Agenda

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 10 July 2024.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary or affected interests in respect of any matter to be considered at this meeting.

Any Member with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter should withdraw from the meeting when the matter is under consideration and should notify the Democratic Services Officer in attendance that they are withdrawing as they have such an interest. If the Disclosable Pecuniary Interest is not entered on the register of Members interests the Monitoring Officer must be notified of the interest within 28 days.

Any Member with an affected Interest in a matter must disclose the interest to the meeting.  There is no requirement to withdraw from the meeting when the interest is only an affected interest, but the Monitoring Officer should be notified of the interest, if not previously notified of it, within 28 days of the meeting.

To receive the Leader’s report on the work of the Executive since the Council meeting held on 10 July 2024.

Council is asked to resolve a recommendation in respect of:

·       Capital Expenditure Outturn 2023/24

·       Revenue Expenditure Outturn 2023/24

To approve the adoption of the proposed Contract Standing Orders into the Council’s Constitution. 

By resident, Chris Wright, to Councillor Temperton,  The Leader and Executive Member for Council Strategy and Climate Change:

At the Joint Waste Board Re3 meeting on October 8, 2020, which is on public record and video, it was clearly discussed that the data collection for the booking system at the Longshot Lane recycling centre should be minimal, focusing primarily on postcode data to identify residents from the respective council areas. This approach was intended to balance operational needs with the privacy rights of residents. The meeting emphasized: "We will ask all people making the booking to just let us know what their postcode is... We tried to take as little data as possible from residents, but only enough to make sure that we can identify where people are from the re3 area."

However, following a complaint to the council about the collection of data, which now includes name and detailed address information, in the Stage Three complaint response dated November 13, 2023, Chief Executive Susan Halliwell defended the broader collection of personal data, including names, email addresses, and postal addresses, justifying it under legal obligations and operational efficiencies. Ms. Halliwell also stated that these data collection practices were approved by councillors at the time of the system's introduction in 2020, saying: "I can clarify that the element of the privacy notice that you have highlighted has not changed since the system was introduced in 2020 which was approved by councillors at the time." This is false, it was not approved as referenced in the 2020 recording.

Given this context, I have several concerns related to the Nolan Principles, which underpin the ethical standards expected of public office officials:

1.     Integrity: The deviation from the initially agreed minimal data collection approach without councillor approval or public consultation undermines the trust that residents place in the council's commitment to protecting their privacy.

2.     Accountability: The decision to implement broader data collection practices appears to have been made without formal approval by councillors, lacking the necessary oversight and accountability.

3.     Openness: The lack of transparency and public scrutiny in making such a significant change to data collection policies suggests a departure from the principle of openness.

Furthermore, Ms. Halliwell's statement that the current data collection practices were approved in 2020 seems misleading, as the meeting records indicate an emphasis on minimal data collection.

In light of these concerns, can you explain Ms. Halliwell’s misleading statement and why the unelected council officials deviated from the initially agreed minimal data collection approach without councillor approval or public consultation, and what steps will the council take to redress this decision and rectify the damage to public trust caused by this misleading statement which has breached at least one of the Nolan Principles?

By resident Chris Turrell, to Councillor Gillbe, Executive Member for Planning, Transport and Countryside:

In the Local Plan adopted by Bracknell Forest Council on 19 March of this year, annual housing provision was set at 614 dwellings. This followed a full process  ...  view the full agenda text for item 7.

(i)         By Councillor McLean to Councillor Wright, Executive Member for Adults and Public Health:

The new Labour Government having taken the winter fuel allowance away from many elderly residents, what steps will the Council be taking to make sure those effected are kept warm this winter?

(ii)        By Councillor Harrison to Councillor Jefferies, Executive Member for Culture, Delivery and Public Protection:

Following yet another occurrence of waste being fly-tipped in Wellers' Lane in Warfield, will the Executive Member responsible please update the Council on how many new CCTV installations to deter this crime have been made since Council last passed a resolution on fly-tipping?

(iii)       By Councillor Allen to Councillor Neil, Executive Member for Finance & Corporate Improvement:

            In the 2023/2024 financial year, Bracknell Forest Council posted an overspend of £1.225M – the only overspend the Council has ever had.  How much additional funding does the Council need from central government to balance our books for this year and for the following two years?

(iv)       By Councillor McLean to Councillor Temperton, Leader and Executive Member for Council Strategy and Climate Change:

We understand that a decision has been made to re-name the Executive as the Cabinet.  How much will this cost our residents?

Motion 05/2024 moved by Councillor P Thompson and seconded by Councillor M Forster

Council expresses concern in relation to the Government’s statement in Parliament on 29 July, that the previous Government’s national New Hospital Programme (NHP) is to be completely reviewed. This has brought uncertainty and probable delays to the provision of improved, safe and modern hospital services for residents of Bracknell Forest. Council supports the statements made by the Royal Berkshire and Frimley Park hospitals that, pending clarification of what the Government’s review will entail, they will continue to progress at pace with their re-development plans.

Council notes that:

·       Bracknell Forest is the only borough in Berkshire without its own acute or community hospital. Consequently, our residents rely mainly on the Secondary Care hospital services provided by the hospitals at Frimley Park, the Royal Berkshire, and Wexham Park.

·       Frimley Park Hospital is included in the NHP for complete re-development, because it was built using Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC), which makes up around 65 per cent of the current building. RAAC deteriorates over time and is now at the end of its life, which the hospital has said poses a potential safety risk to patients, visitors, and staff. Two wards have already been closed, and temporary measures are being taken by the Trust.

·       The Royal Berkshire Hospital is also included in the NHP, for substantial re-development. That Hospital Trust has said that its ageing estate makes it difficult for them to deliver modern healthcare in the way they would like – the buildings were designed at a different time to care for fewer patients with different needs than those of today.

·       Both hospitals’ redevelopments were due to be completed by 2030, but the National Audit Office has reported numerous delays in implementing the NHP, and they have described it as ‘an ambitious and high-risk programme in many ways’.

·       The demand on our hospitals is huge. Over 7 million people in England are currently waiting for NHS hospital treatment. Also, the population of Bracknell Forest has almost doubled from 64,000 in 1971 to some 125,000 currently. Further increases are expected, not least because of the Government’s intention to require more new housing to be built in our Borough.

·       At its meeting on 19 March this year, Council approved the establishment of a Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, jointly with Hampshire County Council and Surrey County Council, to scrutinise the relocation of Frimley Park Hospital. Council appointed Councillors Egglestone and Virgo to sit on the committee; and requested them to undertake a programme of public engagement activities to communicate the committee’s work and decisions to residents, and to enable residents the opportunity to feedback into the process so that their needs and views are properly represented.

Council:

·       Asks the Leader of the Council to convey to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, this Council’s concern over the impact on residents of any delay in the re-development of Frimley Park and the Royal Berkshire hospitals.

·       Asks Councillors Egglestone  ...  view the full agenda text for item 9.