costs, but these are then subsequently claimed from the central fund and not the families directly.  This is the reason why there are fees and charges outlined - as we are required to publish this information, to claim back any monies from the Children’s Funeral Fund.  

 

On receipt of your question, we have checked and the document relating to our Cemetery Fees is on the Wokingham Borough Council Website, and it does indeed state that All Fees will be reclaimed through the Children’s Funeral Fund.  

 

Supplementary Question:

Thank you for that clarification.  My supplementary question is, would the Executive Member kindly explain the purpose and value of Public and Member questions if the answer offered seems to be meaningless, especially when promised and minuted actions are simply not fulfilled?  Clarification online has not happened despite multiple promises.

 

Supplementary Answer:

I am afraid to say that as stated, we checked, and it definitely says that these will be claimed from the Children’s Funeral Fund.  It is in all of our documentation.  I am not sure what else you think we need to do, but if you want to send us an email, we will take a look at it.

46.2

Nicholas Martin asked the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Housing, Partnerships and the Local Plan the following question:

 

Question:

We note the inclusion in the Local Plan of a huge extension of the South Wokingham Strategic Development Location (SDL) and we wonder why Wokingham Without did not appear in the schedule of public Local Plan Update (LPU) meetings, what justifies these extra houses in a Parish which already faces 1800 new houses, what other sites were considered, why was Wokingham Without selected for these extra 1100 houses and what mitigations will be put in place for existing residents of Wokingham Without in terms of traffic and transportation, environmental impact and services infrastructure - health and education most particularly ?

 

Minutes:

 

Question:

We note the inclusion in the Local Plan of a huge extension of the South Wokingham SDL and we wonder why Wokingham Without did not appear in the schedule of public LPU meetings and what justifies these extra houses in a Parish which already faces 1800 new houses and what other sites were considered and why was Wokingham Without selected for these extra 1100 houses and what mitigations will be put in place for existing residents of Wokingham Without in terms of traffic and transportation, environmental impact and services infrastructure - health and education most particularly? 

 

Answer 

Thank you for your question, Nicolas.

 

Your colleague Lesley Foxwell raised the matter of a local public meeting at the recent Borough/Parish Liaison Forum.  I spoke with officers in the planning department about Wokingham Without shortly afterwards. 

 

As you will be aware, drop-in events have been arranged involving officers from a range of teams for 4pm-7pm on Tuesday 29 October in Shinfield, and 6pm-9pm 31 October here at Shute End.  In addition, officers from the Planning Policy Team will be available at Shute End to assist residents between 9:30am to 4:30pm on Tuesday 5 and Wednesday 6 November.  These events will give residents the opportunity to ask questions and to learn about how to make representations for the final consultation. 

 

As you will appreciate, arranging events like these is never straightforward with account needing to be taken of other meeting commitments, officer availability and venue availability.  In arranging events, we have sought to balance reasonable accessibility to communities throughout the Borough that are most obviously affected by significant development. 

 

However, following my conversation with Lesley Foxwell, Officers have spoken directly to her today.  My understanding is that Wokingham Without Parish Council have offered to cancel their scheduled meeting of 4 November and allow their facilities to be used.  Officers are currently investigating whether we can resource an additional drop in event for this date or another form of a meeting that would allow residents to ask questions and to seek clarifications.  I am not yet able to confirm whether we can, but I very much hope that we will be able to, and I would be happy to update you once it is known very clearly within the next few days.

 

46.3

David Sleight asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

 

Question:

There are currently some 1,850 houses with planning permissions in the Strategic Development Location (SDL) area south of the Wokingham to Bracknell railway with these houses intended to be a southern extension of Wokingham. The current Local Plan Update (LPU) talks at length about encouraging active transport covering walking cycling and wheeling, but there is no agreed proposal to make crossing the railway any easier. Indeed, the LPU compounds the problem by proposing another 1,200 or so houses with 3 planning applications for them already submitted. This will add that 1,200 to the already approved 1,850. 
 
Secondary education should, in the main, be at St Crispin's School with some 500 children then having to cross the railway twice per day where the 'desire line' for the vast majority of the housing would be across what is called Star Lane level crossing on Easthampstead Road where the barriers are down for extended periods of time. Motorists have a choice of route but schoolchildren walking to school do not have the same flexibility.  
 
What plans are there to provide an improved and uninterrupted crossing at or near Easthampstead Road? 

Minutes:

 

Question 

There are currently some 1,850 houses with planning permissions in the SDL area south of the Wokingham to Bracknell railway with these houses intended to be a southern extension of Wokingham. The current LPU talks at length about encouraging active transport covering walking cycling and wheeling, but there is no agreed proposal to make crossing the railway any easier. Indeed, the LPU compounds the problem by proposing another 1,200 or so houses with 3 planning applications for them already submitted. This will add that 1,200 to the already approved 1,850. 

 

Secondary education should, in the main, be at St Crispin's School with some 500 children then having to cross the railway twice per day where the 'desire line' for the vast majority of the housing would be across what is called Star Lane level crossing on Easthampstead Road where the barriers are down for extended periods of time.  Motorists have a choice of route but schoolchildren walking to school do not have the same flexibility.

 

What plans are there to provide an improved and uninterrupted crossing at or near Easthampstead Road? 

 

Answer 

Thank you, David, for your question. 

 

The Local Plan Update site will be assessed as part of the Local Plan examination and movements will be reviewed and mitigated as part of this process and future planning applications.  

 

In line with the current Local Plan, the South Wokingham SDL included a new significantly safer railway bridge compared to once half barrier, Waterloo Road level crossing connecting London Road via active travel routes and delivered ahead of the permitted housing. 

 

As part of the approved development south of the railway, active travel facilities will be provided between the South Wokingham Distributor Road to Easthampstead Road level crossing, the Gipsy Lane footbridge route is to be enhanced by the developer along with, work and financial contributions towards active travel improvements along parts of Finchampstead Road corridor improving connections to the Wokingham town centre, St Crispin’s School and other destinations. 

 

Network Rail have also undertaken improvements to the Easthampstead Road level crossing as part of their Feltham re-signaling programme, this makes the operation of trains more efficient, and the closure of the level crossing gates for a shorter period than previously when a train approached.   

 

Network Rail, who manage and operate the Easthampstead Road level crossing had not put forward the removal of this level crossing at the time of the planning consultation or since.  However, as part of the development assessment additional options have been looked at for crossing the railway, but due to constraints the delivery of a new bridge or tunnel at this location is not possible.  Therefore, it is not proposed for there to be a priority route for pedestrians and cyclists at the Easthampstead Road level crossing. 

 

Supplementary Question:

I am fully aware that the eastern gateway is there, and I am fully aware that the Gypsy Lane bridge is there.  There is 2000m between them, and most of the housing wants to go over Star  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.3

46.4

Andy Croy asked the Executive Member for Environment and Climate Emergency the following question which was answered by the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways:

Question: 

The north side of Market Place in Wokingham Town is currently missing three lamps that had previously been affixed to the front of buildings (Boots to Costa).  The cabling was removed as part of the regeneration project and never replaced.   

The impact is that at night, the north side of Market Place (ie the area between Wokingham Town Hall and Boots/Costa is pitch black at night. It has taken three years, and still counting, since the end of Covid restrictions, to fix the lights. When will the lights be fixed? 

 

Minutes:

 

Question 

The north side of Market Place in Wokingham Town is currently missing three lamps that had previously been affixed to the front of buildings (Boots to Costa).  The cabling was removed as part of the regeneration project and never replaced.   

 

The impact is that at night, the north side of Market Place (ie the area between Wokingham Town Hall and Boots/Costa) is pitch black at night.  It has taken three years, and still counting, since the end of Covid restrictions, to fix the lights.  When will the lights be fixed? 

 

Answer 

Thank you, Andy, for your question. 

 

The lights on the buildings on the north side of Market Place were actually removed as part of the regeneration works at Peach Place, 11 years ago in 2013 and a later phase in 2017.  Residual lighting within Market Place including uplighters around the town hall illuminates this area.

 

There have been some failures of lighting within Market Place recently, the Town Hall uplighting has not been working, and the west side of Market Place lighting above units 6 to 11 are also currently not working.  Whilst the Town Hall uplights have now been repaired, our contractor last week attempted to repair the remaining failed lights but were unsuccessful.  New equipment has now been ordered and is scheduled for replacement during November.  There is also one lighting unit on the east side (above Nandos) which is also faulty, parts are being sourced and will be repaired as soon as possible.

 

Officers in the Highways team and Property teams are working together to review and identify opportunities for new lighting within the area of Boots and Costa.  Once a scheme for lighting has been identified along with available budget they will be programmed in for delivery. 

 

Supplementary Question:

So, it sounds like you are promising that there will be new lights above Boots and Costa, but that the area at the moment is a little bit darker than it should be because I think, four or five other lights are missing.  Now, I walked through the area on the way here and it felt a little like the heart of darkness walking through there.  It is still very, very dark.  I appreciate that the lights were removed 11 years ago but for a lot of that period of time you had the chaos of the regeneration so you would not know anything about anything that was going on.  The question is, will there be like a proper assessment of the lighting requirement of that area because it is difficult to believe that we needed lights, and now we do not need lights?

 

Supplementary Answer:

As I said Andy, we will undertake a review along the section of Boots and Costa.  There are some existing lights which are already out on the western side as well as the east side.  Once those are working our understanding is that it is to normal standards.

46.5

Peter Wheat asked the Executive Member for Environment and Climate Emergency the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question 

Allotments play a key role in tackling Climate Change, though reducing food transport, Carbon Sequestration through vegetable and fruit tree growing, and Waste & Recycling, in the many innovative ways allotment holders find to repurpose recycled items. Given these many benefits, and the current high demand for allotments, and a WBC allotment provision well below the NSALG recommendations (only circa 50%),? I was surprised to see that the Council has reduce its land commitment for new allotments in the new local plan update to 0.39 ha/1000 population, when the Open Space WBC policy for standards for residential development (TB08) has a requirement of 0.52 ha/1000 population.? By reducing your commitment to new allotments, surely you are increasing climate change, not reducing it? 

 

Answer

Thank you very much for your question, Peter.

 

Mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change is important for Wokingham Borough Council.  This is reflected in the Council’s ambitious Climate Emergency Action Plan and our target to do as much as possible to be carbon neutral by 2030.  As referenced in the question, transport, carbon sequestration and waste and recycling are all critical areas in tackling climate change and each of these have their own priority area within the Climate Emergency Action Plan, alongside six other priority areas from retrofitting to renewable energy generation.  

 

We recognise the importance of allotments and the benefits that they provide.  We have actions within our Climate Emergency Action Plan related to allotments and food growing.  For example, the Council has supported schools who seek help through the Woodland Trust grant for planting schemes.  Schools have also received support since 2021 to plant fruit trees to provide a source of free food.  However, the carbon savings that allotments deliver is relatively small in comparison to some of the other actions listed in our Climate Emergency Action Plan, particularly the retrofitting buildings and electric vehicle transition.  There is a broad range of actions within the Climate Emergency Action Plan, all are important, but it makes sense to focus on those actions that deliver the highest carbon savings. 

 

The Local Plan Update: Proposed Submission Plan includes Policy HC4: Open space, sports, recreation and play facilities’ which sets out the standards regarding allotment provision.  The policy aims to ensure that new development proposals provide sufficient allotment space for the residents of those proposals.  It is not possible through the Local Plan to set requirements which address any existing shortfalls in provision elsewhere in the Borough.  

 

Supplementary Question:

The population of the Borough is increasing.  We have seen a 15% increase of 30,000 people since 2011, and the ONS predicts a further rise of 10% in the next 15 years.  The population is also ageing, with the ONS predicting that people in the age group 65 and over will grow by a staggering 60% over the next 25 years.  Age UK says that 18% of our old people are living in relative poverty.  Allotment users are those very same old people, trying to support themselves  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.5

47.

Petitions

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

Minutes:

There were no petitions submitted.

48.

Community Vision 2035 pdf icon PDF 207 KB

RECOMMENDATION:

 

The Community Vision 2035 has been fully shaped and designed with input from local people from across the Wokingham Borough. 99 organisations represented the views, ambitions and lived experiences of hundreds of people. 34 targeted events reached the views of hundreds more, with the online survey over 500.

 

Whilst the Council will be one of the partners around the table in its delivery – not the sole deliverer - the outcomes within the vision align with the Council’s own ambitions around various other strategies.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council:

 

1)    Note the ambitions of local people within the Community Vision 2035.

2)    Support adoption of the Community Vision 2035, using it to inform strategic planning and service delivery for the Council.

3)    Support the Council’s commitment to continue collaborating with partners and the local community in delivery of the vision.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council considered the Community Vision 2035.

 

The Mayor proposed that Council Procedure Rule 4.2.2.1 Timing and Order of Business be suspended and that an hour be given to the debate of this item.  This was seconded by Councillor Stephen Conway.

 

Upon being put to the vote, this was agreed.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray that the recommendations within the report be agreed.

 

Councillor Conway introduced the Community Vision.  He praised those involved in its production, and the enthusiasm of the Council’s external partners.  Work had been undertaken through workshops, plenary sessions and via the Steering Group.  The Voluntary and Charitable sector, business, faith groups, the Youth Council, education including the University of Reading, and health providers had been involved in the process.  The Vision would commit the Council and its partners to working to deliver its aspirations. 

 

Nick Fellows, Chief Officer, Wokingham Volunteers Centre and Steering Group Chair, Tony Penge, Contract Manager, Places Leisure, Sunil Shah, Director, Acclaro Advisory, Shamin Safar, Engagement Officer, Healthwatch Wokingham, Molli Cleaver, Community Engagement manager, Reading University, Eddie Pearce, General Manager, Reading and Wokingham Today, and Andrew Jones, Youth Council representative, presented the Community Vision and spoke to the six ambitions of the Vision; Protecting and improving our places, making it easy for people to access the things they need and want, building and maintaining great communities, providing fair opportunities for everyone, economic success that everyone is part of, and living happy, healthy and independent lives and helping others to do the same.  Nick Fellows went on to outline what difference the Vision may have to the community and Sunil Shah spoke about encouraging local businesses to support the Vision.

 

Councillor Shahid Younis thanked the Steering Group for their hard work.  He highlighted the importance of upskilling young people which was a key part of making economic progress.

 

Councillor Chris Cooke commented that it was great to see so many groups coming together and the Community Vision was an achievement well worth celebrating.  It had tapped into the energy and enthusiasm of the community.

 

Councillor Basit Alvi stated that it was not possible to achieve the Vision alone and it was uplifting to see the partnership working in action.

 

Councillor Marie Louise Weighill commented that the strength of community work and innovation was inspiring.  She emphasised the importance of democratic accountability.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was

 

RESOLVED:  That Council

 

1)             notes the ambitions of local people within the Community Vision 2035;

2)             supports the adoption of the Community Vision 2035, using it to inform strategic planning and service delivery for the Council;

3)             supports the Council’s commitment to continue collaborating with partners and the local community in delivery of the vision.

 

49.

Prevention and Youth Justice Service: Youth Justice Plan pdf icon PDF 134 KB

RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the Youth Justice Plan.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council considered the Prevention and Youth Justice Service:  Youth Justice Plan.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Prue Bray and seconded by Councillor Jane Ainslie that the recommendation within the report be agreed.

 

Councillor Bray advised that the Council had a statutory duty to submit a Youth Justice Plan and that the Council’s grant from the Youth Justice Board was dependent on it.  The Plan had been submitted to the Youth Justice Board in July.

 

Although the Prevention and Youth Justice Service was part of Children’s Services, it was separate with its own internal board and was subject to a separate inspection regime.  The service had been inspected in June and the final report published in September.  The service had been rated Good overall and had been judged as Outstanding in some areas, including staff.

 

With regards to the Plan, Councillor Bray highlighted progress made.  The number of first time entrants to the Criminal Justice System had fallen from 31 in 2022/23 to 14 to 2023/24.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was

 

RESOLVED:  That the Youth Justice Plan be approved.

50.

Wokingham Borough Council Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) Fifth Progress Report September 2024 pdf icon PDF 129 KB

RECOMMENDATION:

 

This report is delivered by officers on behalf of members, with the recommendation that the Council approves:

1.    Changes to the plan, including actions, data and progress updates made by teams in the current status sections report. Detail on these key changes can be found in the attached appendices.

2.    The updates to the format of the report to be a more effective tool of communication with residents, primarily towards simplification for all users.

3.    That a more ambitious approach will be required going forward to enable Wokingham Borough Council to play as full a role as possible in achieving a net-zero carbon borough by 2030.

4.    That this remains a live document and will continue to be updated as more details become available to support decision making.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council considered the Wokingham Borough Council Climate Emergency Action Plan Fifth Progress Report September 2024.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Jordan Montgomery and seconded by Councillor Katrin Harding that the recommendations in the report be agreed.

 

Councillor Montgomery clarified that the report stated that the Audit Committee had considered the Plan at their November 2023 meeting, but the Committee had in fact considered the risks relating to it in the Corporate Risk Register and not the Plan itself.  It was proposed by Councillor Pauline Jorgensen and seconded by Councillor Rachel Burgess that the report be updated to reflect this.  Upon being put to the vote this was agreed.

 

Councillor Montgomery thanked the Climate Emergency Overview and Scrutiny Committee for providing feedback and challenge to the Plan.  He went on to state that the UK was not on track to meet its 2050 target of net zero and ambitious action was needed around transport, building and tree planting, amongst other areas.  The Climate Emergency Action Plan reflected the large amount of work that was being undertaken across the Council to become carbon neutral by 2030.  Councillor Montgomery highlighted some of the successful projects including minimum energy standards within the Local Plan, and the Solar Together scheme.

 

RESOLVED:  That Council approves

 

1)             changes to the plan, including actions, data and progress updates made by teams in the current status sections report. (Detail on these key changes can be found in the attached appendices);

2)             the updates to the format of the report to be a more effective tool of communication with residents, primarily towards simplification for all users;

3)             that a more ambitious approach will be required going forward to enable Wokingham Borough Council to play as full a role as possible in achieving a net-zero carbon borough by 2030;

4)             that this remains a live document and will continue to be updated as more details become available to support decision making.

 

51.

Pay Policy Statement pdf icon PDF 90 KB

RECOMMENDATION: That the Council is recommended to approve the Pay Policy Statement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council considered the Pay Policy Statement.

 

It was recommended by Councillor Rachel Bishop Firth and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray that the report be approved.

 

The report had been approved by the Personnel Board in July and the Council’s legal requirements had been met.

 

Councillor Burgess expressed disappointment that no reference was made to the gender pay gap, within the Pay Policy.  Whilst she appreciated that there was a separate policy which was considered by Personnel Board, she was of the view that the Pay Policy, in coming to Full Council, was more visible.  For 2023 the mean average gender pay for the Council was 12.4%, the median average gap was over 15%, an increase since 2021.  In Reading the mean gap was under 1% and the median 0%.  The figures for Bracknell were also low.

 

Councillor Pauline Jorgensen congratulated officers on their continued improvement of the Personnel Board and the personnel policies.

 

Councillor Bray stated that should councillors have issues around pay that they would like addressed, they should raise them with the Personnel Board.

 

Councillor Bishop Firth commented that the format for the Pay Policy was quite formalised but that she would discuss with officers whether reference could be made to the Gender Pay Gap report.  She thanked officers for their work.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Pay Policy Statement be approved.

52.

Update to Local Code of Corporate Governance pdf icon PDF 89 KB

RECOMMENDATION: Council is asked to approve the updated Local Code of Corporate Governance (Appendix 1).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council considered the Update to Local Code of Corporate Governance.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Imogen Shepherd-Dubey and seconded by Councillor Rachel Burgess that the recommendation be agreed.

 

Councillor Shepherd Dubey indicated that the Local Code of Corporate Governance had been considered by the Audit Committee in September, alongside the Annual Governance Statement.  Only a few minor changes were proposed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the updated Local Code of Corporate Governance be agreed.

53.

Councillor Question Time

To answer any Councillor questions.

 

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for Councillors 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

53.1

Sam Akhtar asked the Executive Member for Environment and Climate Emergency the following question:

 

Question:

With the recent switch to wheelie bins and fortnightly collections, there are concerns about recycling soft plastics. The Council advises taking these to supermarkets, but many residents now rely on supermarket deliveries, and local recycling bins are often full or difficult to access. 

 

Has the Council considered expanding its recycling services to include the collection of soft plastics and perhaps other household items, such as batteries, glass etc rather than placing the responsibility on residents to dispose of these items themselves, and could this be explored as part of the Council’s future recycling strategy?

 

Minutes:

 

Question 

With the recent switch to wheelie bins and fortnightly collections, there are concerns about recycling soft plastics.  The Council advises taking these to supermarkets, but many residents now rely on supermarket deliveries, and local recycling bins are often full or difficult to access. 

 

Has the Council considered expanding its recycling services to include the collection of soft plastics and perhaps other household items, such as batteries, glass etc rather than placing the responsibility on residents to dispose of these items themselves and could this be explored as part of the council’s future recycling strategy? 

 

Answer 

The Council is always considering the collection of additional recycling items wherever possible.  The Government have stipulated that there will be new requirements for local authorities to collect glass by 31 March 2026 and plastic film by 31 March 2027.  As part of the upcoming 2026 Waste Collection and Street Cleansing procurement, the Council is actively seeking cost effective options for additional materials to be collected at the kerbside including glass, textiles, small electrical items and plastic film.  We are also working with our re3 partners as part of this project.

 

53.2

Rebecca Margetts asked the Executive Member for Adult Services, Health & Wellbeing the following question:

 

Question:

At the last Council meeting, the plan for additional housing in Barkham and Arborfield was announced as part of the Local plan. The local GP network in the south of Wokingham is at full capacity. Although I realise that provision of GP's is down to the NHS rather than the Council, can you advise what communication has taken place with the NHS and what plan they have to deal with this issue. 

 

Minutes:

 

Question 

At the last Council meeting, the plan for additional housing in Barkham and Arborfield was announced as part of the Local plan. The local GP network in the south of Wokingham is at full capacity. Although I realise that provision of GP's is down to the NHS rather than the council, can you advise what communication has taken place with the NHS and what plan they have to deal with this issue. 

 

Answer 

Thank you for your question, Rebecca.

 

Lack of GP provision in Arborfield Green and the surrounding areas is of significant concern, but as you rightly note the ICB is the statutory body with responsibility for the planning and commissioning of health care services across Wokingham Borough. 

 

In respect of the Local Plan Update, officers have engaged with the ICB to understand the impacts of build and the infrastructure needs, which include new GP surgeries.  Indeed, it acknowledged in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan that there was a capacity deficit when considering registered patients in the Finchampstead area.

 

With this fact in mind, and that it is an ICB decision to be taken, Wokingham’s new MP Clive Jones, has already taken up with the Department of Health, the specific issue of Arborfield Green, and the wider principle.  This was initially with a question in Parliament and the Minister for General Practice, Stephen Kinnock, will be meeting with Clive on this soon.  Indeed, on Wednesday, Clive and I discussed the issue with Julie Dandridge, a Deputy Director of the Integrated Care Board, with responsibility for GP practices, with a view to the ICB responsibilities.  She herself described the area as a ‘GP desert.’  We have set in motion work to try to rectify this situation.  As I am sure you know the new surgery has many difficulties that require initial funding from the ICB.  The ICB has a big overspend and are fighting to save money.  We have started a positive conversation, and our new MP is doing all he can to provide the expected services for the people of Wokingham.

 

Supplementary Question:

Thank you for that answer.  It is positive to hear the efforts that you are taking to address this, and we are grateful for that because it is an issue that really does need addressing. 

 

Could I ask that you report back to us on the progress of this, and the progress that our MP Clive Jones, makes and reports back to this group, and basically tell us how you are getting on?

 

Supplementary Answer:

I will try to keep you informed.  I mean Julie said that the first thing was to go out to other practices and see who, for instance, is interested in doing this, and having a satellite surgery there and things like that.  That will take a couple of months and other things might take longer, but certainly I will keep the Council informed because as you say it is a very important thing for the people of Wokingham.

53.3

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

 

Question:

It has been almost a year since the Electric Vehicle charging points were installed in residential streets and car parks across the borough. Can the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport, and Highways share data on the public usage of these charging points across the borough. 

 

Minutes:

 

Question 

It has been almost a year since the EV charging points were installed in residential streets and car parks across the Borough.  Can the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport, and Highways share data on the public usage of these charging points across the Borough. 

 

Answer 

Thank you, Shahid, for your question.  

 

The majority of the electric vehicle chargepoints were installed throughout the summer and autumn of 2023 with most going live in October 2023.  We receive quarterly updates of usage from our supplier, Flowbird, and I can provide figures to the end of July 2024.  The October figures are due now so I may be able to provide further information at a later date if necessary. 

 

We currently have 21 locations where we installed the charge points using the government’s On-Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme known as ORCS. At these sites we have seen a total of 1,311 separate charging sessions in the period October to July (so an average of 62 visits per site).  In total we have provided 25,656 kilowatt hours of electricity which means our average charge is roughly 20kWh per charging session.  This of course varies greatly around the different sites, and we continue to work with Flowbird to ensure that these chargepoints remain well maintained and available for use at all times. 

 

As mentioned above, we are awaiting a further quarterly usage report, and we expect that this will show an increase in usage month-on-month as more people find that they are able to charge at on street residential locations, without off road parking around the Borough and the charging of an electric vehicle is not a barrier to them. 

 

Supplementary Question:

Thank you for responding to the question and supplying the information.  My understanding is that the usage of EV charging points in WBC are considerably less than some of our neighbouring boroughs, and we know that every EV charging place which is not used in our car parks is a potential loss of revenue for the Borough as well.  What does the Council intend to do to increase our usage to its maximum use?

 

Supplementary Answer:

EV ownership is on the increase in the UK widely, but locally we are at around 2.6% of all our vehicles in the Borough in 2023.  We have actually seen a significant increase in ultra-low emission vehicles – 4,500 vehicles within the Borough are now ultra-low emission, and that growth of 44% has been since 2022.  That is just in one year.  We need to be installing the infrastructure ahead of when people are considering buying a car so that they are confident that they will be able to charge their vehicle when they do purchase one, especially if they are in areas where there is no home charging available.

53.4

Alison Swaddle asked the Executive Member for Environment and Climate Emergency the following question:

 

Question:

Why?has?the schedule for road cleaning?still not been?be posted on the Council website, residents should know when to expect their road will be swept and be able to provide feedback.? 

 

Minutes:

 

Question 

Why?has?the schedule for road cleaning?still not been?be posted on the Council web site?  Residents should know when to expect their road will be swept and be able to provide feedback.? 

 

Answer 

Thank you for your question, Alison. 

 

Officers have been working with the Council’s contractor, following contract changes to the street cleansing programme, to ensure that the revised street cleansing routes have been tested and are working efficiently.  This process is almost complete, and the Street Cleansing team are working closely with the IT team to update the website with the detailed street cleaning schedules.  In the meantime, officers have uploaded a town and parish based schedule of works to the website, outlining the frequency of cleansing for each town and parish, and officers are very happy to respond to residents individually requesting more information on the street cleansing schedule for specific roads. 

 

Supplementary Question:

Thank you for your answer, Jordan. I will be asking officers to provide the schedule for every road in my ward, and I am sure my colleagues will do the same because our residents care deeply about where they live, and they are receiving far more than adequate, but good services, and that their roads and pavements are swept and kept safe for all of us.  I hope that officers will be able to provide that amount of detail.

 

 

53.5

Joseph Barley asked the Executive Member for Children's Services the following question:

 

Question:

Wokingham Borough Council has allocated an additional 900 houses to the Arborfield Green Strategic Development Location as part of their Regulation 19 Local Plan Update. The Local Plan Update has listed the welcome expansion of Bohunt to 6th Form as a key infrastructure requirement for the Strategic Development Location. However, this expansion will only mop up capacity from existing pupils, who are currently having to travel much further afield for 6th form. This leaves the future residents of Barkham Square and existing residents of surrounding communities with an inadequate provision of secondary school places. What will this Council do to ensure every child of secondary school age in Barkham & Arborfield, and surrounding settlements will be allocated a school space of reasonable distance to their residence? 

Minutes:

 

Question 

Wokingham Borough Council has allocated an additional 900 houses to the Arborfield Green Strategic Development Location as part of their Regulation 19 Local Plan Update. The Local Plan Update has listed the welcome expansion of Bohunt to 6th Form as a key infrastructure requirement for the Strategic Development Location. However, this expansion will only mop up capacity from existing pupils, who are currently having to travel much further afield for 6th form. This leaves the future residents of Barkham Square and existing residents of surrounding communities with an inadequate provision of secondary school places. What will this council do to ensure every child of secondary school age in Barkham & Arborfield, and surrounding settlements will be allocated a school space of reasonable distance to their residence? 

 

Answer 

As noted within the School Places Strategy 2024/25 – 2029/30, peak demand for secondary places in Wokingham is forecast to be in 2028/29.  After this point, the reduced birth rates that are currently being reflected in falling pupil rolls in the primary sector is due to begin transitioning to the secondary sector.  Therefore, we expect that a substantial part of the increased places demand, which could be expected as a function of the housebuilding under the Local Plan Update, will be absorbed within the newly expanded capacity at existing schools.  This fact notwithstanding, the Council is also planning for some form of additional secondary capacity in the wider Southwest area, to ensure that demand can be adequately met within proximate provision.  Ultimately, it is envisaged that such provision would only be required for some point in the mid-2030s and many things could change in pupil place planning terms between now and then, including, but not limited to, fluctuations in birth rates, migration patterns and so on.  As such, it is too early at this stage to formally commit to a definite position in respect of how pupil demand will be accommodated, although residents can be assured that consideration has been given to future pupil sufficiency with a suitable response included within the policies of the Local Plan Update.  The Council will continue to monitor school places and execute on its duty to provide sufficient school places for local residents, as it has done to date. 

 

Supplementary Question

I understand the sentiment, however it does concern me the vagueness of the answer.  This Council has already admitted that we are in the midst of a secondary school capacity crisis, and in addition to this the exodus of students from independent schools in conjunction with unsustainable housing requirements forced on Barkham and Arborfield is set to plunge the south of the Borough into a school provision epidemic.  With this in mind, how can you justify the lack of secondary school provision that is present in the LPU in its current form, to the current and future parents of my ward, who know that this Council does not currently have a school place for their son or daughter?

Supplementary Answer

I am afraid that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.5

53.6

George Evans asked the Executive Member for Children's Services the following question:

 

Question:

It has recently come to light that the project to build two new Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) schools on Barkham Ride has encountered delays. Given the increasing demand for SEND provision in Wokingham, these schools are essential for supporting children and families who rely on specialised educational services. Can the Executive Member please provide a comprehensive update on the current status of this project, outlining the reasons for the delay, any steps the council is taking to mitigate these setbacks, and an updated timeline?  

 

Minutes:

 

Question 

It has recently come to light that the project to build two new Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) schools on Barkham Ride has encountered delays. Given the increasing demand for SEND provision in Wokingham, these schools are essential for supporting children and families who rely on specialised educational services. Can the Executive Member please provide a comprehensive update on the current status of this project, outlining the reasons for the delay, any steps the council is taking to mitigate these setbacks, and an updated timeline?  

 

Answer 

The Council is committed to ensuring that the two new Special Schools are delivered as soon as possible as we recognise the existing challenges around the need to increase local specialist provision for our children and young people.  We are currently working with the Department of Education to understand timelines for delivery of the two new Special Free Schools and are actively working to identify mitigation activity in the event that the DfE’s delivery of the schools is not within their initially projected timeline.  This work is currently in progress, and it can be shared when finalised.   

 

Supplementary Question:

Thank you for that response, and it is of course concerning that there is not a timeline at the moment.  Councillor Barley and I recently visited Addington School where we saw the outstanding education and support provided to children with Special Educational Needs.  However, the school is clearly at capacity, which is concerning given the rising demand.  I welcome the funding from the previous Government for the new SEND schools, but I am worried that this project may face a change in completion date, like the Bohunt Sixth Form.  Given the Council’s £34.6million dedicated school grants deficit, which is an unsustainable in year deficit of £15million, can you advise me what the business case says the value for these new schools will reduce the annual deficit, and what the costs are for each year the project is delayed?

 

Supplementary Answer:

Not off the top of my head you will not be surprised to know.  That work is being done at the moment.  We did an initial calculation when the previous government suggested that it might not be able to deliver in 2026.  We did a calculation for what would be the implications of a one year delay.  We are working on paperwork to submit to the Department for Education to explain what the impact would be.  We are also actively looking at what mitigation we can put in place to provide local provision in the absence of those schools after 2026.  We just do not know what the Department for Education are going to do.  I am sure that when those calculations are complete, they can be shared, but I imagine that they will have to be not shared widely with the public, for reasons that you can understand, they are internal things which can affect finances of the organisations, so they would not probably be disclosable.  However, at the moment we just  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.6

53.7

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

 

Question:

I have seen the Council’s latest school strategy. I note there was excess capacity in many primary schools across the borough. I see also the plan to set up Special Educational Needs & Disability (SEND) areas at two schools which has my full support. 

But residents will want to know what is the Council’s plan is to maintain these schools over time, in particular what will happen to the surplus places/ buildings, is there a risk of primary school closures and what will happen to primary schools promised by developers (e.g. Arborfield) which may not now be needed? 

Minutes:

 

Question 

I have seen the Council’s latest school strategy. I note there was excess capacity in many primary schools across the Borough. I see also the plan to set up send areas at 2 schools which has my full support. 

 

But residents will want to know what is the Council’s plan is to maintain these schools over time, in particular what will happen to the surplus places / buildings, is there a risk of primary school closures and what will happen to primary schools promised by developers (e.g. Arborfield) which may not now be needed? 

 

Answer 

As a substantial portion of the Borough’s schools are now academies, and decisions on the shape of education provision within the Borough are correspondingly transferred to Multi Academy Trusts.  Therefore, school place planning is something the Council must develop in partnership with school and multi-academy trust leaders in the local education system.  The strategy to manage surplus places in the primary sector is an ongoing piece of co-production work being undertaken via the Wokingham Borough Education Partnership and definite conclusions as to how to fully repurpose vacant buildings are yet to be formulated.  However, an option of this will involve the creation of new SEND Units and Resource Bases.  As noted within the question, two new specialist provisions were opened this September at Loddon and Radstock Primary Schools, which have proven extremely popular with parents.  

 

Until the review of primary places has been completed, it is too early to comment on the risk of school closures or the creation of new schools.  Again, this is something that would have to be determined in close liaison with the Wokingham Borough Education Partnership and we cannot predetermine the outcome of the coproduction with schools that is currently ongoing in that respect.  If new schools were to be developed, this would only be in cases where the primary places within the Borough were manifestly located in the ‘wrong places’, with excess demand in certain areas that could not reasonably be met in transport terms within the wider school system. 

 

Supplementary Question

I note and understand your answer and what must actually be quite a difficult situation.  I wanted to ask about the 2010 Plan, I understand that there are three primary schools promised by developers which have not yet been delivered, one of which I understand is in progress.  The Local Plan Update which we discussed, I was going to say a couple of weeks ago, but it is a little bit longer, here, had another three primary schools promised in that.  Will that review of that capacity be part of this schools review that you promised, and is there a possibility that the fundings and commitments from those developers could be moved to other areas to develop more SEN capacity or more secondary capacity if that was deemed appropriate?

 

Supplementary Answer

As you rightly say this is a complicated issue.  I think if we had not reserved sites along with the detail of housing locations in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.7

54.

Minutes of Committee Meetings and Ward Matters

An opportunity for Members to ask questions in relation to the latest circulated volume of Minutes of Meetings and Ward Matters. 20 minutes is permitted for this item.

54.1

Charles Margetts asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

I am raising this on behalf of a resident of mine, Sarah who lives on Springdale Road in Finchampstead.  She cares for her husband who has Parkinsons, at home.  Earlier this year he had an accident on a raised manhole cover outside his house, which is protruding from the road, and left him in the Royal Berkshire with some very nasty injuries.  She contacted Highways and asked them if they would come out and attend to this raised manhole cover.  Someone came out and chalked up the cover, but nothing happened, so she contacted me.  I put in a request to have it repaired but was told that it was not severe enough to do it.  To me this is a no brainer, a small cost to the Council to repair the manhole cover, better for the resident and also better for the Council.  This means this man can be sustained at home for much longer and the cost of this care does not fall on the Council.  I raised this with senior officers in Highways who came back to me and said that they would review it, and then came back again and said that the manhole cover was not severe enough to do anything about.

 

What I was going to ask, was when you can, could we agree a convenient date where you can actually attend the house with me and meet Sarah?  She is perfectly friendly.  All she wants is for someone to have a look at this and take the complaint seriously, and actually review the decision of officers.  If you do come to the conclusion that the decision of officers is correct, then that will be the end of the story, but I would ask, because I do not think that the right judgement has been made, if it would be possible for you to come, I know that she and I would be grateful.

 

Answer:

Thank you, Charles, for your question.  Yes, I would like to arrange a meeting with you when I am feeling somewhat better, so it might be in a couple of weeks time.

54.2

Adrian Betteridge asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

My ward of Barkham and Arborfield has many busy residential roads with speed limits of more than 30mph, which residents consider unsafe, notably Bearwood Road in Barkham, Reading Road in Eversley, and Langley Common Road.  As well as the risk of vehicle collisions these speed limits discourage walking and cycling and are hazardous for pedestrians crossing the road.  Could I have an update for residents on how more appropriate speed limits could be set for these three specific roads, and in due course more generally across the area?

 

Answer:

Thank you, Adrian, for your question.

 

Bearwood Road in Barkham – what I can say there is that a draft speed limit order is planned to go out for consultation at the end of this month, extending the 30mph limit from roughly outside of the Post Office where the current terminal signs are, up to the A1 Highlands Avenue junction.  The second location, which was the A327 Reading Road, again that is planned to go out for consultation at the end of this month, extending the 30mph speed limit from the current terminal signs near the Tally Ho Pub up to the junction with Park Lane.  Your third location is Langley Common Road.  This will be re-examined in the light of the increased traffic levels and the emerging new speed limit policy.  The existing speed limit policy was made in 2007, so quite some time ago, and this will allow us to look at similar examples across the Borough.

54.3

Pauline Jorgensen asked the Executive Member for Economic Development, Sport, Leisure and the Arts the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

Quite a few of my residents in Marefield have been putting up with quite a lot of issues around football traffic as he is well aware, because we have talked several times about it.  I just wondered if he could give us or give the residents any updates about the likely time that we can actually conclude something, that will actually help residents to not have such a large amount of traffic blocking up their road, driving past their houses, and in some cases parking on their drives?

 

Answer:

Thank you for your question, Pauline.

 

The football club is Laurel Park FC, and they are an amazingly run football club as you know, by volunteers in Earley, and one of the largest in our Borough as it happens.  They are victims of their own success, and they are impinging on neighbours as we know.  With that in mind I am enlisting cross party support.  I have been in contact with you and with Moses and with Caroline, and I have met with the football club, the Town Council, and only this afternoon I had a meeting with the Earley Neighbourhood Action Group to hear firsthand of their parking challenges on a Saturday.  So, together we are going to find a short term and long term solution, and we are aiming to have short term mitigation in place by the end of the year, and mapping out a long term strategy to support the club and residents alike.

54.4

Jane Ainslie has asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

I am pleased to see the steps finally fitted to the Tanhouse Rail bridge and a forecast of a November opening date.  As we know the bridge will remain inaccessible for anyone dependent on mobility aids, anyone who cannot climb steps, and anyone with a pushchair or a bike that they cannot carry.  What will be the process for replacing the steps with ramps to resolve these unacceptable limitations?

 

Answer:

Thank you, Jane, for your question. 

 

Bit of a history to this one. It is a Network Rail bridge and despite a Memorandum of Understanding that the Council had with Network Rail to install ramps, and I also sent several letters to the Network Rail Director and the previous Government Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, as well as Mark Harper, Network Rail still went ahead and installed steps. Preliminary design work has been undertaken by the Council but with our financial situation we are dependent on external funding, that would be grant funding, to carry out the detailed design and construction of the ramps.  Wokingham’s MP Clive Jones has also raised Network Rail’s refusal to build accessible bridges, in Parliament, and is awaiting a final response.  Meanwhile Network Rail have confirmed that they will be opening the bridge with the steps on 1 November 2024.

54.5

Shahid Younis has asked the Executive Member for Environment and Climate Emergency the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

A number of residents in my ward have reported confusion over black bin entitlements.  Some have received two 180 litre bins without asking, while others who requested an additional bin are not getting theirs collected.  So, they have got two but one of them is not being collected.  When they contact the Council responses vary.  Some are told they are not entitled to two bins, instead they should have a 240 litre bin.  Others are told that they need a sticker, but subsequently they cannot then get a sticker.  So why 6 months after the bins were delivered are residents still facing inconsistent responses from the Council, and are confused over their bin entitlements?

 

Answer:

Thank you.  To be clear there are two sets of entitlements – there is the 180 litre waste bin and the 240 if you qualify to have the expanded capacity.  If they are receiving, I assume by 280 you mean two separate 180 litre bins that they are receiving, then that will be a mistake I can only assume.  On those individual cases if you would like to copy myself into any correspondence you have just so we can clarify what the situation is.  As far as I can tell, I cannot see how that ties in with the accepted Council policy.

54.6

Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

Almost 300 dwellings lost their gas supply in Winnersh on 15 October and it took until the weekend to reconnect the affected dwellings.  Whilst this is an inconvenience at this time of the year, it would have been a real disaster in the winter.  I would like to know are Highways or any other department of the Council responsible for this or is it all SGN?

 

Answer:

Thank you, Rachelle.

 

No, the Council are not responsible for the SGN network, the SGN are a private distribution network provider of gas for this particular area.  However, the Council’s Emergency Planning team were involved and requested to SGN if they wanted any help, but SGN declined their offer.  I do understand that all properties are now connected.

54.7

Rebecca Margetts asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

Residents in my ward who use neighbouring facilities in Arborfield Green for their children participating in football have asked me about the delayed building of the sports pavilion.  When will the report on the progress of S106 agreements be published as per my Motion from January this year?

 

Answer:

Thank you very much for that, Rebecca.

 

I will have to obviously check with officers where they are at the moment and when you will get that report published.  I will do so tomorrow.

54.8

Andy Ng Siu hong asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

Due to climate change extreme weather is becoming more frequent and more serious.  In recent months storms have caused some flooding around our communities.  One of the seriously affected areas included the intersections of Beech Lane and Lakeside footpath.  During heavy rain flooding can be serious.  Can the Council do more to assure safety and preserve our properties?  Regarding climate change, what can the Council do to assure more facilities, and encouragement can be implemented at ward and community level including the installation of solar panels and electric vehicle chargers to create a greener future, and a better future not only for us but for generations to come?

 

Answer:

Thank you, Andy, for your question.

 

Yes, climate change is impacting us.  Records are being broken virtually every month on a regular basis now.  September 2024 was the second wettest on local record stretching back to at least 124 years, and probably 143 years.  One of the impacts of climate change of course is much wetter periods and highway drainage and land drainage systems are really pushed to capacity at these particular times, and some of the rainfall rates are well above the drainage systems that they were originally designed for. 

 

In the instances of flooding, we have seen this across the country, not just in the likes of Wokingham.  You probably saw it on television in Woburn in Bedfordshire where some major trunk roads were totally flooded as well.  We are focusing our limited resources on high priority locations such as properties where they are being flooded.  We do have a gulley cleansing programme which is undertaken, and we are reminding private landowners of their land drainage responsibilities known as riparian ownership. 

 

With regards to the actions the Council is taking on climate change, as you are probably aware this evening we have gone through the CEAP 5, and there is an awful lot of actions within that, that we can do as residents of the Borough to help mitigate climate change.

 

At this point in the meeting, in line with 4.2.12 m of the Constitution, Councillor Prue Bray proposed that 4.2.10. 9 be suspended to enable all Members questions to be asked.  This was seconded by Councillor Stephen Conway.

 

Upon being put to the vote this was agreed.

54.9

Yusra Salman asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

Pedestrian improvements are underway on Beechwood Avenue to create a shared footway/cycleway, but not a dedicated cycle path.  Residents particularly the elderly are concerned about the risk of accidents with speeding cyclists.  What measures are the Council implementing to mitigate these risks and to ensure the safety of all pedestrians during and after the project?

 

Answer:

Thank you for your question.  It is not a shared footway/cycleway which is being installed on Beechwood Avenue.  It is a widened footway and it was utilising some S106 funding which was dedicated to undertake that work.

54.10

Nagi Nagella asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

In my ward Norreys there are a couple of crossings that are to be delivered this year.  Since July they are still under design phase, and I suppose they have to go to consultation afterwards as well.  Can you please update on the progress, and will they be delivered this year?

 

Answer:

Thank you for your question. 

 

Yes, there are two crossings in Norreys ward which are currently under design.  The first is Warren House Lane.  We anticipate that, that may be constructed on site during the Spring time.  The other one is Wiltshire Road near Crutchley Road.  That again is on a similar timeline.  I will be able to keep Members of the ward updated once we get the detailed design completed.

54.11

George Evans asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

Roundabout sponsorship can provide a source of income for the Council while allowing local businesses to gain visibility in our communities.  However, it appears that the number of sponsored roundabouts in my ward of Barkham and Arborfield, and potentially across the Borough, has decreased.  It is noticeable that roundabouts that were once sponsored and which once had flowers and were well maintained, are not so?  Could the Executive Member please provide an update on the current status of the roundabout sponsorship programme, if there has been a reduction in the number of sponsored roundabouts, and what steps are being taken to encourage our businesses to sponsor roundabouts moving forward?

 

Answer:

Thank you, George, for your question.

 

Actually sponsored roundabouts does not come under my role, but I will get you a written response on that.

54.12

Catherine Glover asked the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

Recently on some roads in Spencers Wood and Swallowfield from Basingstoke Road to Trowse Lane, as well as some of the new estates, parking on pavements has reached epidemic proportions.  Instead of just pulling over to the curb and parking on the road, drivers seem to prefer parking with two wheels on the pavement.  Occasionally one sees cars fully obstructing the entire footway.  It seems that they would rather inconvenience pavement users than road users, or maybe they are just worried about their wing mirrors. 

 

Even half on, half off parking creates a hazard for vulnerable people including those on a mobility scooter or pushing a pram, buggy or wheelchair, or those with reduced vision.  A vehicle taking up the whole pavement forces pedestrians, and where it is also a cycle lane, cyclists, into sometimes busy roads.  In addition, vehicles on the pavement can cause damage to the pavement or underground utilities, the repairing of which causes travel delays for members of the public.  What steps has the Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways taken to mitigate this scourge of modern life?

 

Answer:

Thank you, Catherine, for your question.

 

Yes, pavement parking can be very obstructive to most people and in some cases absolutely everybody.  The powers of enforcement though are currently vested with the Police except where there are yellow lines.  Where the yellow lines are, the Council can take action with penalty charge notices whilst the time period for that particular yellow line is in force.  The previous Conservative government carried out a consultation with all highway authorities in England, outside of London, 4 years ago, and despite them saying that they were working at pace on this matter, nothing happened.  I have recently written to our new MPs on the 6 August asking them to raise this very important issue with the new Secretary of State for Transport, which I understand that they have done.  I have also written directly to the Secretary of State for Transport on 1 October.  To date I am still awaiting a response.

54.13

Caroline Smith asked the Executive Member for Economic Development, Sport, Leisure and the Arts the following question:

Minutes:

 

Question:

I was going to ask a question to the Executive Member for Economic Development, Sport, Leisure and the Arts, but Pauline has already asked my question on the Marefield residents, so all I can say is thank you for keeping us all informed and for working towards a solution for our residents.

 

Answer:

Thank you, Caroline, yes, you usurped Caroline’s question there Pauline.  Did you notice that I was a little bit practiced?  We are working cross party here, but I would like to thank Caroline here for a guided tour around Hillside.  Thank you very much.  There is a rubik cube’s worth of possibilities, but we will solve it together.

55.

Statements by the Leader of the Council and Executive Members

To receive any statements by the Leader of the Council and 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:

Councillor Stephen Conway, Leader of the Council, Executive Member for Housing, Partnerships and the Local Plan:

The IMPOWER Consultancy has compiled an index of high performing councils measured by core service productivity, or outcomes achieved per pound spent.  I am delighted to say that Wokingham is in the top ten of all councils in England responsible for adults and children’s services.  We are ranked as number five.  Given the low level of core revenue support we receive from central government, the lowest level per head of population of all the councils assessed in IMPOWER’s index, this is a very considerable achievement.  Our officers are of course principally responsible for our success.  As I have said many times, they are our greatest asset as an organisation, but it is worth noting that municipal journals analysis of the results tells us that the top ten councils had two things in common – first a culture of expressing gratitude towards hard working staff, and second a focus on working with external partners, both are hallmarks of the approach of the current administration.

 

Councillor Mark Ashwell, Executive Member for Economic Development, Sport, Leisure, and the Arts:

I would just like to take this opportunity to introduce myself as your Executive Member for Economic Development, Sport, Leisure and Arts and Culture.  There you go.  Actually, George, I think those roundabouts and the sponsorship I would like to get amongst those.  It might be me actually, Paul.  I think it is me, so we are going to get amongst that.

 

Look, I have two opportunities that I just wanted to share with you really.  One is Laurel Park Football Club.  As I mentioned earlier, they are an amazing community run club.  They are run by Ian Jobson, the Chairman and Andy Dykes, the Secretary.  They have nurtured one of the largest football clubs in our Borough, providing grass roots sport at youth level, and this season they got 35 teams from under 6 to under 18s.  I am extremely proud of the fact that they have a very strong girls’ section.  It makes up nearly 50% of their 500 plus players.  I will tell you what, it is a proven fact that if you enable girls to play sport, they will carry on later in life, massively aiding their health and wellbeing.  Add in the players’ parents, the siblings, Laurel Park FC is supporting a community of around 2,000 people, and the vast majority live in Earley.  So, whilst 500 players sounds like a large group this a very small percentage of the 32,000 plus people that live in Earley, the second largest population centre in our Borough.  Every season they have to turn down prospective players because they currently just cannot scale up and grow much larger, due to the lack of facilities and challenges such as parking.  I am currently, as I told Pauline and Caroline and Moses, I am currently working with my councillor colleagues, the Earley NAG, the Earley Town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

56.

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:

Councillor David Hare, Non Executive Director Optalis:

I am afraid I have to bring you some sad news in that the CEO of Optalis Davd Birch has had to retire with effect from today.  He, I do not know if many of you know, had a mysterious illness which they thought was a stroke but was not a stroke, and they do not really know what it was, and he was off for about 3 months with that.  Then he came back and about two months ago he told us that he was going blind, and because he was going blind, he was finding that he could not drive at night or things like that.  So, he said that he had to retire, and he has retired as from today.  I just wanted to bring it to Council to say thank you for all the good work that he has done.  He took over Optalis when many of us wondered whether we were going to keep it going to be honest.  I see Charles nodding very sagely, and we really did think was it worth keeping going?  He transformed it and I know he was quite high up in one of the accountancy firms and he said that being CEO of Optalis was more hard work than he had there even though he was right up at the top.  He really put his heart and soul into that work and as a Council I hope we can all thank him very much for what he has done, and transforming Optalis to a valuable service for the people of Wokingham.

57.

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.


57.1

Motion 523 submitted by Nagi Nagella

‘On many new developments, residents often feel left in the dark about the uncertainty surrounding the adoption by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) of highways infrastructure, parks, and other open spaces. Residents can be given conflicting information by developers and the local authority concerning the eventual adoption, or not of such infrastructure, the timing of any adoption and the reasons for any delays.

 

Where the adoption of infrastructure is delayed, residents often have no idea as to who is responsible for the delay and the likely timelines for infrastructure to be adopted.

 

For over fifteen years Borough has seen significant development on four major locations and in important smaller locations are we have still not managed to get the communication with residents right.

 

Council request that WBC publishes and maintains a schedule of anticipated infrastructure adoption for all future approved Planning applications from this point onwards.

 

 

For each anticipated item, the schedule will identify:

  1. The development location,
  2. The developer responsible for constructing the infrastructure,
  3. The initial anticipated date of adoption,
  4. The current anticipated date of adoption,
  5. Any reasons why current date is later than the initial anticipated date.
  6. If current anticipated date is later than the initial anticipated date, what steps are being taken to ensure the infrastructure will be adopted rather than left in a state of limbo or near limbo.
  7. Contact details of the specialist team involved in the adoption of that item.

 

The schedule will be published at https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/major-developments  and will be updated quarterly.’

 

Chief Finance Officer comments:

There are no direct financial implications associated with producing the schedule requested in the motion.

 

The Chief Finance Officer comments are solely an assessment of the financial implications associated with the Motion as written and are not an opinion on the policy direction or intention contained within them.

 

 

Minutes:

Council considered the following Motion, submitted by Councillor Nagi Nagella and seconded by Councillor Rebecca Margetts.

 

‘On many new developments, residents often feel left in the dark about the uncertainty surrounding the adoption by Wokingham Borough Council of highways infrastructure, parks, and other open spaces. Residents can be given conflicting information by developers and the local authority concerning the eventual adoption, or not of such infrastructure, the timing of any adoption and the reasons for any delays. 

 

Where the adoption of infrastructure is delayed, residents often have no idea as to who is responsible for the delay and the likely timelines for infrastructure to be adopted. 

 

For over fifteen years Borough has seen significant development on four major locations and in important smaller locations we have still not managed to get the communication with residents right. 

  

Council request that WBC publishes and maintains a schedule of anticipated infrastructure adoption for all future approved Planning applications from this point onwards. 

 

For each anticipated item, the schedule will identify: 

  1. The development location, 
  1. The developer responsible for constructing the infrastructure, 
  1. The initial anticipated date of adoption, 
  1. The current anticipated date of adoption, 
  1. Any reasons why current date is later than the initial anticipated date. 
  1. If current anticipated date is later than the initial anticipated date, what steps are being taken to ensure the infrastructure will be adopted rather than left in a state of limbo or near limbo. 
  1. Contact details of the specialist team involved in the adoption of that item. 

 

The schedule will be published at https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/major-developments  and will be updated quarterly.’

 

Councillor Nagella stated that delays in the adoption process in some of the new estates or not knowing who was responsible for their estate, was stressful for residents of these estates.  Many families were not able to use playpark facilities or take their dogs for walks due to overgrown vegetation, and overflowing bins impacted the look and feel of estates.  Residents on the new estates were paying both council tax and estate management fees.  Councillor Nagella commented that with the approval of the Local Plan there was likely to be more new estates which may face similar issues.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Stephen Conway and seconded by Councillor Prue Bray that the Motion be amended as follows:

 

‘On many new developments, residents often feel left in the dark about the uncertainty surrounding the adoption by Wokingham Borough Council of highways infrastructure, parks, and other open spaces.  Residents can be given conflicting information by developers and the local authority concerning the eventual adoption, or not of such infrastructure, the timing of any adoption and the reasons for any delays. 

 

Where the adoption of infrastructure is delayed, residents often have no idea as to who is responsible for the delay and the likely timelines for infrastructure to be adopted. 

 

For over fifteen years Borough has seen significant development on four major locations and in important smaller locations we have still not managed to get the communication with residents right. 

 

Council request  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.1

57.2

Motion 524 submitted by Pauline Jorgensen pdf icon PDF 56 KB

‘This Council notes that Age UK have warned that 2 million pensioners who need additional money to stay warm this winter  will not receive it because of the Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit. This Council further notes that individuals no longer receive Pension Credit if they have an income above £11,343, so there are many older people who are on lower incomes who will no longer receive Winter Fuel Payments – meaning that Winter Fuel Payments play a significant role in helping older Wokingham Borough residents afford heating during the coldest months.  

  

This Council believes the criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlights the social injustice, financial hardship and potential health risks posed by the sudden policy change to restrict the availability of Winter Fuel Payments solely to those on Pension Credit. This Council believes that the decision to impact some of the most vulnerable in society, based on widely contested claims of a financial blackhole, is unjustifiable. In addition, this Council believes the Government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.  

  

Therefore, this Council:   

1.            Will bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit with local charities and community organisations to help with access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need; 

 

We are fully supporting awareness raising and help for people to access financial support: 

 

  • We are working collaboratively with the Hardship Alliance (Age UK are represented on the Alliance) on focused activity to tackle hardship across the borough – using both Council and Partner networks to reach people. We will continue to use data and intelligence from all partners to target communication in the right areas to maximise Pension Credit claims. 

 

  • The Council also works in partnership with CAB around income maximisation. If people are finding access to benefits difficult, we offer support and information through our libraries and Customer Services teams. 

 

2.            Instructs the Leader of the Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment to protect vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, from fuel poverty; and 

 

3.            Will sign the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.’

 

Chief Finance Officer comments:

There are no direct financial implications associated with this Motion. 

 

The Chief Finance Officer comments are solely an assessment of the financial implications associated with the Motion as written and are not an opinion on the policy direction or intention contained within them. 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Council considered the following Motion, submitted by Councillor Pauline Jorgensen and seconded by Councillor Charles Margetts.

 

‘This Council notes that Age UK have warned that 2 million pensioners who need additional money to stay warm this winter will not receive it because of the Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit. This Council further notes that individuals no longer receive Pension Credit if they have an income above £11,343, so there are many older people who are on lower incomes who will no longer receive Winter Fuel Payments – meaning that Winter Fuel Payments play a significant role in helping older Wokingham Borough residents afford heating during the coldest months.  

  

This Council believes the criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlights the social injustice, financial hardship and potential health risks posed by the sudden policy change to restrict the availability of Winter Fuel Payments solely to those on Pension Credit. This Council believes that the decision to impact some of the most vulnerable in society, based on widely contested claims of a financial blackhole, is unjustifiable. In addition, this Council believes the Government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.  

  

Therefore, this Council:   

 

1.       Will bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit with local charities and community organisations to help with access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need; 

 

 

2.       Instructs the Leader of the Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment to protect vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, from fuel poverty; and 

 

3.       Will sign the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.’

 

The Mayor indicated that a corrected version of the Motion had been circulated.

 

Councillor Pauline Jorgensen commented that the Government decision to amend the Winter Fuel Payment process would impact some of the most vulnerable residents.  Elderly people were more sensitive to the cold and the NHS advised that over 65s should heat their rooms to at least 18 degrees in order to stay warm and stave off illness.  In the Borough 29,194 pensioners would be impacted by the changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance.  Of these 1,417 were in receipt of Pension Credit. 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Rachel Bishop Firth and seconded by Councillor Martin Alder that the Motion be amended as follows:

 

‘This Council notes that Age UK have warned that up to 2 million pensioners who need additional money to stay warm this winter may not receive it because of the Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.2

57.3

Motion 525 submitted by Alison Swaddle

‘After more than two years of Liberal Democrat leadership of Wokingham Borough Council residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the unkempt state of the Borough. 

  

Frontline universal services such as street cleaning, weeds, grass cutting have been cut by the current administration despite receiving more government funding than the previous Conservative administration.  

  

The Council exists to provide services to residents and council taxpayers expect to receive value for money.  

Many of our residents have chosen to live here because over many years the Borough has been voted among the best places to live nationally. It is important that we can continue have pride in our area. 

  

This Council believes that the current administration is failing to prioritise core universal services, despite the previous Conservative Government having left Wokingham Borough with the second highest core spending power per household in Berkshire, second only to Slough.  

  

Further, this Council believes that the administration is failing to make the best use of Council-owned assets and other revenue streams to maximise investment in these services.  

  

Therefore, this Council requires the Executive to publish plans before the end of 2024, as part of its reviews of services, for debate by Overview and Scrutiny committees, on how the quality of street cleaning, weed removal and grass cutting services will be increased, and value for money will be delivered – with these measures included in the 2025/26 budget debated by Council in February 2025.’

 

Chief Finance Officer comments:

There are no direct financial implications associated with producing the reports requested in the motion, although there are likely to be increased costs and budgetary approvals associated with any proposed enhancement to service provision. 

 

The Chief Finance Officer comments are solely an assessment of the financial implications associated with the Motion as written and are not an opinion on the policy direction or intention contained within them. 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Council considered the following Motion, submitted by Councillor Alison Swaddle and seconded by Councillor Dave Edmonds.

 

‘After more than two years of Liberal Democrat leadership of Wokingham Borough Council residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the unkempt state of the Borough. 

  

Frontline universal services such as street cleaning, weeds, grass cutting have been cut by the current administration despite receiving more government funding than the previous Conservative administration.  

 

The Council exists to provide services to residents and council taxpayers expect to receive value for money.  

 

Many of our residents have chosen to live here because over many years the Borough has been voted among the best places to live nationally. It is important that we can continue have pride in our area. 

 

This Council believes that the current administration is failing to prioritise core universal services, despite the previous Conservative Government having left Wokingham Borough with the second highest core spending power per household in Berkshire, second only to Slough.  

 

Further, this Council believes that the administration is failing to make the best use of Council-owned assets and other revenue streams to maximise investment in these services.

 

Therefore, this Council requires the Executive to publish plans before the end of 2024, as part of its reviews of services, for debate by Overview and Scrutiny committees, on how the quality of street cleaning, weed removal and grass cutting services will be increased, and value for money will be delivered – with these measures included in the 2025/26 budget debated by Council in February 2025.’

 

Councillor Swaddle stated that the Borough was often voted as one of the best places to live and in a survey undertaken in 2023, it had been voted as the best place to live in the UK.  However, cuts to the street cleaning and grass schedule meant that the Borough was looking increasingly unkempt.  When cleaning or cutting was undertaken, debris was left behind which was unsightly and blocked drains, causing flooding.  Councillor Swaddle asked that plans on increasing the quality of grass cutting, weed removal and street cleaning, be published by the end of the year.

 

Councillor David Hare emphasised that it was not possible to provide a perfect Borough for all.  Definitions of unkempt and untidy varied.  Factors such as the weather also had an impact, and the Council did what it could to create a reasonable environment.  Increasing demand from statutory services such as adults and children’s services reduced the amount of money available, and the Council had limited resources. 

 

Councillor Rob Comber commented that the Borough was a nice place to live.  The Council had to do the best it could to manage its green spaces within its financial constraints.  Residents required the Council to deliver value for money.  Councillor Comber highlighted the Council’s reporting system which residents could use to report any issues.

 

Councillor Imogen Shepherd-Dubey indicated that the cost of providing Council services had been spiralling. The Council had to provide what it could within its limited resources and prioritise vulnerable residents.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.3

57.4

Motion 526 submitted by Charles Margetts

‘The proposed changes by the new Labour government will raise the number of houses to be built in Wokingham from 748 per annum to 1308 per annum. This Council opposes this vast increase in housing which will change the character and nature of our Borough forever. We believe this target is not a valid reflection of local demand and will do real harm to Wokingham. We believe the Labour government should review the need locally and arrive at a much lower figure. This Council will write to the government setting out the grounds for a lower number. This Council will start a campaign to secure lower housing numbers for Wokingham.’ 

 

Chief Finance Officer Comment: 

There are no direct financial implications associated with this Motion. 

 

The Chief Finance Officer comments are solely an assessment of the financial implications associated with the Motion as written and are not an opinion on the policy direction or intention contained within them. 

 

Minutes:

Due to time constraints this was not considered.