a)    Councillor E. Wilson will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

 

Will the Lead Member advise the role of the Traffic Commissioner in dealing with changes to the Number 2 bus that runs through Dedworth?

 

b)   Councillor E. Wilson will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell,  Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

 

Can the Lead Member for Highways advise what surveys are undertaken on bus punctuality in Dedworth?

 

c)    Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor D Evans, Lead Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead:

 

The Community Centre in York Road, Maidenhead is a valuable Community Asset used by countless residents each week.  Why as part of the York Road Regeneration Project is the Community Centre being demolished and not re-instated as vital Community Asset as part of the Regeneration Project?

 

d)   Councillor Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Principal Member Housing and Communications:

Can you tell me how many rough sleepers were offered accommodation during the period 1st December 2017 to 1st February 2018, and of those, how many were offered out of borough accommodation?

 

e)    Councillor Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

The recent public record of the Audit and Performance Review Panel shows: 2 meetings held, 3 meetings withdrawn or cancelled. This means no oversight since September 2017 and until the end of February 2018 (a 5 month gap). Are you content with this, and if so why, or do you see it as a missed opportunity?

(The Member responding has up to 5 minutes to address Council. The Member asking the question has up to 1 minute to submit a supplementary question. The Member responding then has a further 2 minutes to respond.)

a)    Councillor E. Wilson asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

 

Will the Lead Member advise the role of the Traffic Commissioner in dealing with changes to the Number 2 bus that runs through Dedworth?

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that all new or changed bus services had to be registered with, and agreed by, the Traffic Commissioner prior to the services being authorised to commence. Cessation of services were also required to be advised to the Traffic Commissioner.

 

First Buses contacted the Traffic Commissioner on 4 December 2017 to advise they were de-registering the number 2 service. The timescale for this process required 56 days’ notice, which would mean the service stopping on 30 January 2018. Reading Buses applied to the Traffic Commissioner to take on this service on a commercial basis in early January 2018, thereby retaining the service following the withdrawal of First Buses. Reading Buses applied for this to be done as a short notice application, which was used in emergency situations, so they could start the route as soon as First Buses stopped, meaning that there would be no gap in service for customers. The Traffic Commissioner contacted both the Royal Borough and Slough Borough Council for comments on this application, which both council’s supported.

 

Courtney Buses also applied to register the number 2 service as a commercial operation on 12 January 2018, also under a short notice application. This was refused as the Traffic Commissioner only permits one such application from an operator under this process, which had already been granted to Reading Buses. Courtney Buses was going through the full 56 day notice process to start a Monday to Saturday operation on the 11 March 2018.

 

Courtney Buses had applied to the Traffic Commissioner to operate early morning and late evening services (Monday to Friday) and an all day Sunday Service on the number 2 route. This was in addition to the core times being operated by Reading Buses. This application was submitted under a short notice application to ensure customers were provided with an enhanced service. Similarly, both the Royal Borough and Slough Borough supported this application which was approved enabling the new service to commence on the 30 January 2018.

 

In addition, Courtney Buses applied to operate a very similar service to route 2 (operated by Reading Buses) in direct competition as a short-notice application. This required approval by the Traffic Commissioner and was declined as there was no technical requirement why the registration should be approved at short-notice as there was little detriment to the customer as an equivalent service operated by Reading Buses was in place. However, legislation encouraged competition and the Traffic Commissioner had approved the operation of the service following the 56-day registration period.

 

In essence, Reading Buses submitted the application first which was approved at short-notice to maintain services to customers following the withdrawal of First Bus.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor E. Wilson commented that in the eyes of the resident it was the council that licensed and run bus services. He asked the Lead Member to consider putting a brief note on the website to explain the situation.

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that he would be happy to do so.

 

b)   Councillor E. Wilson asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell,  Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

 

Can the Lead Member for Highways advise what surveys are undertaken on bus punctuality in Dedworth?

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that all vehicles used for the various bus services had Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) equipment on board that tracked the vehicles. The equipment enabled the bus operators to monitor the punctuality of the services to check whether bus services were running late or early. In the longer-term this information could be used to inform timetable and route changes to improve punctuality. In the short-term, the information enabled communications to be issued to update passengers. This was in addition to the real-time information which was displayed on the roadside displays.

 

The data was collated and used by the bus companies to provide the Royal Borough with punctuality figures on a quarterly basis, to monitor and manage the levels of service being provided against the published time tables. Punctuality data could also be requested by the Traffic Commissioner to monitor service performance

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor E. Wilson asked if the data was available to members of the public.

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that it was not currently available but he could ask the operators if they would be prepared to publish it on the website.

 

c)    Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor D Evans, Lead Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead:

 

The Community Centre in York Road, Maidenhead is a valuable Community Asset used by countless residents each week.  Why as part of the York Road Regeneration Project is the Community Centre being demolished and not re-instated as vital Community Asset as part of the Regeneration Project?

 

Councillor D. Evans responded that he wished to assure residents that the council was committed to ensuring the vital services the centre provided continued going forward. A meeting had been held with Members and officers to get a better understanding of the services provided. The council was committed to ensure the activities continued after redevelopment, however he was not wedded to the bricks and mortar.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hill asked for more specifics about where the services would go. It was very important they stayed in central Maidenhead or a similar location as lots of people who used the centre had no transport.

 

Councillor D. Evans responded that the site was in the third phase of development therefore there was plenty of time to make the right decision. A number of options would be looked at including the upgraded Desborough Suite. There was no imminent threat to services on the site.

 

d)   Councillor Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Principal Member Housing and Communications:

Can you tell me how many rough sleepers were offered accommodation during the period 1st December 2017 to 1st February 2018, and of those, how many were offered out of borough accommodation?

Councillor McWilliams responded that between 1 December 2017 and 13 February 2018, 40 people had been offered Severe Weather Emergency Protocol assistance.  Of that 40, 31 had emergency accommodation. 5 people have been accommodated in Borough and 26 out of Borough in Slough, Southall and Reading.  The remaining 9 people did not want SWEP assistance.  This assistance was refused before the placement address was known.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Da Costa commented that the council received £1.1m of FSG in 2017/18 which was entirely used to fund temporary accommodation. It was set to receive a further £1.2m in 2018/19. Given the purpose was to support the full range of homelessness services  including employing a Homelessness Prevention or Tenancy Support Officer, did the Principal Member feel the council’s Homelessness Strategy failed to plan for residents’ needs and could he give a timeline for the new plan, including when third parties, stakeholders and councillors would be consulted, and how much money would be made available to provide all the services needed and procure decent accommodation locally.

 

Councillor McWilliams responded that he would shortly give an update on the strategy. In relation to the budget the Lead Member had stated if Councillor Da Costa had detailed questions he would be happy to sit down and explain it to him.

e)    Councillor Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

The recent public record of the Audit and Performance Review Panel shows: 2 meetings held, 3 meetings withdrawn or cancelled. This means no oversight since September 2017 and until the end of February 2018 (a 5 month gap). Are you content with this, and if so why, or do you see it as a missed opportunity?

Councillor Dudley responded that he understood, due to a small number of items to be considered on the agenda, that there had been a number of cancellations of the Audit and Performance Review Panel.  One of the meetings set for the year, at the end of September, was only included tentatively to deal with any problems completing the annual accounts. He was pleased to say there had been no reason to need to use this meeting. Much oversight of the council’s activities were also carried out by robust overview and scrutiny panels on a regular basis.  However, he had asked that the Head of Finance produces an annual timetable which would include all of the expected items that would be brought forward during the year. The Chair of the Panel would review the timetable at the beginning of the financial year and in advance of each panel meeting.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Da Costa commented that the Panel was a key scrutiny as it had the power to review anything. Its pivotal role was augmented by the major changes in the council and ambitious plans for the future. Councillor Dudley effectively appointed the Chairman therefore was responsible for their performance. Was he content that the Chairman had been receiving the Special Responsibility Allowance since May but had only chaired one meeting and had not produced an agenda for other meetings.

 

Councillor Dudley responded that a constitutional review was underway to ensure the council was running in the most efficient way with the most appropriate allocation of resources. Councillor Luxton did a fantastic job as a chairman, but she could only chair when there were things coming on to the agenda which needed to be debated, not to have a talking shop.

 

f)     Councillor Bowden will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Principal Member for Housing and Communications:

Will the Principal Member for Housing give an update on his plans to update the Homelessness Strategy?

Councillor McWilliams responded that he firmly believed that just one person without a roof over their head was one too many, and it was vitally important that the most vulnerable people in society were helped to get their lives back on track. That was why the borough had a strong offer, including going above and beyond its SWEP duties and commissioning a range of accommodation and support services.

 

The council had listened to what local residents and stakeholders had to say about the recently published Rough Sleeping and Anti-Social Behaviour paper. It had been agreed that the council needed to be clear on not conflating two issues, so the decision was taken to split the paper into a specific paper looking at anti-social behaviour, which was a behaviour based approach, and an update to the adopted Homelessness Strategy, which was people centred.

 

Under the existing Homelessness Strategy, the Council had a strong record of prevention: it had helped hundreds of families to avoid homelessness, whether through offering interest free loans to secure private rented accommodation, having officers attend court with tenants who were being evicted, providing assistance to those struggling with their mortgage, or mediating parents who could longer accommodate their grown child. Housing options advice and support was being delivered seven days a week through the Library and Resident Service Hubs, where each person was given a personal housing plan which set out needs and next steps for that individual and weekly information surgeries were held in partnership with local charities.

 

The council also had a strong record in providing support services for the factors that contributed to homelessness and rough sleeping. In 2017 the council commissioned Resilience, following the great work Councillor Carroll and officers carried out with the Drugs and Alcohol policy, to provide advice, support, treatment and recovery for anyone experiencing alcohol or drug problems in the borough; the council had helped to establish Brighter Berkshire; CAB were funded to provide advice on a range of matters including housing, debt, financial and employment advice at their offices in Maidenhead and at the library in Windsor, whilst Bracknell CAB provided support at Ascot Library;

 

In terms of supply, the council commissioned specialist accommodation for residents.  This included 25 flats in Maidenhead for young people/adults, where skills learning and support services were provided. There were 17 flats in Windsor which were used as temporary accommodation and had on-site support staff available to assist with the residents’ needs.  In 2017, the council opened John West House, a 24/7 shelter, where support and skills learning were provided; and a new facility with intermediate living spaces to enable people to move from emergency housing to sustainable housing and living solutions. He was delighted that the council had recently submitted the Borough Local Plan with the firm aim of achieving 30% affordable housing on all eligible sites, providing for a long term supply solution.

 

The Allocation Policy, which was due for review in 2018, would draw on best practice and the council was awaiting updated guidance from the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Further details would follow, however the aspiration was to have the new allocation policy in place in the autumn. Despite all of the great work, there was always more the council could do to support some of our borough's most vulnerable residents.

 

Homelessness, particularly those who were rough sleeping, was a multifaceted and complex issue with no single solution or short-term fixes. Only with a long-term plan to provide each individual with the support they needed could the council ensure it gave appropriate assistance to each person, as no case was exactly the same as the next. It was also the case that no one institution, whether it be the local authority, the police or local charities, had all the answers or the solutions. Only by working together in partnership could the council help society's most vulnerable.

 

Councillor McWilliams was proud to say that in taking forward the approach to supporting homeless people including rough sleepers, the council would be consulting widely, including forming a fully formalised Homelessness Forum bringing together all the key stakeholders in the local area to work on the approach, contributing to the updating of the homelessness strategy. Invitations would be going out shortly.

 

The council was making a big open offer to partners and stakeholders: come and talk to us and together let's help find sustainable solutions and reinforce our shared commitment to supporting rough sleepers.  In the light of the council’s aspiration to listen to views and consult widely, it would be updating the homelessness strategy in the autumn thereby giving the time and opportunity to deliver the best for the most vulnerable residents

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Bowden asked if the council recorded the details of individuals who refused SWEP and the reasons why?

 

Councillor McWilliams responded that he was sure the information was available if Councillor Bowden wished to ask officers.

 

Councillor Hunt left the meeting at 10pm