8
PRESENT:

RBWM Councillors: Mrs Bateson (Chairman), Beer and Wiles.

RBWM Officers: Linda Arlidge, Sarah Ball, Harjit Hunjan, Ian Hunt, Steve Johnson, Graham Stallwood, Tim Slaney, Ian Trenholm and Karen Williams.

Parish and Town Councils:

Bisham Parish Council: Councillors Cooper and Robson Brown
Bray: Councillors Annetts, Coppinger, Mrs Woodley (clerk)
Cox Green Parish Council: Councillors Smith and Varrall
Datchet: Councillor O’Flynn,
Eton Town Council: Philip Highy (Mayor), Pamela Baker (Deputy Mayor)
Hurley Parish Council: Councillors Baker and Janet Wheeler (clerk)
Old Windsor Parish Council: Councillor Troughton
Shottesbrooke: Councillor Warren
Sunninghill and Ascot: Councillor Hunter
Waltham St Lawrence: Councillors Birkett and Crawley-Bovey
White Waltham: Councillors Brayne, McDonald, Penfold and Webb, Doug Stuart (clerk)
Wraysbury: Councillors Davies and Hughes

Also Present: Andrew Beresford

WELCOME

The Chairman of the Conference, Councillor Mrs Bateson, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and invited all present to introduce themselves.

APOLOGIES

were received from Councillor Saunders (RBWM) and Paul Collins (Eton Town Clerk).

MINUTES

of the last meeting held on 16 October 2008 were approved, subject to the following amendment:

Minutes (p3) to read ‘of the last meeting held on 18 June 2008 were approved’.

PARISH CHARTER

The Conference welcomed Ian Hunt the Borough’s Interim Head of Democratic Services to the meeting, in relation to a revised Parish Charter. It was explained to the Conference that the Charter was a guide to the process of consultation and liaison between Parish ouncils and the Borough. The Charter had primarily been revised to reflect updates to relevant legislation and the Council’s recent restructure. The draft document had been circulated to all Directors and Heads of Service for the opportunity to review their relevant sections. The revised Charter was presented to the Conference for endorsement.

It was proposed that, if the Conference endorsed the Charter, it would then be circulated to each Parish Council for adoption at their next Parish meeting. The Chairman of each Parish Council would be asked to sign a copy and return it to Democratic Services, who would then arrange for the Leader of the Council to countersign the document. Each Parish would receive a copy of the final signed Charter. It was confirmed that all Heads of Service were fully aware of the contents of the Charter and that it would be regularly monitored and updated as necessary. It would also be placed on the Borough website.

It was confirmed that the Borough Constitution set out the rights of Parish Councillors and members of the public to attend meetings of the Council and to speak at those meetings.

The Conference agreed to endorse the Charter as a generic document to be used by all Parish Councils and the Borough.

The Conference placed on record its thanks to Parish Councillor Tony Troughton for his involvement in drafting the revised Charter. The Chairman, on behalf of the Conference, placed on record her thanks to Mr Hunt for presenting the revised Charter.

COUNCIL RESTURCTURE

Members welcomed Ian Trenholm, the Borough’s Chief Executive to the Conference, to provide an update on the ongoing Council restructure.

Mr Trenholm advised the Conference that following his appointment as Chief Executive in May 2008, he had undertaken a comprehensive review of the Council structure to determine whether form followed function. He concluded that this was not the case and that there was a significant lack of leadership capacity at senior levels and that a number of service groupings were illogical. The new structure went live in December 2008 based on a four Directorate model. Some details were still being finalised, for example in relation to Children’s Services. The Contact Officers Book was currently under development to reflect the new structure and would be circulated to all Parishes when complete.

Mr Trenholm confirmed that there were multiple access points for members of the public into the Council, including the Customer Service Centre, wardens and the Borough website. Some services offered direct telephone lines. If Parishes were unable to identify the department or officer they required, they could use the parish liaison email address (parish.liaison@rbwm.gov.uk). The CSC had been established to minimise the amount of contact from the public to officers who were often out and about, for example to avoid delays in response to voicemail messages.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Conference, placed on record her thanks to Mr Trenholm for his update.

SECTION 106 GUIDANCE

The Conference welcomed Linda Arlidge, from the Borough’s Transport and Policy Implementation Group, in relation to guidance for Parishes on Section 106 funding.

Ms Arlidge thanked Graham Leaver, Clerk to Old Windsor Parish Council, for suggesting guidance be developed on the mechanisms for securing developer contributions and Parish council involvement. She advised that Parishes could keep track of Section 106 agreements via the Council website where all legal agreements were scanned in under the planning application number, and also from relevant officers in the service departments. She would be happy to provide specific guidance to individual parishes outside of the meeting.

Ms Arlidge confirmed that every legal agreement between a developer and the Council would be different. Small developments usually resulted in the requirement to pay Section 106 contributions on commencement, but larger developments, particularly those including social housing, could require payment on occupation, which often resulted in phased funding. It was confirmed that legislation remained in place for the foreseeable future to enable Section 106 contributions to be sought from developers. The Government was currently developing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which would alter the system from a voluntary agreement to a non-negotiable levy. Further delays in the implementation of the CIL were anticipated. From the information available to date, there were no plans to passport the funds collected under CIL to central government.

Ms Arlidge explained that there were two stages at which Parish Council’s could be involved in the process:

Development of the policy document to include proposed Parish projects which was reviewed on an annual basis. Parishes would be approached again during the summer of 2009 to update their desired projects.
Providing comments on planning applications. Parishes could put forward suggested projects for Section 106 funding without prejudicing their objection to an application they felt to be harmful, as their views were needed in the event the application were to subsequently be approved.

It was confirmed that funding for schools would be calculated by the relevant service area, based on the school’s asset management plan at the time funding was received. Exact figures were not included for each school in the legal agreement to provide flexibility. Flexibility was important to ensure monies could be spent in a timely fashion and were not required to be returned to developers. Parish Councils were urged to talk to Linda Arlidge or other members of the team to confirm what s106 funds were available, and where they could be spent. It was confirmed that requests for Section 106 projects to mitigate the impact of a proposed development had to be sent to the Planning Case Officer at time of the planning application, even if they were already included on the policy list. The Conference expressed concern that the more rural parishes rarely benefited from Section 106 money. The Conference was advised that in accordance with the legal framework and government guidance, legal agreements could only be used to secure funds to mitigate problems a development may cause and this was less likely in rural areas as little development was permitted in the Green Belt.

The Chairman thanked Ms Arlidge for attending the Parish Conference and encouraged all Parishes to contact Ms Arlidge and her team for advice.

OAKLEY GREEN AND FIFIELD COMMUNITY PLAN

The Conference welcomed Councillor Grenville Annetts, from Bray Parish Council, who presented on the progress so far of the Oakley Green and Fifield Community Plan.

Councillor Annetts began by explaining that a Community Plan described a shared vision of the local area for a ten-year period. It was essential that it was developed by, and received the buy in and support of, the communities covered. The Plan would consider all aspects of local life and would contain detailed action plans to achieve and implement the shared vision. A plan would typically take 12 to 18 months to complete; the Oakley Green and Fifield Plan was about 12 months into development.

It was aimed that a community plan would:

Provide the opportunity for everyone in the community to be heard
Enable communities to have more control of their own lives and to improve their quality of life
Help prioritise resources
Influence the policies and decisions of other bodies, including the Borough Council
Enhance the ability of an area to attract funds in support of community projects
Enhance community spirit.

The Conference noted the likely milestones and timescales to be reached during development of a Community Plan, in light of Bray Parish Council’s experience. Councillor Annetts provided details of the survey undertaken to develop the Plan with all households. To achieve the highest response rate possible, surveys were hand-delivered to each household and collected a few days later. Responses received were analysed using a University of Gloucester produced software package. Feedback was then summarised and provided to all residents. Following the results of the survey, volunteers were requested and then organised into working groups with particular areas of focus. To ensure community support was maintained throughout development, regular communication was undertaken via the launch of a website, newsletters and press coverage. The draft Community Plan was on schedule to be published in June 2009 which would be followed by further consultation and amendments as necessary. It was hoped that the final plan would be published in September 2009. Implementation, fully monitored, would then begin. Service providers, such as the Borough’s Highways department, would be approached with the plan to discuss implementation.

In response to a number of questions, Councillor Annetts confirmed that a Village Design Statement was more planning focussed than a Community Plan, and did not include the social issues. Costs were likely to be approximately £300, spent over three years. Costs could be minimised by utilising the talents and resources of volunteers; for example the Oakley Green and Fifield Community Plan website had been developed free of charge by one volunteer. Production of the final document would represent the largest one-off cost. It was important to identify self-interest issues that would not be of benefit to the whole community.

The Team Manager (Strategy and Plans) form the Boroughs’ Planning Policy department welcomed the presentation by Councillor Annetts. She was impressed with the response rate of 73% and looked forward to seeing the resulting document. The Borough’s Development Control Manager echoed Ms Ball’s comments and highlighted the synergies with the earlier Section 106 presentation. He believed that in the future, Community Plans would help provide long-term support for decisions taken on planning applications.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Annetts and requested that he return to update the Conference on the same issue in a year’s time.

PARISH COUNCIL CALL-INS OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Conference welcomed Graham Stallwood, the Royal Borough’s Development Control Manager to the meeting, who addressed the issue of Parish Council call-ins of planning applications, as raised by Bisham Parish Council. Mr Stallwood referred to the Briefing Note circulated to all Parish Council clerks in advance of the meeting that explained why delegated powers existed and why it was appropriate that call-in powers lay with Borough Councillors rather than Parish Councils.

Mr Stallwood emphasised the important role played by Parish Councils in relation to the determination of planning applications. Parishes were provided with 28 days to provide comments on planning applications, which was twice the timescale required under legislation. Parishes also received a dedicated time slot to address the Borough’s Development Control Panels, rather than having to share time with either supporters or objectors to a planning application. He highlighted the importance of relationships between Parishes and Borough Councillors, but confirmed that any Borough Councillor could call in an application on behalf of a Parish, not just the Ward Councillor.

The Conference was advised that the best arena for Parish Councils to be involved in the planning process as a whole was the Stakeholders Meeting, which was held quarterly. The next meeting was scheduled for 6pm, 4 March 2009 in the Guildhall, Windsor

Parish Councillor Robson-Brown requested to address the Panel on behalf of Bisham Parish Council. Bisham had requested that Parish Councils be able to call-in planning applications, but only when the Parish Council had special concerns, therefore it would not be the case that all applications objected to by the Parish would be called in. There was no reason to expect that the number of planning applications being called in would rise if this change were made. Parish Councillor Robson-Brown highlighted that problems arose when a Ward Councillor was unable to attend the Development Control Panel meeting; when a Parish did not have a Ward Councillor who sat on the Development Control Panel; and if the Borough Councillor’s views differed from that of the Parish. Bisham Parish Council were of the opinion that enabling Parish Councils to call in applications would remove an administrative layer which required a Borough Councillor to be involved. It would also avoid applications being approved when the grass roots view could be important.

Parish Councillor Troughton informed the Conference of a lengthy discussion held at the most recent DALC meeting. It was clear from that discussion that there was a wide divergence of experience. Councillor Beer, as Chairman of the DALC meeting, reported that there were strong views on Parishes being provided with 3 minutes to speak at Development Control Panels.

Mr Stallwood emphasised the importance of the partnership relationship between the Parish Council and the Borough Councillors as both were elected to represent residents; ongoing dialogue was vital. According to guidance from the Standards Board, there was no reason to prevent Parish and Borough Councillors from expressing an opinion on a planning application, as long as they remained open to other lines of argument. A Borough Councillor that did not sit as a Member of a Development Control Panel was able to attend a meeting and speak for as long as they wished. A Ward Councillor could disagree with the views of the Parish but still call in an application. Mr Stallwood agreed that the issue of Parish Council speaking time at Development Control meetings would be looked at when this part of the Borough's Constitution was next reviewed.

The Conference placed on record their thanks to Mr Stallwood for his presentation.

COLD CALLING CONTROL ZONES

The Conference welcomed Steve Johnson, the Borough’s Trading Standards Manager, who was present to explain the Borough’s recent initiative in relation to Cold Calling Control Zones (CCCZ). The Conference was advised that a CCCZ was an area in which uninvited sales people were discouraged from calling at houses. A national survey in 2007 had shown that across the country, 96% of people did not wish to receive such calls. CCCZs also aimed to prevent rogue trading and distraction burglaries. CCCZs would only be established in areas with residents who were considered of high vulnerability.

Until a motion to Council in 2008, there had been no real perception of a need for CCCZs in the Royal Borough. Procedures had since been developed to determine whether an area would be appropriate for a CCCZ. In comparison to No Cold Calling Zones, CCCZs continued to allow the presence of wanted callers, for example canvassers. Neither type of zone had a legal basis but experience in other areas of the country showed that the establishment of a zone led to a dramatic fall in cold calling incidents.

A CCCZ could only be created if evidence was available to show that it would be a proportionate response. A CCCZ Panel had been created to consider such evidence and make a determination. Parishes were encouraged to contact the Trading Standards unit at the Council if they believed a suitable area existed in their parish.

It was confirmed that such zones could overlap with Neighbourhood Watch zones, as similar people would be involved. However, the remit of Neighbourhood Watch was wider than cold calling. Residents would be consulted over any proposal to establish a CCCZ. When established, the zone would be marked by signage at all borders. Residents would be encouraged to display window stickers at their front door. A successful CCCZ required community support, with back up from trading standards. All CCCZs would be reviewed on a regular basis.

The Chair, on behalf of the Conference, thanked Mr Johnson for attending the meeting.

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITITES ACT

The Conference welcomed Harjit Hunjan, the Borough’s Community and Business Partnerships Manager, who provided information on the Sustainable Communities Act (SCA) 2007.

The Conference noted that the SCA originated from a Private Members’ Bill in Parliament and was developed by the Local Futures Coalition following cross-party support. The SCA provided a new framework for Councils to put forward proposals for change from their communities. The Act encouraged people to identify what was needed for more sustainable communities locally and required a change to be made nationally. The SCA linked in with the Government’s ‘empowerment agenda’ which sought to encourage people to engage with their local communities. The sustainability of local communities was defined as encouraging the improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of the authority or part of its area. Social well-being included participation in civic and political activity.

The Conference noted the Government’s principles of a sustainable community:

Living within environmental limits
A strong, healthy and just society
Achieving a sustainable economy
Promoting good governance
Using sound and responsible science

The Conference noted the process by which the SCA would operate. Local authorities would be asked to submit proposals to the Secretary of State by 31 July 2009. Local authorities were required to involve a panel of local people and to consult on all proposals. Any proposal must involve a transfer of function and changed uses for public spending. Following submission of proposals and discussions between the LGA and the Secretary of State, an Action Plan would be published and progress reported to Parliament. Local Spending Reports, due for publication in April 2009, would assist local authorities in identifying proposals for consideration, however the publication of such reports was likely to be delayed. In the Royal Borough, the panel of local people would vary depending on the topic. It was anticipated that Parish Councils would play a key role. All proposals would need to be endorsed by a cross-party panel of five elected Members.

In response to questions, it was highlighted that all proposals would require a change by national government, for example services provided by the Learning and Skills Council or SEEDA being devolved to a lower level. The Chief Executive referred to the campaign in the local papers for the Borough to take over responsibility for policing in Windsor as a potential scheme.

The Conference thanked Mr Hunjan for his informative presentation.

THE LDF: UPDATE AND FUTURE CONSULTATION

The Conference welcomed Sarah Ball, Team Manager – Strategy and Plans (Planning Policy) to the meeting, who was in attendance to provide information on the Local Development Framework (LDF).

The Conference noted the range of documents the Planning Policy team had been working on during 2008 to create a robust evidence base for the Borough’s LDF, particularly in light of the new housing allocation for the Borough included in the South East Plan. It was noted that 2009 was an important year for local planning, beginning with a consultation on the Initial Options paper between 6 March – 20 April 2009. Consideration of responses and refining of options would take place between May – October, followed by a second consultation on the locations of new development. The Core Strategy was due to be approved by Full Council in December 2009, with consultation on the final document due to begin in January 2010. Submission to the Secretary of state was planned for March 2010 with examination in July 2010. If the Strategy passed examination, adoption was proposed for December 2010.

Parishes’ views were in particular sought on the overarching vision of the LDF, the vision for each settlement, density of growth, and the aims and objectives of the Core Strategy. The consultation would include a newsletter sent to all businesses and households, documents available on the Borough website, notices in the local press, a radio campaign, press releases, presentations to forum, panels and local groups, and drop in sessions in Maidenhead, Windsor and Sunningdale. Parish Councils were requested to suggest local groups who would welcome a presentation on the consultation.

Councillor Beer welcomed the work being undertaken by the Planning Policy team and suggested that the consultation could be promoted on Parish Council noticeboards.

The Conference thanked Mrs Ball for her presentation.

PRESENTATION AT THE NEXT CONFERENCE

The Conference recalled that, at the Conference meeting in June 2007, it was agreed that there should be an opportunity for Parish and Town Councils to share their experiences and successes in relation to projects and schemes that they may be involved with.

All Parish Councils were encouraged to submit suggestions for future presentations to the Conference.

DATE OF NEXT CONFERENCE

It was agreed that the next Parish Conference would take place on 21 May 2009, commencing at 7.00pm in the Guildhall, Windsor.

MEETING

The meeting which began at 7.00pm, ended at 9.22pm