Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Wednesday 30 January 2008

Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Meeting Date:
01/30/2008 Pick

Meeting Time:

Location:

Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):

Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I

Document Type: Agenda

Document Status: Final

N O T I C E

O F

M E E T I N G

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

will meet on

WEDNESDAY 30 january 2008

at

7.00pm

in

COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, MAIDENHEAD

TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL

COUNCILLOR MRS HOWES (CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLORS BEER, J EVANS, HOLNESS, KELLAWAY, MUIR & MRS H WILSON

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
COUNCILLORS ADAMS, DUDLEY, MISS JAVED, MRS LUXTON, RICHARDS, SMITH & THOMPSON

Lloyd White
Head of Democratic Services

Issued: Tuesday 22 January 2007

Members of the Press and Public are welcome to attend Part I of this meeting.

The agenda is available on the Council’s web site at www.rbwm.gov.uk or contact the
Committee Administrator Karen Williams (01628) 796529

In the event of the fire alarm sounding or other emergency, please leave the building quickly and calmly by the nearest exit. Do not stop to collect personal belongings and do not use the lifts. Congregate in the Town Hall Car Park, Park Street, Maidenhead (immediately adjacent to the Town Hall) and do not re-enter the building until told to do so by a member of staff.

AGENDA

PART I

ITEM	SUBJECT	WARD	PAGE NO
1	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence	-	-
2	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive Declarations of Interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.	-	-
3	2007/08 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT MONITORING REPORT To receive the latest 2007/08 Planning & Environment Monitoring report.	Various	1
4	BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 7 February 2008 on the Budget and Council Tax.	Various	28
5	AVIATION CONSULTATION DFT RESPONSE To receive a presentation on the report being submitted to Cabinet on 21 February 2008 on the Aviation Concultation – DfT Response.	Various	-
6	PARKING POLICY IN SUNNINGDALE - PETITION To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 21 February 2008 on the petition for a parking policy in Sunningdale.	Sunningdale	86
7	PETITION FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES – DEAN LANE, COOKHAM To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 21 February 2008 on the petition for traffic calming measures – Dean Lane, Cookham.	Bisham & Cookham	94
8	PROPOSED FLEXIBLE HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN SCHEME To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 21 February 2008 on the Flexible Home Improvement Loan Scheme.	Various	100
9	LDF – ADOPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 21 February 2008 on the LDF – Adoption of Telcommunications Supplementary Planning Document.	Various	112
10	WORK PROGRAMME The following items are scheduled for discussion at the meeting of the Panel to be held on 3 March 2008: · Budget Monitoring · Thames Water presentation – Flash Flooding · Windsor Car Parking Strategy	Various	-

2

3. SERVICE MONITORING REPORT

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

To receive the latest monitoring report for the Royal Borough.

2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: To receive the report and make comments on the monitoring report for consideration by Cabinet.

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Wards Affected

None – This internal report considers the Royal Borough’s performance against budget

3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

Cabinet receive and consider the latest financial and non financial information in respect of the revenue and capital budgets. Mangers use this information to assess and advise on any likely variations for the 2007/08 financial year.

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel’s have received monitoring reports, during this year, on the performance of services under their auspice. Over the past few months, the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel have also received monitoring reports for the whole Borough. The reports gave a much clearer indication of how the performance of services of one Overview and Scrutiny Panel interacted with those across the Royal Borough as a whole.

The last Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel discussed and agreed that each Overview and Scrutiny Panel should receive the full Cabinet report with the areas under their control suitably highlighted. This ensures there are no timing anomalies of information received by each Panel which will lead to less ambiguity. The reports are more easily explained and the whole process becomes more efficient. This is the first of the new format reports and the

details of the services concerning each Overview and Scrutiny Panel are shown against a shaded background (thus)

3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

	Option	Comments
1.	Accept the report	The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Royal Borough to monitor its financial position and bring this to members the attention. Cabinet considered and approved the revised programme at its October meeting.
2.	Reject the report	The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has the option of asking for more detailed analysis of any areas of the budget that it feels warrant closer examination

3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

The Local Government Act 2003 Section 28 specifically requires an authority to monitor its financial position during the year and take such action to ensure its financial position is not worse than that budgeted.

3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

The Councils budget is fundamental to the delivery of all the Council’s Strategies. The recommendations in this report do not directly contribute to the Community Strategy

The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

	Relevant? Yes / No
Key Themes:
Supporting Children & Younger People	N/a
Supporting Adults & Older People	N/a
A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough	N/a
Safer & Stronger Communities	N/a

4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

Consultation was carried out as part of the budgeting process

5. IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Financial

The annual revenue and capital budgets are fixed as part of the Council Tax setting process. However, changes in service emphasis and movements in capital scheme timetables can and do occur and these have been reflected in the financial statements above

5.2 Legal

The Council’s external auditor has powers to qualify its annual accounts if there were regular and significant annual budget variations. Such qualification would affect the authority’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment standing

5.3 Human Rights Act

None

5.4 Planning

None

5.5 Sustainable Development

None

5.6 Diversity and Equality

None

Background Papers

: Revenue and Capital Budget 2007/08 Report Council 27 February –; Monitoring Reports 2007/08

3 SERVICE MONITORING REPORT CABINET: 24 January 2008 MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR HILTON 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek approval for budget changes outlined in members recommendations. To enable members to monitor current Council performance. 2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the current revenue and capital outturn projection be noted; 2.2 Approve the revenue and capital movements identified in the Director’s reports; 2.3 That Directors be required to work with Lead members to develop proposals to contain expenditure within current budget limits; 3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 3.1 Wards Affected None specifically, this internal report considers performance across the whole borough. 3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation 3.2.1 Summaries of the Council’s Revenue and Capital financial reports are attached as Appendices A and B respectively. The revenue report includes income and expenditure statements together with a short Directorate commentary drawing members’ attention to key
areas affecting the current and future years. The commentary also highlights items that may affect the Council’s performance in future years, such as new legislation or government guidance. 3.2.2 The third quarterly report monitoring key balance sheet items to December 2007 is contained in Appendix C. 3.2.3 The detailed financial information is available on the Council’s intranet. REVENUE 3.2.4 Overall expected service expenditure is higher by £4k than last month as a result of higher expected costs in the Corporate Services (£238k) and Community Services directorates (£141k). This has been offset by savings in the Learning and Care directorate (£375k). Appendix A summarises the projected outturn position and shows projected year end reserves to be £5.728m, a decrease of £2k from last month. 3.2.5 The Director of Learning & Care report that a further under-spend of £197k is anticipated in Learning Disability Services due to RBWM ceasing to contribute towards residential college placements that were previously joint-funded with the Learning & Skills Council. There are
also further delays in expected LD placements. An accounting provision made two years ago relating to the removal of posts in School Improvement is no longer needed, reducing the expected expenditure with the Children & Young People service by £80k. 4 3.2.6 The Director of Community Services reports that the outturn is expected to be £21,590k this month. Car parking income is lower as a result of the later than budgeted implementation of the revised charges. There is a projected reduction in library income of £40k, but increased income from leisure centres has been vired to cover this. 3.2.7 The Chief Executive reports a increase in expected expenditure as a result of issues around collecting Housing Benefit overpayments (£200k). Income from Local Land Charges is £75k lower partly as a result of the economic downturn and the introduction of HIPS. CORPORATE INITIATIVES 3.2.8 The Corporate Initiative estimate has reduced by £125k to £194k, as realised savings concerning new staff agency (£66k) and electricity contracts (£59k) have been transferred to
the directorates. CAPITAL 3.2.9 Since last month, there has been a £330k increase in the 2007/08 gross expenditure budgets, from £29,724k to £30,054 as a result of the following previously approved changes: Corporate Building Safer Communities £60,700 (£60,700) Home Office Grant Community Services Install Energy Saving Equipment at Various Multistorey Car Parks £75,000 (£75,000) S106 funded Allens Field South Ascot £95,000 (£95,000) S106 Funded Mobile Library £99,000 (£65,000) S106 Funded The Cabinet Prioritisation Sub Committee meeting on 17th December 2007 received a report about Braywick Park Pavilion and approval was given to an amendment of the Capital Programme scheme to reflect additional costs funded by external contributions. This amendment should be reflected in next months monitoring information. The Maidenhead Nursery Scheme was discussed at the same meeting and approval was given to the project .The final tender figures are not yet available and the current monitoring statement does not reflect any changes for this scheme.
Overall Projected Expenditure and Slippage Overall, with projected slippage to 2008/09 taken into account, the capital programme is currently expected to be overspent, with a net overspend of £123k identified against the 2007/08 gross expenditure budget. This £123kK is the net total of a projected £201k of overspends and £78k of underspends on schemes in the programme. There has been an increase of £1,099K to the amount of £6,205k identified in November, as slipping to 2008/09, so that projected slippage is now £7,304k. 5 The slippage is on the following projects, which are all under Community Services apart from the Bisham School Project, which is under Learning and Care. Slippage on new schemes added to the programme £90k Allens Field Ascot S106 Funded £89k Mobile Library £65k S106 Funded Slippage on existing schemes £100k Intelligent Traffic Systems S106 Funded £2k Development Planning Control £11k Planning History Scanning £70k Disability Access to Buildings £727k Smith’s Lane Community Project £10k Bisham School Conservatory
________ £1,099k The most significant projected overspends are on the HR Information System (‘Trent’), £45k on Traffic Management Schemes and £35k on the delayed Woodland Park scheme. A supplementary estimate is requested to cover the projected overspend on the Woodlands Park scheme, to be met from unused capital receipts. A supplementary estimate is also requested for the HR Information System as negotiations with the supplier are complete and the overspend is limited to £85k. Overall Programme Status The project statistics show the following position: December Monitoring November Monitoring Number of Schemes in Programme 398 383 Yet to Start 7% 8% In Progress 43% 43% Completed 32% 30% Ongoing Programmes i.e. Disabled Facilities Grant 5% 5% Devolved Formula Capital Grant schemes budgets devolved to schools 14% 14% In addition to the 5 schemes added to the programme this month, a further 10 schemes have been added to the project monitoring statistics within existing Local Transport Plan schemes. 3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment
Option Comments 1. Accept the report Directors have a responsibility for managing their Services within the Budget approved by Council. Cabinet has limited power to vary those budgets within the overall budget and policy framework or to re-define the priorities agreed when the budget was approved. Cabinet does however have 6 Option Comments responsibility for considering the impact on future years budgets of the decisions taken. 2. Reject the report This is not an option as The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Royal Borough to monitor its financial position 3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance The Local Government Act 2003 Section 28 specifically requires an authority to monitor its financial position during the year and take such action to ensure its financial position is not worse than that budgeted 3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies The Councils budget is fundamental to the delivery of all the Council’s Strategies. The recommendations in this report do not directly contribute to the Community Strategy
4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT 4.1 Consultation was carried out as part of the budgeting process. Unbudgeted significant variations are the subject of separate consultation and report. 4.2 Scrutiny panels have noted the previously reported monitoring statements. At its meeting on the 9th October the Corporate Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel asked to see, on a regular basis, the whole service monitoring report, rather than just the Corporate Services elements, in order to fulfil its overall responsibility for ensuring that reporting standards are maintained. 5. IMPLICATIONS 5.1. Financial The Councils Medium Term Financial Plan will be changed to reflect the revenue and capital out-turn positions and improvements identified during the closure of Accounts process. 5.2. Legal The Council’s external auditor has powers to qualify its annual accounts if there were regular and significant annual budget variations. Such qualification would affect the authority’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment standing. 5.3. Human Right Act
None 5.4. Planning None 5.5. Sustainable Development None 5.6. Diversity and Equality None Background Papers: Cabinet 13 December 07 – Monitoring report. 7 MONITORING REPORT FROM DIRECTOR OF LEARNING & CARE DATE: 24 January 2008 PURPOSE To update members on activity within the Learning & Care Directorate during the period to mid December 2007. BACKGROUND There has been a decrease in the projected outturn against approved estimate for the year of £326k during this period. £132k movement is within Children Services; £194k movement is within the Adult Social Care budget and mainly relates to Learning Disability Services. SPECIFIC AREAS FOR ATTENTION Revenue Budget Children & Young People The latest projected underspend for LA funded Children & Young People has increased from £98k under budget last month to £230k under in December. This is mainly due to two fewer foster care placements compared with last month (£-10k), and an additional residential care placement that finished in November for whom the full year cost had been budgeted (-£50k). The remaining £80k
relates to a provision that was made two years ago for potential costs relating to the removal of posts in School Improvement. This provision is no longer needed for the specific purpose for which it was intended. The £50k saving reported in the Local Authority budget for residential care for looked after children reflects the 22% reduction in placements during the year. This reduction represents just 2 of 9 placements, and indeed it is the high cost and small number of placements within this budget that makes forecasting difficult. The current forecast assumes numbers stay at 7 for the remainder of the year, however could easily change. Such changes will have a significant impact on the following years budget. The graph appended to this report illustrates the position for the current year. Adults – Learning Disability Services During 2007/08 the anticipated growth in numbers of service users requiring long-term care for learning disabilities has slowed for a number of reasons. These include the delayed provision of a
Supported Living Unit, Service users remaining at home supported by relatives for longer than anticipated, Continuing Healthcare funding awards in excess of expectation and the transfer of service users to hospital or into the judicial system. A further saving of £197k has been achieved in the current month due to RBWM ceasing to contribute towards residential college placements which are jointfunded by the Learning and Skills Council. Further delays in expected placements have also occurred (-£85k) and a dispute resolved in RBWM’s favour (-£27k). 8 Capital Budget The Learning and Care capital gross expenditure budget (£15,787k) has not changed from the figure reported last month. As before, Children and Young People schemes comprise £13,126k (83%) of the total Learning & Care capital programme of which £3,545 relates to the schools devolved formula capital. The projected underspend of £8k for the L&C capital programme remains the same as that reported last month and there have been no significant changes. Projected slippage at the year-end has
increased slightly by a further £10k across the entire programme. Anticipated slippage now stands at £4,006k. Most schemes remain as reported last month. 4% (12%) of L&C schemes are categorised as yet to start, 23% (20%) are in progress, 9% (9%) are ongoing annual programmes and 11% (10%) are complete. The balance is represented by schools’ devolved formula capital schemes. (Last month’s figures in brackets). 9 MONITORING REPORT FROM DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: 11th January 2008 PURPOSE To update members on activities relating to Community Services during the period to December 2007. BACKGROUND The key issues identified in this month’s Budget Monitoring Report are: - Car Parking Income - Trade Waste Income - Leisure Income & Library Income - Local Development Framework SPECIFIC AREAS FOR ATTENTION Revenue 1. There are no significant changes to be reported since last month. As previously mentioned the action plan put in place for car parking income is being closely monitored. Signs continue to show a small improvement in income levels as a result of increased patronage. However,
projected income levels have been adjusted to reflect the later than budgeted implementation of the revised charges. Decriminalised Parking Enforcement commences on 14th January, with projections already reflected in the budget. 2. Waste issues are being closely monitored in line with previous reports 3. Leisure Centre income in several areas is still marginally above target and this has been vired to help offset the shortfall in Library Income from music and video rentals due to technological changes. 4. Local Development Framework costs of the public enquiry, set by the inspectorate, are higher than anticipated. COMPARING ACTUALS- WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD CAR PARKS 2006/07 & 2007/08 230,000 250,000 270,000 290,000 310,000 330,000 350,000 370,000 390,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Actual 2006/07 Actual 2007/08 10 Capital Programme It is anticipated that the total approved Community Services capital programme will be spent, with slippage of £3,064k to 2008/09. The increase in slippage is mainly due to ongoing negotiations re
Smith’s Lane community project. 92% of the Community Services programme has now started and the highways resurfacing programme is now complete. As mentioned in previous reports, a number of schemes are currently being closely examined to ensure that the validity of the forecasts is correct, in particular Asset Management Schemes which are under active review with the current Lead Members and the Administration. The variation arising from this could be in the order of £500k. The gross expenditure budget for the Community Services capital programme has increased to £11,963k by the addition of a mobile library , outdoor facilities schemes and energy saving equipment, all of which are mainly externally funded. ITEMS THAT MAY IMPACT ON FUTURE YEARS 4. Officers have posted 20,000 tonnes of Landfill Allowances for sale in 2007/08, although they are aware that this has been an extremely volatile market and will be kept under review. 11 MONITORING REPORT FROM CHIEF EXECUTIVE DATE: 3 January 2008 PURPOSE To update members on activity within the Corporate Services Directorate during the period to
December 2007. BACKGROUND The Chief Executive reports a sharp increase in expected expenditure compared to last month – a projected overspend against approved estimate of £235k overall (expected £33k underspend last month). SPECIFIC AREAS FOR ATTENTION Revenue It is now anticipated that as a result of changes in legislation, the Housing Benefits budget will be overspent by a further £200k. It has become more difficult to collect Housing Benefit overpayments, monies can no longer be recovered from landlords and recovery from individuals can often take longer. Action has been taken to recover debts with the introduction of Bailiff Services, but it is not expected that the results will start to be seen until the start of the new financial year. Provision for bad debt has been reviewed with the resultant impact on revenue this year. A recent review of Local Land Charges has highlighted that income is likely to be £75k lower than previously expected, partly as a result of the economic downturn and the introduction of HIPS.
Increased costs within the Council Tax and Business Rates collection service as a result of using of agency staff to clear backlogs has been offset by savings within the Customer Services Centre concerning marketing and communication costs. Capital Programme The gross expenditure budget of £2,304k has increased by £61k since November for the new Home Office grant funded Safer and Stronger Communities Scheme CP10. The Corporate Resources programme is predicted to be overspent by £95k (4%) against the current 2007/08 budgets with slippage of £354k to 2008/09 currently identified. So far no new significant underspends have been identified. The predicted overspend on the Trent HR Information System remains the same as last month at £85k, because of unexpected problems on implementation. There has been a successful negotiation with the supplier (Midland HR) regarding future consultancy costs which has resulted in a refund of £51k being agreed. The main scheme in the programme, the Customer Service Centre, is expected to be fully spent
(£404k) within budget but with uncommitted slippage currently estimated at £154k to 2008/09. This position is unchanged since November but is under review. Of the 28 (27 in November) schemes now in the Corporate Resources programme, 69% (70% in November) are in progress and 14% (15% in November) are now completed.

Appendix A Budget Approved Variance- SUMMARY Estimate Manager's Forecast £000 £000 £000 Learning & Care Children & Young People 12,841 13,205 (230) Adult Social Care 28,773 28,473 (429) Director's Office 391 263 0 Strategy & Resources 2,214 2,095 0 Housing 994 992 0 Specific Government Grants (3,830) (3,829) 0 Total Learning & Care 41,383 41,199 (659) Community Services Highways & Engineering 3,606 3,590 15 Streetcare & Operations 4,259 4,229 50 Planning Services 1,953 1,885 0 Public Protection & Sustainability 8,717 8,762 0 Asset Management (473) (573) (200) Leisure Services 2,817 2,860 (20) Libraries, Information, Arts & Heritage 2,854 3,009 0 Parking Services (3,190) (2,772) 230 Corporate Management 645 535 (10) Total Community Services 21,188 21,525 65 Corporate Services Corporate Management 621 617 8 Democratic Services 2,580 2,597 (46) Legal Services 1,004 962 56 Corporate Performance and Development 967 1,007 (50) Business Improvement 3,029 2,848 30 Customer Service Centre 1,038 1,102 40 Finance 3,028 2,932 197
Human Resources 1,671 1,678 0 Procurement 153 253 0 Total Corporate Services 14,091 13,996 235 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 76,662 76,720 (359) LABGI receipt (1,100) Contribution to Capital Fund 1,100 Contribution to Insurance Fund 200 Contribution from Earmarked Reserve (445) 0 Corporate Initiatives (681) (194) 127 Levies- Environment Agency 117 117 0 Capital Financing inc Interest Receipts 4,546 4,546 (200) NET REQUIREMENTS 80,644 80,744 (232) Less - Special Expenses (1,018) (1,018) 0 Transfer (from)/ to balances 0 (100) 232 GROSS COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENT 79,626 79,626 0 Working Balances 5,158 5,596 5,496 Transfer from/to balances 0 (100) 232 5,158 5,496 5,728 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 22/01/2008 7 Statement Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Learning and Care Directorate Variance- Notes LEARNING & CARE Budget Approved Manager's DIRECTLY MANAGED COSTS Estimate Forecast £000 £000 £000 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS BUDGET Expenditure 76,590 81,339 0 Income (16,634) (20,275) 0 Net 59,956 61,064 0 CENTRALLY MANAGED DSG
Expenditure 13,706 13,363 0 Income (3,581) (4,019) 0 Net 10,125 9,344 0 DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT Expenditure 0 0 0 Income (70,321) (70,547) 0 Net (70,321) (70,547) 0 LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNDED EDUCATION & CHILDREN'S SERVICES Expenditure 18,383 21,471 (230) 1,2,3 Income (5,302) (8,127) 0 Net 13,081 13,344 (230) ADULT SOCIAL CARE Expenditure 38,357 38,493 (435) 4, 6-8, 11-16 Income (9,584) (10,020) 6 5,9,10 Net 28,773 28,473 (429) DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Expenditure 391 521 0 Income 0 (258) 0 Net 391 263 0 STRATEGY & RESOURCES Expenditure 2,321 2,249 0 Income (107) (154) 0 Net 2,214 2,095 0 HOUSING Expenditure 2,903 2,901 0 Income (1,909) (1,909) 0 Net 994 992 0 SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT GRANTS Expenditure 0 0 0 Income (3,830) (3,829) 0 Net (3,830) (3,829) 0 TOTAL DIRECTLY MANAGED COSTS 41,383 41,199 (659) 2007/08 22/01/2008 11 L&C E&I Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Learning and Care Notes Note Explanation 1 LA funded school costs Approved estimate: £225k Variation: - £80k (£0) First reported at Cabinet January 08 A provision was made two years ago in respect of potential costs relating to the removal of posts in
School Improvement. This is no longer needed for the specific purpose for which it was intended. Action by: Head of Children's Services 2 In House Foster Care and adoption Approved estimate: £764k Variation: - £35k (-£33k) First reported at Cabinet July 07 The number of children in Foster Care has reduced by two since last month and this has reduced the projected overspend from £51k to £41k on this budget. This is offset by underspends, as reported last month, of -£27k (-£30k) on adoption payments and a projected over-recovery of budgeted income of - 48k (-£54k). The effect of these factors on the overall budget is a projected net underspend of -£35k. Action by: Head of Children's Services 3 Joint Funded Residential Care Approved estimate: £1,477k Variation: - £115k (-£65k) First reported at Cabinet July 07 In addition to the service user reported last month, a second service user, who was budgeted at a cost of over £200k for the full year, also finished his placement in October. The effect of both these people
finishing their placements earlier than anticipated has resulted in a revised projected underspend of - £115k. Action by: Head of Children's Services 4 Older Person - Residential & Nursing Care - Expenditure Approved estimate: £8,819k Variation: +£79k (+£79k) First reported at Cabinet July 07 There is pressure on the Nursing care expenditure budget due to increased requirement for Nursing care and a higher than expected average cost per week. Action by: Head of Adult Services. 5 Older Person - Residential & Nursing Care - Income Approved estimate: -£3,299k Variation: -£35k (-£35k) First reported at Cabinet July 07 Average service user contributions for Residential care are greater than expected leading to an overrecovery of income -£70k. This is offset in part by under-recovery of Free Nursing Care income +£35k. Action by: Head of Adult Services. LEARNING & CARE 22/01/2008 12 L&C Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Learning and Care Notes Note Explanation LEARNING & CARE 6 Physical Disability - Residential & Nursing Care - Expenditure
Approved estimate: £1,086k Variation:+£13k (+£20k) First reported at Cabinet August 07 A thorough review of costs resulted in an overspend of £20k in last month's monitoring report. This has reduced to £13k due to RBWM ceasing to contribute towards residential college placements which are joint-funded with the Learning & Skills Council Action by: Head of Adult Services. 7 Physical Disability - Equipment - Expenditure Approved estimate: £475k (£439k) Variation: +£0k (+£30k) First reported at Cabinet November 07 Previously reported pressures on the equipment budgets for both Occupational Therapy equipment and for Assistive Technology have been offset by a virement from Supporting People. Action by: Head of Adult Services. 8 External Home Care - Externally Purchased hours - Expenditure Approved estimate: £2,583k Variation: +£65k (+£30k) First reported at Cabinet June 07 The overspend reflects an increase in number of hours of care delivered and the continuing situation of the block providers not reaching the target of 80% of the commissioned care, resulting in the use of
higher cost spot providers +£90k. This is offset by under usage of meals on wheels -£25k. Action by: Head of Adult Services. 9 External Home Care - Externally Purchased hours - Income Approved estimate: £803k Variation: +£35k (+£35k) First reported at Cabinet December 07 There has been a reduction in the projection for service user contributions due to a previous overstatement of the care hours being delivered at Extra Care Housing schemes +£18k. Charges for Meals on Wheels will also be lower due to the decreased number of meals being supplied +£17k. Action by: Head of Adult Services. 10 Dementia Care Service - Income Approved estimate: £110k Variation: +£6k (+£6k) First reported at Cabinet November 07 The previously reported income shortfall for Dementia Care Services has been revised following receipt of up-to-date projections from the voluntary organisation running the service. The service should now come in on target. There remains a small variance due to some final expenditure incurred prior to handover.
Action by: Head of Adult Services. 11 Disability Team - Expenditure Approved estimate: £1,891k Variation: -£20k First reported at Cabinet January 07 There is an expected underspend within the Adult Disability team due to delays in recruitment. Action by: Head of Adult Services 22/01/2008 13 L&C Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Learning and Care Notes Note Explanation LEARNING & CARE 12 Joint Commissioning Team - Expenditure Approved estimate: £589k Variation: +£10k (+£10k) First reported at Cabinet November 07 There is insufficient budget to cover the running costs of the team. Action by: Head of Adult Services. 13 Learning Disability - External care - Expenditure Approved estimate: £9,779k Variation: -£372k (-£175k) First reported at Cabinet August 07 As previously reported, the anticipated growth in Service users requiring long term care has slowed due to (1) the delayed provision of a Supported Living unit (2) Service Users in general remaining at home supported by relatives for longer than anticipated (3) Continuing Care health funding awards in
excess of expectation (4) transfers to hospital or into the judicial system. The underspend has increased this month due to RBWM ceasing to contribute towards residential college placements which are joint-funded with the Learning & Skills Council (£85k), further delays in expected placements (£85k) and a dispute resolved in our favour (£27k) Action by: Head of Adult Services - Continued detailed monitoring of budget projection. 14 Mental Health - External care - Expenditure Approved estimate: £1,655k Variation: -£75k (-£100k) First reported at Cabinet August 07 As previously reported, there has been a reduction in the number of service users with a mental health problem requiring residential services during the year. There has been a small increase in the current month. Action by: Head of Adult Services 15 Mental Health - CMHT - Expenditure Approved estimate: £937k Variation: -£85k (-£85k) First reported at Cabinet October 07 There is an expected underspend within the Community Mental Health team from vacancies and
lower travel costs due to difficulties in recruitment. Action by: Head of Adult Services 16 Mental Health - MHTOP - Expenditure Approved estimate: £139k Variation: -£50k (-£50k) First reported at Cabinet November 07 A new Mental Health Team for Older People has been created from posts transferring from Older People's Services. There is an expected underspend on this team due to a vacancy and the level of recharge from the PCT. Action by: Head of Adult Services 22/01/2008 14 L&C Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Community Services Directorate Variance- Notes COMMUNITY SERVICES Budget Approved Manager's DIRECTLY MANAGED COSTS Estimate Forecast £000 £000 £000 HIGHWAYS & ENGINEERING including:- Street Lighting, Winter Maintenance & Public Transport Support Expenditure 4,130 4,114 15 1 Income (524) (524) 0 Net 3,606 3,590 15 STREETCARE & OPERATIONS including:- Highway Maintenance and Amenity Litter Expenditure 4,737 4,717 80 2 Income (478) (488) (30) 2 Net 4,259 4,229 50 PLANNING SERVICES Expenditure 4,379 4,395 30 4,5,6,8
Income (2,426) (2,510) (30) 3,6 Net 1,953 1,885 0 PUBLIC PROTECTION & SUSTAINABILITY including:- Refuse Collection & Disposal, Recycling, Env Health & Trading Standards Expenditure 9,518 9,563 (10) 10,11,14 Income (801) (801) 10 9,12,13 Net 8,717 8,762 0 ASSET MANAGEMENT including:- Industrial & Commercial Estates& Administrative Buildings Expenditure 3,084 3,049 0 Income (3,557) (3,622) (200) 15,16 Net (473) (573) (200) LEISURE SERVICES including;_ Parks, Cemeteries & Leisure Centres Expenditure 9,452 9,535 0 Income (6,635) (6,675) (20) 17,18 Net 2,817 2,860 (20) LIBRARIES, INFORMATION, ARTS & HERITAGE Expenditure 3,101 3,216 0 Income (247) (207) 0 19 Net 2,854 3,009 0 PARKING SERVICES Expenditure 3,206 3,304 (120) 20 Income (6,396) (6,076) 350 20 Net (3,190) (2,772) 230 CORPORATE MANAGEMENT Expenditure 702 592 (10) 21 Income (57) (57) 0 Net 645 535 (10) TOTAL DIRECTLY MANAGED COSTS 21,188 21,525 65 2007/08 22/01/2008 17 CommE&I Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Community Services Notes Note Explanation
1 Highways & Engineering - Amenity Verge Contract Variations Approved Estimate: £394k Variation:£15 [£15k] - First reported Cabinet 22/11/07 Proposed Action: Additional costs arising from contract variations. Review other areas of Amenity Verge Maintenance such as tree surgery for savings. 2 Streetcare & Operations - Emergency Planning cost of recent floods Approved Estimate: £31k Variation:£50 [£60k] - First reported Cabinet 23/8/07 The cost of emergency works resulting from the recent floods have not yet been finalised. Costs to date are £80k. These will be offset by the grants awarded of £30k. 3 Building Control - Income Approved Estimate: (-£760k) Variation: -£30k This reflects a higher level of Building Control Income Proposed Action: The situation is carefully monitored, and any large applications will influence income levels. 4 Planning - Advertising costs Approved Estimate: £38k Variation: £0k [£10k] - First reported Cabinet 27/9/07 Proposed Action: A review of methods of advertising is being undertaken in an attempt to
reduce costs. Savings from Highways DC income vired to offset the budget pressure. 5 Planning - Local Development Framework Approved Estimate: £25k Variation: £30k [£25k] - First reported Cabinet 22/11/07 Proposed Action: Additional costs arising from Inspectorate for the Local Development Framework (£50k), £20k met from savings in additional highways development control income.. 6 Planning - Income Approved Estimate: (£1257k) Variation: £0k [£30k]- First reported Cabinet 27/9/07 This reflects a potential low level of Planning Application income Proposed Action: The situation is carefully monitored, and any large applications will influence income levels. Current budget increased by £30k from savings in staff vacancies 7 Planning - Highways Development Control S278 & S38 Income Approved Estimate: (£43k) Variation:-£0k [-£30k]- First reported Cabinet 22/10/07 Additional income from S278 & S38 agreements. Savings vired to offset pressure in advertising costs and LDF framework 8 Planning Service - Development Control Units - Potential Staffing Budgets savings
Approved Estimate: £1,592 Variation: -£0k [-£30k] - First reported Cabinet 27/9/07 The vacancies in Development Control Unit have been vired to offset budget pressure of planning income. COMMUNITY SERVICES 22/01/2008 18 Comm Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Community Services Notes Note Explanation COMMUNITY SERVICES 9 Public Protection - Lower income Trade Waste Approved Estimate:(£100k) Variation: £80k [£80k] - First reported Cabinet 26/7/07 Lower uptake for Trade Waste following the opening of the facility in 2006/07. Increased opening hours and wide advertising have done little to improve the level of income. Working to encourage our contractors to use the facility. 10 Public Protection - Refuse Collection Approved Estimate: £2,194k Variation:-£0k [-£20k] - First reported Cabinet 22/11/07 Potential saving on contract variations. Proposed Action: Savings on contract variations have been vired to offset contract variations in Recycling 11 Public Protection - Recycling Approved Estimate: £1,612k
Variation:£0k [£20k] - First reported Cabinet 22/10/07 Potential increase in recycling tonnages. Proposed Action: Saving in Refuse Collection contract variations have been vired to offset the additional costs of collecting and processing recyclates. 12 Public Protection - Reduced Tonnages of Waste Disposal Approved Estimate: £2,028k Variation: -£70k [-£70k] - First reported Cabinet 28/6/07 Potential reduction in waste tonnages to landfill will give rise to lower costs which underpin the budget projections for 2007/08. Proposed Action: Saving to be used to meet shortfall in trade waste income 13 Public Protection - Head of Public Protection & Sustainability sponsorship income Approved Estimate: -£15k Variation: £10k [£10k] - First reported Cabinet 22/11/07 Proposed Action: Potential lower level of sponsorship income from earth balloon, offset by managing staff vacancies in public Protection Units. 14 Public Protection Unit Budgets staff vacancies Approved Estimate: £1,034k Variation: -£20k [-£20k] - First reported Cabinet 22/11/07
The vacancies in Environmental Health and Trading Standards have been carefully managed to help offset budget pressure of lower level of sponsorship income 15 Asset Management - Commercial Estates - Potential Increased level of income Approved Estimate: -£3,431k Variation: -£190k [-£190k] - First reported Cabinet 22/11/07 Increase in rent and back rent due to a successful court case. 16 Asset Management - Property Management Unit staff savings Approved Estimate: £341k Variation: -£10k [-£10k] - First reported Cabinet 22/11/07 Additional level of fees recovered by the Property Management Unit 22/01/2008 19 Comm Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Community Services Notes Note Explanation COMMUNITY SERVICES 17 Leisure Services - Parks - Potential increased level of income. Approved Estimate: (£213)k Variation: -£20k [-£20k] - First reported Cabinet 23/8/07 Potential additional income from the Windsor Wheel and Ice Rink 18 Leisure Services - Leisure Centres - Potential increased level of income. Approved Estimate: (£5,917)k
Variation: -£0k [-£40k]- First reported Cabinet 23/8/07 Additional income from Cheeky Charlie's and extended swimming lessons programme partly due to inclement weather have been vired to offset the reduced level of Library Income 19 Libraries - Potential reduced level of income Approved Estimate: (£247)k Variation: £0k [£40k] - First reported Cabinet 27/9/07 Potential reduced level of library income. Proposed Action: The situation will be carefully monitored. Based on previous year's trends, there could be a seasonal variation , with income picking up in the winter months. Increased income from Leisure Centres has been vired to reduce this shortfall. 20 Parking Services - Potential reduced level of parking income. Approved Estimate: (£5,436)k Variation: £240k [£200k] - First reported Cabinet 28/6/07 This reflects a low level of Parking Income in Maidenhead Town Centre, together with the introduction of on street free parking for residents in Windsor. Proposed Action: A review of each of the Council's car parks and on-street parking in hand.
Working with the police for interim arrangements for on-street parking enforcement, prior to introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement next month. Savings of £320k within the Directorate have been vired to help offset the potential shortfall in parking income, together with savings in car parking expenditure (£120k) for energy, repairs and rates. There remains £250k in reserves for loss of car parking income following the Sainsbury's development. Current indications are that savings in the Directorate will offset part of the parking defecit thus reducing the need to draw down all of the provision. 21 Corporate Management - Strategy & Resources staff vacancies Approved Estimate: £400 Variation: -£10k [-£10k] - First reported Cabinet 23/8/07 The vacancies in Strategy & Resources Unit have been carefully managed to help offset budget pressures in the Directorate. . 22/01/2008 20 Comm Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Corporate Services Directorate Variance- Notes CORPORATE SERVICES Budget Approved Manager's
DIRECTLY MANAGED COSTS Estimate Forecast £000 £000 £000 CORPORATE MANAGEMENT Expenditure 621 617 8 19 Income 0 0 0 Net 621 617 8 DEMOCRATIC SERVICES Expenditure 3,170 3,187 (16) 9, 10, 18 Income (590) (590) (30) 10, 18 Net 2,580 2,597 (46) LEGAL SERVICES Expenditure 2,680 2,669 59 1, 5 17,21, 18 Income (1,676) (1,707) (3) 5, 6, 7, 17,20, 18 Net 1,004 962 56 CORPORATE PERFORMANCE & DEVELOPMENT Expenditure 1,743 1,860 (50) 11, 12, 18 Income (776) (853) 0 Net 967 1,007 (50) BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT Expenditure 3,513 3,332 30 8, 16, 18 Income (484) (484) 0 Net 3,029 2,848 30 CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE Expenditure 1,773 1,265 40 13, 14, 18 Income (735) (163) 0 Net 1,038 1,102 40 FINANCE Expenditure 35,823 35,727 197 2, 3, 4, 18,22 Income (32,795) (32,795) 0 15, 18 Net 3,028 2,932 197 HUMAN RESOURCES Expenditure 2,005 2,041 0 23 Income (334) (363) 0 Net 1,671 1,678 0 PROCUREMENT Expenditure 154 552 0 Income (1) (299) 0 Net 153 253 0 TOTAL DIRECTLY MANAGED COSTS 14,091 13,996 235 2007/08 22/01/2008 22 CorpE&I Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Corporate Services Notes
Note Explanation 1 Legal Services - Joint Arrangement costs (Coroners) Current Budget: £111k Variation: +£24k (+£41k) - First reported to Cabinet 28/6/07 Proposed action: This increase arises from late notification of mortuary costs required following the Ufton Nervet Rail Crash Enquiry. These costs are shared between Berkshire unitary authorities. These costs are outside RBWM's control. Recent information from Reading Borough Council indicates that the overspend is expected to be lower than previously reported. 2 Strategic Finance Current Budget:£126k Variation: -£5k (-£5k) - First reported to Cabinet 23/8/07 Savings are anticipated against the staff training, hospitality,refreshments and photocopying budgets. 3 Council Tax and Business Rates Collection Current Budget: £409k Variation: £35k (£10k) - First reported to Cabinet 23/8/07 The cost of the annual audit of Business Rates (NNDR3) can no longer be met from existing resources £10k. A budget pressure will be put forward for 2008/09. The Cost of Collection Allowance received for NDR is below the current budget £10k, a pressure has been
put forwarded for 2008/09. Due to software issues it bacame necessary to employ Agency staff during the year to clear backlogs, this incurred an additional cost of £5k that could not be contained within the existing budget. Despite the backlogs the collection for Council Tax rate has continued to improve. 4 Housing and Council Tax Benefits Current Budget: -£24k Variation: £227k (£27k) - First reported to Cabinet 23/8/07 An overspend of £15k is anticipated due to the requirement of Agency staff for the implementation of Serengetti. In addition the cost of the annual audit of Housing Benefits Subsidy Claim can no longer be met from existing resources (£12k), a budget pressure will be put forward for 2008/09. It is currently too early in the year to predict with any accuracy the expected percentage subsidy which will be received or the level of overpayments likely to be recovered for the year, this is however being monitored and any variances will be reported if they arise. Due to changes in legislation it has become more difficult to collect Housing Benefit overpayments from
landlords, which has resulted in a sharp drop in the overpaid benefits recovered in the current year. It is anticipated that this, along with the current arrangements with individuals of low regular repayments, will result in an overspend of £200k. Action has been taken to recover these debts with the introduction of Baliff services, but it is not expected that the results will start to be seen until the start of the new financial year. 5 Legal Services - Current Budget: £879k Variation: +£38k (£38k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 Vacancies within Legals Services resulting in a currently projected underspend of £42k which is offset by an inability to recover costs from Section 106 income (60k), as anticipated. CORPORATE SERVICES 22/01/2008 23 Corp Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Corporate Services Notes Note Explanation CORPORATE SERVICES 6 Licensing Services - Current Budget: £-165k Variation: -£43k (-£43k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 Additional Income expected re Hackney Carriages Licensing (£-20k) . Also additional income re Gambling
Act (£-23k). 7 Registrar - Current Budget: £13k Variation: -£75k (-£75k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 The additional income experienced during 2005/6 and 2006/7 as a result of the Royal and Celebrity weddings is expected to be sustained. Further income re nationality checking is also due to start during this financial year. 8 Corporate IT Current Budget £688k Variation: £30k (£30k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 Increase in annual support for Electronic Records System from Hyperwave as a result of capital expenditure (£15k). Increased cost of annual support for Disaster Recovery contract from SunGuard(£15k), this pressure is caused by a growing inventory of servers covered by the contract. 9 Democratic Services - Members' Services Current Budget: £405k Variation: -£6k (-£6k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 Underspend re Members Expenses training due to internal rather than external provision. 10 Democratic Services - Public Halls Current Budget: £133k Variation: -£40k (-£40k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07
Additional Income re room hire and refreshments (£30k) and reduced expenditure (£10k) 11 Corporate Performance and Development-Youth Offending Team Current Budget: £252k; Variation: -£35k (-£35k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 Underspend due to delay in filling vacancies. 12 Crime & Disorder - Community Safety team Current Budget: £135k Variation: -£15k (-£15k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 An underspend of £15k is anticipated to reflect reduction in the additional costs being incurred. 13 Customer Services Centre - Support Current Budget: £86k Variation: -£30k (-£30k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 This underspend has arisen as a result of review of former support section duties. 22/01/2008 24 Corp Notes Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Corporate Services Notes Note Explanation CORPORATE SERVICES 14 Customer Services Centre Current Budget: £1096k Variation: £70k (£100k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 Overspend of £10k as a result of sickness cover (£55k), staffing previously charged to Capital (£25K) and
additional costs of Phase 3 services implementation where no budget was transferred into Customer Service Centre but allocated as Corporate Efficiency Savings (£20k). There is a Project Manager role within the CSC establishment which is being filled by a temp on a fixed term basis, whilst this position would normally be a revenue cost the work undertaken is currently on projects and therefore costs are being capitalised in 2007/08 which has contained any further overspend. In year savings of £30k have been identified within marketing and communication which will partially offset the overspend on salaries. 15 Pension Fund Current Budget:-£51k Variation: -£50k (-£50k) - First reported to Cabinet 27/9/07 Increased charges to Pension Fund after a review of the split of charges between Administration of Investments and Pension Fund. 16 Business Improvement Current Budget: £2,160k Variation: £0k (£0k) - First reported to Cabinet 25/10/07 It has been possible to contain the early retirement and severance costs of £40k, incurred due to the BID
restructure, within the current budget due to staff vacancies. This has meant that reserves will not be called upon for a supplementary budget. 17 Benefit Fraud (part of Audit & Review) Current Budget: £143k Variation: £20k (£20k) - First reported to Cabinet 22/11/07 Due to long term staff vacancies and sickness it has been necessary to use Agency staff cover for this small team. The long term cover has resulted in an anticipated overspend of £40k. There has however been benefit fraud penalty income £20k in excess of budget, which has partially offset this overspend. 18 Proposed Action re notes 1-17 above The Chief Executive has reviewed the areas within his control to ensure the Corporate Services budget is not exceeded overall and it is proposed that variances above be equalised by virements between the various service areas. 19 Corporate Management Current Budget:£340k Variation: £8k (£0k) Recent information from the Audit Commission has been received indicating an overspend relating to Audit Fees. 22/01/2008 25 Corp Notes
Revenue Monitoring Statement Appendix A - Corporate Services Notes Note Explanation CORPORATE SERVICES 20 Local Land Charges Current Budget: -£401K Variation £75k A recent review of Land Charges Income has shown an economic downturn, expected to result in underrecovery of £75,000. An increase in personal searches (£10 each) as opposed to solicitor searches (£120 each) is largely due to the introduction of HIPS. 21 Magistrates Courts Current Budget: £0k Variation: £17k This expenditure relates to a share of the total post 1990 capital financing charges attributable to Thames Valley Magistrates Courts. Local authorities continue to receive funding for their post 1990 debt from the DCLG on the same basis as before, so RBWM is not disadvantaged by the fact that no borrowings were transferred to the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) in April 2005 when the fixed assets were transferred under the Courts Act 2003 for nil consideration. 22 Exchequer Services Current Budget:£561k Variation -£10k Due in part to a post that is currently filled below the budgeted grade due to staff illness(£5k). There are
also anticipated underspends on training(£2k) and professional fees (£3k). 23 Human Resources Corporate Current Budget:£485k Variation: £90k Commitment to the Management Development Programme. In prior years, this was met from underspends within Corporate. 22/01/2008 26 Corp Notes

$meetings_080130_peosp_service_monitoring_appendix2.xls.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Service Monitoring Appendix2

$meetings_080130_peosp_service_monitoring_appendix3.xls.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Service Monitoring Appendix3

31

4. BUDGET REPORT 2008/9

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to inform the panel of progress to date in the preparation of the 2008/9 Budget and seek the panel’s views on the issues that remain to be addressed.

2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the contents of the Report be noted and that the comments of the Panel be reported to Cabinet to be considered as part of its budget setting deliberation.

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Wards Affected

All wards will be affected by the 2008/09 Budget.

3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

3.2.1 This report should be read in conjunction with the Preliminary Budget Report presented to Cabinet on the 13th December 2007 which outlined the impact on the Borough of:

· The HM Treasury’s Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, published on the 9th October 2007;
· The Minister of State for Local Government announcement of the Provisional Grant Settlement on the 6th December 2007.

3.2.2 The report also published an updated Medium Term Financial Plan, which, for planning purposes, identified spending targets for each Directorate. These targets made allowances for:

· Inflation in the coming year, in particular on contracted services
· Pay Awards, provision for awards effective from April 2008
· Pension Increase, outcome of 2007 actuarial valuation
· Service Pressures i.e. demographic pressures, landfill tax, changes in specific grant
· Capital Financing costs, provision for potential revenue impact of future capital spend
· Council Tax Revenue, including potential tax base increases
· Increases in the Dedicated Schools Grant

Revenue Budget 2008/09

3.2.3 Directors have been charged with preparing budgets within these targets which included indicative efficiency targets, in so doing Directors have identified service specific pressures, largely of an unavoidable nature. Working with Lead Members, Directors have identified measures necessary to deliver spending plans within the specified targets. The specific service budget pressures and the measures under consideration to ensure that planned expenditure is contained within spending targets are identified in the attached appendices.

3.2.4 Appendix A shows how the budgets have moved from the 2007/08 Original budget to the 2008/09 Original Budget. In addition Appendix B details the pressures and saving for all services. To assist panel members, those items that specifically relate to services under the scrutiny of this panel have been highlighted in bold.

3.2.5 To provide some context Appendix C details the current approved budget for Services and the Original Budget for 2008/09. It is worth noting that additional spend of £650k represents approximately 1% on Council Tax

Capital Programme 2008/09 – 2010/11

3.2.6 The Preliminary Budget Report discusses the overall capital financing assumptions included in the Medium Term Financial Plan. Directors have identified a number of capital projects necessary to maintain the Councils infrastructure and develop essential services. These projects have been “prioritised” according to: cost (revenue and capital); impact on service delivery; and availability of external funding. Those to be included in the capital programme will be reported to the Cabinet Prioritisation sub committee on (a date to be agreed)

3.2.7 In the meantime an initial listing is included in Appendix D and panel members views are sought on the relative priority given to specific schemes.

3.2.8 For information purposes columns to the right of the appendix track cumulative totals for key programmes such as the local transport plan and spend on school buildings as well as the total programme. At its meeting on the 7th February Cabinet will receive, as part of the Budget Report, an assessment of the funds available to support the capital programme in the next three years.

3.2.9 Schemes that relate specifically to services under the scrutiny of this panel have, once again, been highlighted in bold.

3.2.10 Again to provide some context £1m of corporately funded capital spend has an ongoing revenue cost (for up to 25years) of £90k in a full year (0.14% on Council Tax)

3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

3.3.1 whilst this is not a decision making report the Panel can offer its views on the proposals before it. In compiling the efficiency/savings proposals, in particular, Directors have discussed with Lead Members the risks associated with the proposed initiatives and any where the risk to service quality is deemed to be unacceptable have been discounted.

3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

The Local Government Finance Act 2003 requires the Royal Borough to complete its budget process by mid February to complete the billing process by the end of March

3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

The report has been prepared in accordance with the Borough’s Financial Strategy presented to Cabinet on 25th October 2007

The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

	Relevant? Yes / No
Key Themes:
Supporting Children & Younger People	Y
Supporting Adults & Older People	Y
A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough	Y
Safer & Stronger Communities	Y

4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

The Royal Borough will consult the Maidenhead and Windsor Chambers of Commerce in early February 2008 with regard to the levels of Council Tax and Service provision.

5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

5.1 Corporate Services

5.2 Children’s Services & Leisure

5.3 Planning & Environment

5.4 Adult Services & Health

6. IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Financial

These are contained in the body of the report

6.2 Legal

There are none

6.3 Human Rights Act

Article 8 – Right to Respect to a Private and Family Life. Interference with this right is permitted in accordance with the law and as necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of crime and disorder, for the protection of health and morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 1 of the First Protocol – Protection of Property. No-one shall be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest, subject to the conditions provided for by law and the general principals of international law.
Article 2 of the First Protocol – Right to Education
A detailed assessment of any interference with these rights may need to be made in specific cases to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with the law and are proportionate.

6.4 Planning

There are none

6.5 Sustainable Development

There are none

6.6 Diversity and Equality

There are none

Background Papers: Budget papers 2008-09; Medium Term Financial Plan 2008/09 to 2010/11; Department of Communities and Local Government web site (RSG provisional settlement 2008/09 to 20010/11; Preliminary Budget Report – Cabinet 13th December 2007

$meetings_080130_peosp_budget_report_appendixA.xls.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Budget Report Appendixa

$meetings_080130_peosp_budget_report_appendixB.xls.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Budget Report Appendixb

meetings_080130_peosp_budget_report_appendixC.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Budget Report Appendixc

$meetings_080130_peosp_budget_report_appendixD.xls.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Budget Report Appendixd

91

6. PARKING POLICY, SUNNINGDALE - PETITION

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

To consider a petition presented to Council on 11th December 2007 by Councillor Mrs Bateson containing 37 signatures, stating:

‘…We, the undersigned do hereby petition the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to:

1. apply a parking policy within Sunningdale Village that is equitable and even handed to all residents
2. apply a parking policy within Sunningdale village that is to the benefit and in the interests of its residents and not to the benefit and in the interests of non-resident commuters from other towns and villages

10.

3. evenly distribute parking on roads in Sunningdale
4. restrict parking in Ridgemount Road to a degree consistent with that of a residential community and not allow unfettered parking for the benefit of non-residents…’

2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That

· Discussions commence with the station manager / Network Rail to review usage and parking policy relating to the station car park to identify whether any improvements can be implemented that may assist in responding to parking concerns
· Discussions commence with the manager of ‘Waitrose’ to review usage and parking policy relating to the supermarket car park
· Following the implementation of decriminalised parking enforcement, a review of all on-street waiting restrictions in the area be undertaken to consider their appropriateness and implement any improvements identified (subject to budget availability)
· The usage patterns and parking policy of the Royal Borough car park be reviewed
· Street cleansing be undertaken at an appropriate time to ensure cleaning can be completed satisfactorily

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Wards Affected: Sunningdale

3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

3.2.1 Councillor Mrs Bateson presented a petition to Council on 11th December 2007 pertaining to parking in Sunningdale village. The wording of the petition is set out above and was accompanied by an introductory note attached to this report as Appendix A.

3.2.2 In summary, the petition raises concerns about non-resident parking in Ridgemount Road generating the following issues:
· obstruction of street cleaners, preventing the street being cleaned properly, thus causing a health hazard
· causing a nuisance by increasing levels of noise and disturbance
· making a residential street less safe for the residents
· creating security concerns and increasing crime
· causing more wear and tear on the road compared to other streets in the area

Additionally, the petition refers to other roads in the area where parking restrictions exist and there is concern that Ridgemount Road is considered unfavourably when compared to other roads in the area.

3.2.3 Ridgemount Road is a residential road providing access from the London Road (A30) to the residential area and Sunningdale Golf Club. There are residential properties on both sides of the road at the northern end and predominantly on the western side only further south. All have off-street parking facilities and the road is approximately 6 –7 metres wide.

3.2.4 Long-stay parking has been present in Ridgemount Road for a number of years and the road formerly had restrictions from the junction with the London Road (A30) southwards outside the properties that exist on both sides of the road. Beyond this point long-stay parking used to occur predominantly on the western side outside the residential properties (refer to attached drawing for details).

3.2.5 Following requests from local residents parking was reviewed and waiting restrictions implemented on this area between 8am and 6pm (Monday to Saturday) to the junction with Cross Road. The basis of introducing this restriction was to ensure that access to the properties was kept clear and safety was not compromised for vehicles turning into / out of driveways.

3.2.6 The introduction of the waiting restriction was well received by a majority of local residents and has displaced the existing long-stay parking to the eastern side, predominantly bounded by Sunningdale Golf Club where very few residential properties exist. Safety has, therefore, been improved.

3.2.7 The current petition relates to the extent of this long-stay parking and the detrimental effect on Ridgemount Road. Site visits have confirmed that long-stay parking does occur in this area with an average of 30 vehicles present that do not compromise road safety.

3.2.8 In addition to the petition, requests have been received from local residents seeking the introduction of new waiting restrictions in nearby residential roads to remove long-stay parking. These include Cross Road, Cedar Drive and an extension of the restrictions on the London Road (A30).

3.2.9 Sunningdale Village is centred around the London Road (A30) and contains a supermarket (‘Waitrose’), restaurants, a number of shops and a station that is on the main line between Reading and London Waterloo. Subsequently, access is very good and attracts parking from other areas to utilise local facilities and from commuters.

3.2.10 There is a car park adjacent to the station that is owned and operated by Network Rail, with capacity for approximately 200 vehicles and charges exist as set out below. The car park is regularly full and demand often exceeds capacity.
· All day (Peak hours) - £4.30
· All day (Off peak, after 1045am) - £2.00
· Weekends – Free to rail users

3.2.11 A Royal Borough car park is located directly off the London Road (A30) at the northern end of the village providing capacity for approximately 80 vehicles, which is free of charge but cannot be accessed between 6am and 8.45am (exit is available at all times). This time restriction is in place to ensure spaces are retained for users of the local facilities and is not provided as a commuter car park. The car park operates at an average capacity of approximately 75%.

3.2.12 ‘Waitrose’ has its own shoppers car park, which provides capacity for approximately 140 vehicles and is free of charge but use is restricted to shoppers only. Previous discussions with staff have identified that they are not permitted to use the shopper’s car and are unable to use the free Royal Borough car park, as it is not available until after 8.45am and they start work prior to this time, generating a degree of on-street parking.

3.2.13 Additionally, there a number of on-street restrictions in the vicinity of Sunningdale village to ensure access is maintained and safety is not compromised.

3.2.14 In summary, the parking demand generated by Sunningdale regularly exceeds the capacity available in the off-street car parks and on-street parking can be obtained without charge. The demand is unlikely to reduce and any further restrictions that are implemented are likely to displace the long-stay parking to other residential areas.

3.2.15 As Members will be aware, the Royal Borough assumed responsibility for the enforcement of all parking restrictions from 14th January 2008 (Decriminalised Parking Enforcement) which will significantly increase the existing levels of enforcement and affect existing parking patterns. In recognition of this it has been agreed that a review of yellow lines be undertaken to review their appropriateness and consider any potential conflicts that may be created. Cabinet considered a report on 13th December that highlighted some of the areas to be reviewed and categorised the requests into phases for review and implementation. The action requested by this petition should be considered as part of this overall process.

3.2.16 The following actions are, therefore, recommended in response to the petition:

· Commence discussions with the station manager / Network Rail to review usage and parking policy relating to the station car park to identify whether any improvements can be implemented that may assist in responding to parking concerns
· Commence discussions with the manager of ‘Waitrose’ to review usage and parking policy relating to the supermarket car park
· Following the implementation of decriminalised parking enforcement, undertake a review of all on-street waiting restrictions in the area to consider their appropriateness and implement any improvements identified. The review will commence in the next 4 – 6 months and the extent of this review will be agreed with the Ward Members.
· In parallel with the on-street review, consider the parking policy and current usage patterns of the Royal Borough car park
· Ensure street cleansing is undertaken at an appropriate time to ensure cleaning can be completed satisfactorily

A combination of the above measures is considered a positive and appropriate way forward to addressing the issues raised in the petition and to respond to request from other local residents, thereby improving parking conditions to the benefit of all users in Sunningdale.

3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

	Option	Comments
1.	Do Nothing	This does not respond to the issues raised in the petition and is not considered appropriate following the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement
2.	Implement waiting restrictions in Ridgemount Road	This may address the issues raised in the petition but is likely to displace the long-stay parking into other residential areas
3.	Seek to release additional spaces in the existing car parks to accommodate long-stay parking that currently occurs on-street	This may address some of the issues raised in the petition but may be detrimental to other users in Sunningdale ie. Shoppers, workers and visitors
4.	Review the appropriateness of the existing on-street restrictions and implement any improvements identified	This may address some of the issues raised in the petition but will not be wholly effective unless undertaken in conjunction with a review of the off-street facilities
5.	Review usage and parking policies relating to all existing car parks in parallel with a review of existing on-street restrictions in the next 4 – 6 months	This is the recommended option that positively responds to the issues raised in the petition and offers the best opportunity to improve parking conditions in Sunningdale for the benefit of all users

3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

There is a variety of national ‘Parking Standards and Guidance’ primarily aimed at restraining traffic growth, encouraging the use of public transport and restricting commuter parking. However, this guidance does not seek to manage existing problems where parking demand significantly exceeds capacity.

3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

Local Development Plan

Local Transport Plan

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Parking Strategy

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Road Safety Strategy

The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

	Relevant? Yes / No
Key Themes:
Supporting Children & Younger People	No
Supporting Adults & Older People	Yes
A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough	Yes
Safer & Stronger Communities	Yes

4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

The recommendations of this report seek to respond to the concerns of the local community raised in the petition presented to Council by Councillor Mrs Bateson.

Ward Members and the Parish Council be engaged in the reviewing and identifying parking improvements for implementation.

It is likely that any improvements to be implemented will require the amendment of existing traffic regulation orders. The amendment process requires formal consultation.

5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

This report will be considered at the Planning & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 30th January 2008 and any comments will be reported to the Cabinet meeting on 21st February 2008.

6. IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Financial

The report recommends a review to identify improvements. At this stage it is not possible to identify the likely level of expenditure that may be required to deliver any improvements.

If the recommended improvements are minor in nature, costs will be contained within existing revenue budgets. Any significant improvements that may be recommended would require appropriate capital funding to be identified.

6.2 Legal

Any amendments to existing Traffic Regulation Orders will be undertaken in conjunction with the Legal Services team.

6.3 Human Rights Act

Part II The First Protocol

Article 1 Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

6.4 Planning

There are no planning implications as a consequence of this report.

6.5 Sustainable Development

With respect to the Royal Boroughs’ sustainability policies the following effects are identified:

· The use of public transport is encouraged and restrictions on parking facilities at stations may deter the use of rail for the journey
· The appropriate management of parking is necessary to enhance the local environment

6.6 Diversity and Equality

With respect to the Royal Borough’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy the recommendations in this report have no negative equality and diversity implications.

Background Papers

: None

meetings_080130_peosp_parking_sunningdale_petition.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Parking Sunningdale Petition

meetings_080130_peosp_parking_sunningdale_map.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Parking Sunningdale Map

98

7. PETITION FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES – DEAN LANE, COOKHAM DEAN

CABINET: 21 February 2008

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

To consider a petition presented to Council on 11th December 2007 by Councillor Kellaway containing 81 signatures stating:

‘….We, the residents of Dean Lane, Cookham Dean and adjoining lanes, are greatly concerned at the risks to pedestrians, users of the Junior School and playgroup and motorists entering the lane from blind entrances and ask the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to consider traffic calming measures including a reduction in speed limit along Dean Lane. We ask for consultation on the types of traffic calming measures introduced’.

2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That:

(i)

that traffic speeds and road safety data for Dean Lane are closely monitored over the next twelve months

(ii)

the Lead Petitioner be informed of the resolution to this report

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Wards Affected:

Bisham and Cookham

3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

i) Councillor Kellaway presented a petition containing 81 signatures to Council on 11th December 2007 as set out above.

ii) Dean Lane is a narrow single-carriageway road located to the north-west of Cookham Rise. The road is an unclassified road linking to Cookham Dean, and ultimately providing a through route to Marlow. The road passes through an area that is predominantly rural, mixed with mainly larger detached residential properties.

iii) Dean Lane is typical of many rural roads that have not been ‘improved’ or brought up to modern highway design standards. The road is relatively narrow, with a width of between 4.5 and 6.0 metres, and has relatively poor forward visibility for drivers due to the curvature of the road, the undulating nature of the area and roadside features such as high hedges, walls, etc. However, this is very much part of the character of the road and of the area. Due to these characteristics, drivers tend to be relatively cautious, which contributes towards the good road safety record of the road.

iv) Dean Lane is approximately 1.6 km in length, and has a relatively large number of junctions or accesses along the length of the road. There are some sections of footway along the road, however these are not continuous or on both sides of the lane. The road does not have street lighting and is subject to a 40mph speed limit. Road signing and road lining has been kept to an absolute minimum, in keeping with the character of the road.

v) A traffic speed and volume survey was undertaken on Dean Lane adjacent to Herries school in early December 2007.

vi) In terms of traffic volumes, on an average weekday Dean Lane typically carries a two-way daily flow of 2700 vehicles, with 350 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 250 vehicles during the PM peak hour.

vii) Our surveys indicate that the average speed of eastbound vehicles is 27.8mph, and that 85% of vehicles are travelling at a speed of under 34.7mph. The corresponding figures for westbound traffic are 28.5mph and 35.8mph. The eighty-fifth percentile speed is the figure used by ourselves and the Police as the most appropriate measure of typical vehicle speeds. The existing speed limit on Dean Lane is 40mph. The survey data would indicate that there is generally very good observance of the existing speed limit.

viii) The petition calls for traffic calming measures to be introduced on Dean Lane. The Council receives many similar requests for the introduction of traffic calming measures at various locations across the borough. It is essential that suggestions for such measures are fully evaluated and prioritised in order to ensure that any new scheme delivers cost effective solutions which contribute to the aims and objectives embedded in the Local Transport Plan. Due to the need to target limited resources at those locations where they will be most effective, priority is given to those schemes which are most likely to be successful at reducing injuries as a result of road crashes.

ix) There have been 3 recorded vehicle crashes on Dean Lane over the latest five year period for which data is available (01/11/2002 to 31/10/2007), resulting in 1 serious and 2 slight injuries. Analysis of the crash data indicates that there was no common causation factor identified in the pattern of crashes that could be treated with engineering measures, and that excessive speed was not considered to be a contributory factor in any of these crashes.

x) It must be emphasised that traffic calming measures are not without their drawbacks and are not always popular locally. Traffic calming tends to be a feature of urban rather than rural roads, and legislation requires that each traffic calming feature is street lit. As well as being relatively expensive, any traffic calming scheme for Dean Lane would significantly change the nature of the road and the area.

xi) In this particular instance, the introduction of traffic calming measures would be relatively expensive to implement and is unlikely to have an impact upon the existing pattern of crashes in the area. Traffic calming measures are not therefore recommended for implementation on Dean Lane.

xii) The petitioners also request that the existing speed limit is reduced – presumably to a 30mph limit. National guidance and professional advice is that speed limits need to be clearly understood and respected by motorists and it is important that they reflect the prevailing driving conditions and are suited to the local environment. If unrealistically low speed limits are imposed along a road they are unlikely to be respected. A 30mph speed limit is generally a characteristic of a built-up, urban area, which is subject to street lighting. In locations such as Dean Lane, due to the rural nature of the road, with mainly large properties set back from the edge of the road, the characteristics of the road would suggest that a 40mph speed limit is an appropriate limit for such a location.

xiii) It should also be emphasised that the enforcement of any speed limit is a matter for the Police rather than the Council. Informal consultation with the Police would suggest that they would not support a reduction in speed limit for Dean Lane. The introduction of a 30mph speed limit is not therefore considered appropriate for Dean Lane.

xiv) It is nevertheless recognised that the petitioners are concerned about the potential road safety risks along Dean Lane and that these concerns should not be dismissed. Whilst in other locations where there are such concerns about excessive vehicle speeds, the Council has deployed Speed Indicator Devices (SID), these cannot be used on Dean Lane, as very few motorists are exceeding the existing speed limit. It is therefore recommended that vehicle speeds and road safety data for the area are closely monitored over the next twelve months. If there are any adverse changes during this time, then measures will be identified and brought to Members for consideration.

3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

	Option	Comments
1.	Introduce a traffic calming scheme on Dean Lane, Cookham	This option is not considered necessary at this time and is not recommended.
2.	Introduce a reduced speed limit on Dean Lane, Cookham	This option is not considered appropriate and is not recommended.
3.	To continue monitoring speeds and road safety data on Dean Lane, Cookham	This is recommend as the most appropriate and effective option
4.	Note the content of the petition and take no action	This does not respond to the issues raised and is not recommended

3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

Department of Transport – Circular Roads 1/93 – Local Speed Limits

Department for Transport – Bibliography of Traffic Calming.

3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

Local Development Plan

Local Transport Plan

The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

	Relevant? Yes / No
Key Themes:
Supporting Children & Younger People	No
Supporting Adults & Older People	Yes
A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough	Yes
Safer & Stronger Communities	Yes

4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

The recommendations of this report seek to respond to the concerns of the local community raised in the petition presented to Council by Councillor Kellaway.

5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

This report will be considered at the Planning & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 30th January 2008 and any comments will be reported to the Cabinet meeting on 21st February 2008.

6. IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Financial

The cost of future monitoring will be met from within existing revenue budgets.

6.2 Legal

There are no legal implications as a direct consequence of this report.

6.3 Human Rights Act

Part II The First Protocol

Article 1 Protection of property

6.4 Planning

There are no planning implications as a consequence of this report.

6.5 Sustainable Development

Any improvement in road safety will have positive effects in terms of sustainable development.

6.6 Diversity and Equality

With respect to the Royal Borough’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy the recommendations in this report have no negative equality and diversity implications.

Background Papers

: None

meetings_080130_peosp_traffic_cookham_appx.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Traffic Cookham Appx

103

8. PROPOSED FLEXIBLE HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN SCHEME

CABINET: 21ST FEBRUARY 2008

MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR DEREK WILSON

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval to participate, with up to 16 other local authorities, in a flexible home improvement loan scheme, funded by a grant from the South East Regional Housing Board. Loans will be provided by a company limited by guarantee which will be controlled by the participating local authorities.

2 MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Cabinet approves the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead joining with other local authorities to create a Flexible Home Improvement Loan Scheme for the benefit of residents in the Borough.

3 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Wards Affected

All wards

3.2 Relevant matters upon which decision is based & reasons supporting recommendation

3.2.1 Local authorities are working towards PSA7, to ensure that at least 70% of vulnerable households in the private sector are in decent accommodation by 2010, rising to 75% by 2020. However, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, in keeping with many other boroughs, experiences a higher demand for grant assistance than existing funds can support.

3.2.2 The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, gave local authorities increased discretion to develop their own approaches for improving housing conditions in the private sector.

3.2.3 The Department of Communities and Local Government has also encouraged local authorities to find alternative ways of financing housing improvement; in particular through low cost loans and equity release loans. Additionally, they have stated the need for local authorities to work together to achieve economies of scale.

3.2.4 The establishment of this scheme will also achieve the non-reward element set by the LPSA 1 – Target 10 Project. The Borough currently has a capital budget of £50,000 for home repair assistance grants. The proposed Flexible Home Improvement Loan Scheme could boost the total money available for private sector housing improvement to approximately £330,000 per annum.
3.2.5 House prices in this Borough are well above the national average and a large proportion of the population are elderly property owners who are ‘equity rich’ but ‘income poor’. These are conditions in which a Flexible Loan Scheme can be viable.

3.2.6 We have undertaken a study of loan schemes available to local authorities and to our residents and concluded that none are perfectly aligned to our needs. The ‘failings’ of other schemes include: minimum loans being too high, interest rates too high, inflexibility, non-availability outside of specific areas and poor management.

3.2.7 As a result of a discussion document which we submitted to GOSE in May this year, we were invited to bid for Private Sector Housing Renewal grants for the three years 2008/09 to 2010/11 to create an Equity Release / Flexible Loan Scheme (see Appendix A for background information regarding the scheme). During the same period we had discussions with the Environmental Health/Housing departments of other local authorities in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Oxfordshire and 16 of them (see Appendix D) agreed to take part in the scheme, subject to approval by their directors/cabinet/council.

3.2.8 The consortium subsequently submitted a bid to the South East Regional Housing Board and, on 5th December last year, we were advised by GOSE/RHB that a grant of £16 million over 3 years has been approved, subject to ratification by the Secretary of State.

3.2.9 At the Directors’ Group meeting on 21st November 2007 consent was given to take appropriate steps to develop the Scheme without committing the Council to proceed.

3.2.10 Grant funds will be released shortly after 1st April and we wish to have the infrastructure in place to commence lending by the end of June, or sooner if feasible.

3.3 Options available and risk assessment

	Option	Comments
1	To join with other local authorities to create a Flexible Home Improvement Loan Scheme for the benefit of residents.	See comments below (3.3.1)
2	To withdraw from the process.	See comments below (3.3.2)

3.3.1 Option 1 The creation of a flexible home improvement scheme falls in line with our LPSA 1 Project target and current Government thinking on new approaches to improving housing conditions in the private sector. Furthermore the scheme would be almost ‘cost neutral’ to the Borough (see 5.1.1). This is the recommended option.

3.3.2 Option 2 We are faced with ever decreasing grants budgets and, if we do not now take part, we are unlikely to have another opportunity until 2010.

3.3.3 For principal risks associated with either option, see Appendix C.

3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

· Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002

· Department of Communities and Local Government, Housing Research Summary (Number 233, 2007)

· Government Public Service Agreement decent homes target PSA7

· Department of Communities and Local Government, Housing Renewal Guidance (consultative document)

3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

· Housing Strategy 2004/07

· LPSA 1 Project

The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

Key Themes:	Relevant?
Supporting children & younger people	Yes
Supporting adults & older people	Yes
A thriving, cleaner, greener borough	No
Safer & stronger communities	Yes

Outcomes:	Relevant?
Be Healthy	Yes
Stay Safe	Yes
Enjoy & Achieve	Yes
Make a positive contribution	Yes
Achieve economic well-being	Yes

4 CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

Consultation, on various aspects of the scheme, has been carried out with colleagues in Legal, Financial, and Housing

5 IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Financial

5.1.1 If Option 1 is adopted there are modest costs of £3,000-£4,000 per annum for staff training and printing of documents etc, which can be contained within existing budgets.

5.1.2 There are no financial implications if Option 2 is adopted.

5.2 Legal

5.2.1 If Option 1 is adopted the Council will require input from Legal Services to prepare legal agreements between RBWM and other partner local authorities and between the local authorities and the scheme administrators. It has not been decided, at this stage, whether registration of legal charges and redemption of mortgages will be handled by each local authority or by the scheme administrators. If it is the former, continuing input from Legal Services will be required.

5.2.2 There are no legal implications if we adopt Option 2.

5.3 Human Rights Act

None of the Convention rights will be affected by this decision.

5.4 Planning

There are no planning implications in respect of either option.

5.5 Sustainable Development

Option 1, if successful, will contribute to enhancing the environment and local community.

5.6 Diversity and Equality

There are no significant Diversity and Equality implications in respect of Option 1 beyond that, availability of loans will favour the elderly and most in need within the community.

There are no Diversity and Equality implications in respect of Option 2.

Background Papers

Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002

Department of Communities and Local Government, Housing Research Summary (Number 233, 2007)

DCLG, Draft Mortgage Sales Guidance for Local Authorities and Housing Associations

DCLG, Housing Renewal Guidance (consultative document)

Report submitted to GOSE on the viability of an Equity Release Scheme supported by initial funding from the RHB

107

Appendix A

BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF

FLEXIBLE HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN SCHEME

1 Introduction

The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 confers on local housing authorities in England and Wales a new power to improve living conditions in their area, including: the repair, improvement, and adaptation of housing. It also repeals certain legislative provisions with respect to Renovation Grants, Home Repair Assistance, and other such grants.

Furthermore, the Government has given local authorities the power to find alternative ways of financing housing improvement; in particular through low cost loans and equity release loans. This financial assistance may be provided to persons directly, or through a third party such as a home improvement agency, specialist financial intermediary or other special purpose vehicle. Additionally, the Government has stated the need for local authorities to work together to achieve economies of scale.

The Government has also expressed the view that a local authority would be failing in its duty as a housing enabler, and in its responsibility to consider the condition of the local private sector stock, if it did not make some provision for assistance. A blanket 'no assistance policy', whether for grants, loans or both, would therefore be unacceptable.

We have undertaken a study of home improvement loans, including equity release loans, available to residents in the SE region and concluded that none are perfectly aligned to our needs. The ‘failings’ of other schemes include: minimum loans being too high, interest rates too high, inflexibility, non-availability outside of specific areas and poor management.

In May this year we submitted a discussion document to GOSE, on behalf of RBWM and a group of local authorities in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Oxfordshire, which demonstrated the viability a cross boundary flexible loan scheme. As a result, we were invited to bid for Private Sector Housing Renewal grants for the three years 2008/09 to 2010/11 to create such a scheme.

The consortium subsequently submitted a bid to the South East Regional Housing Board and, on 5th December last year, we were advised by GOSE/RHB that a grant of £16 million over 3 years has been approved, subject to ratification by the Secretary of State.

By 2011, assuming we receive the amount of grant for which we have applied, we will, have a mortgage portfolio worth approximately £18 million. This will be used to lever-in private sector funds in subsequent years. It is also our intention to bid for further Regional Housing Board grant funding for the years 2011-14.

2 The Consortium

The 17 local authorities in the consortium represent slightly over 22% of the private sector housing stock in the SE region. The commonality of these local authorities includes:

· house prices being well above the national average and demand for property very high;

· relatively few areas of housing poverty;

· a large number of elderly property owners who are ‘equity rich’ but ‘income poor’;

· the majority of local authorities in the group experience a higher demand for grant assistance than existing funds can support.

3 Flexible Home Improvement Loans

We see an opportunity to address the problems identified in other loan schemes and create a product which meets the needs of the local authorities in the group and the residents in their boroughs.

The Flexible Home Improvement Loan will be secured by a charge on the householder’s property and may be repaid in a manner to suit the borrower. Payments of capital and interest may be made on a regular, or irregular basis, or not at all. Thus the loan may be viewed as a conventional mortgage, or an overdraft, or as an equity release loan (lifetime mortgage), or as a combination of any of them.

If the borrower decides not to make payments of capital, or interest, the amount borrowed, plus the ‘rolled up’ interest, will be repaid out of the proceeds from the sale of the property after the borrower dies, or if he/she vacates the home to go into long-term care.

As a product offered by local authorities it is of paramount importance that the scheme is created, and subsequently operated, in a fair and ethical manner. Furthermore, we will be providing loans which are equal or superior to other lenders in terms of interest rates, charges, efficiency and flexibility.

Our target interest rate is 5%, fixed for the life of the mortgage, and the minimum loan is likely to be £1,000. Naturally, as with Home Repair Assistance grants, the loan may only be used to fund approved repairs or improvements.

A maximum loan will be established at the time the initial application is processed, and further advances up to this figure may be approved with a minimum of formality. Further advances beyond this maximum may be approved using normal underwriting procedures.

It should be stressed that Flexible Home Improvement Loans are not intended to replace grants but will be offered to people who do not qualify for grants. Whilst each local authority in the consortium will offer identical mortgages and use identical documentation, each will be free to set the criteria which determines who will qualify for grants and who will qualify for loans.
3 Grants-v-Loans

The use of grants has evolved over a number of years and remains an important tool to resolve a range of housing problems, and to assist the most vulnerable in our communities. The success of grant schemes, however, has a ‘downside’ in that many people are reluctant to spend their own money, or borrowed money, on repairs or improvements.

Until recently, Central Government policy was to promote the use of grant funding to increase the quality of housing stock. The government now recognises that this is unsustainable, and ways need to be found to recycle available funds and lever in additional money from the private sector. Flexible Home Improvement Loans can fit these criteria.

Undoubtedly there is, and will continue to be, some public resistance to loans, but we are confident we can create an attractive and ethical scheme which will allay most people’s concerns.

4 Loan and Mortgage Administration

The lending arm of the consortium will be a company limited by guarantee. Each local authority will be a guarantor (up to a maximum of £10 per local authority) and will appoint an officer to represent them on the board of the company. No other organisations, or individuals, will have any controlling interest in the company.

It may be necessary to appoint a part-time, or full-time, officer to deal with day-to-day administration, especially in the first few years. It is also intended that a small steering group will be co-opted from the consortium to make certain non-critical decisions.

The majority of local authorities in the consortium no longer administer mortgages and it is agreed that we should enter into a contract with a third party to handle the administration, including the setting up of each new mortgage and discharging mortgages on eventual sale of each property.

The Loan and Mortgage Administration Centre (LAMAC) already act for several of our members and a total of 153 local authorities nationwide. It is most likely they will be our appointed administrators. In the meantime, the administration charges used in our calculations are based on LAMAC’s scale fees.

In the first two years we estimate the cost to the Council will be £2,000 - £3,000 pa for staff training, promotional literature and application forms etc, reducing in subsequent years. These costs will be contained within existing budgets.

There will also be some additional costs in terms of officers’ time. Whilst the work required by officers to process a loan is likely to be less than required to process a grant, it follows that more officer time may be required to deal with the extra cases.

5 Legal and Regulatory Implications

The principal regulators for financial services are the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading. We, as local authorities, are exempt from the Financial Services Authority’s authorisation for mortgage lending, administration, arranging and advising.

We are currently awaiting a decision from the FSA as to whether a ‘not for profit’ company, wholly owned by local authorities will need to register. Indications are that we will not have to register although we will be obliged to adhere to the underlying key principles of mortgage regulation. LAMAC are, of course, registered with the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading.

It is our intention that every council officer involved in the scheme will receive training in all aspects of the equity release product and the regulatory regime which governs it. A system compliance will also be put in place. LAMAC have indicated their capability to provide training sessions for this purpose.

111

Appendix D

LOCAL AUTHORITIES INTENDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SCHEME

Aylesbury Vale District Council
Friars Square, 4 Great Western Street, Aylesbury HP20 2TW

Bracknell Forest Borough Council
Civic Offices, Easthampstead House, Town Square, Bracknell RG12 1AQ

Cherwell District Council
Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury OX15 4AA

Chiltern District Council
Council Offices, King George V Road, Amersham HP6 5AW

Milton Keynes Council
Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ

Oxford City Council
St Aldate’s Chambers, St Aldate’s, Oxford OX1 1DS

Reading Borough Council
Civic Centre, Reading RG1 7TD

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead SL6 1RF

Slough Borough Council
Town Hall, Bath Road, Slough SL1 3UQ

South Bucks District Council
Capswood, Oxford Road, Denham UB9 4LH

South Oxfordshire District Council
Council Offices, Crowmarsh, Wallingford OX10 8HQ

Surrey Heath Borough Council
Surrey Heath House, Knoll Road, Camberley GU15 3HD

Vale of White Horse District Council
The Abbey House, Abingdon OX14 3JE

West Berkshire Council
Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury RG14 5LD

West Oxfordshire District Council
Council Offices, Woodgreen, Witney OX8 6NB

Wokingham District Council
Council Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1WQ

Wycombe District Council
Council Offices, Queen Victoria Road, High Wycombe HP11 1BB

$meetings_080130_peosp_flexible_homes_appx1.doc.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Flexible Homes Appx1

meetings_080130_peosp_flexible_homes_appx2.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Flexible Homes Appx2

$meetings_080130_peosp_flexible_homes_appx3.doc.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Flexible Homes Appx3

115

9. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK:ADOPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek adoption of the

Telecommunications

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and associated supporting documents as part of the Council’s Local Development Framework. A copy of the SPD is attached to this report as Appendix A.

2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the Telecommunications Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and associated supporting documents as part of the Council’s Local Development Framework be adopted

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Wards Affected

All wards

3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

3.2.1 On 31st May 2007 Cabinet approved a draft document to replace the Council’s current Supplementary Planning Guidance on Telecommunications Development. The draft SPD was the subject of public consultation in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement for a six week period from 27th July to 7th September 2007. A Consultation Statement summarising the responses received is available in the Members’ Group Rooms, on the Council’s website and in the Council’s Customer Service Centres.

3.2.2 The approach of the draft was supported and included the following benefits:

· Increased community involvement in the identification of appropriate sites for equipment;
· Updated current guidance for judging applications to reflect changes to legislation; and
· Increased understanding and transparency between the community and operators.

3.2.3 The final SPD includes fairly minor alterations in respect of matters of clarity and detail suggested by consultation respondents, along with an additional section with respect to flood risk following the receipt of comments from the Environment Agency. The main area of objection from consultation respondents where it has not been possible to amend the document is in respect to health considerations, where the Council is required to work within a national framework specified by Government.

3.2.4 As well as the Consultation Statement, legislation also requires the SPD to be the subject of a Sustainability Appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Regulations with respect to impact on protected species. It is recommended that these supporting documents are adopted alongside the SPD.

3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

	Option	Comments
1.	Do not adopt the SPD and associated documents	Not recommended
2.	Adopt the SPD and associated documents	Recommended

3.3.1 Option 1 is not recommended. Although the existing SPG would remain a tool in determining applications for telecommunications development under the Planning Acts, the weight attached to it will continue to reduce as it becomes less up to date. This would reduce the scope for the Council to influence the nature of telecommunications development and would miss the opportunity to provide up to date information to the community and to encourage the active engagement of the community in finding solutions to the need to provide coverage. New developments would not generally seek to provide telecommunications infrastructure as part of the development.

3.3.2 Option 2 is recommended. The SPD will provide a clear approach for the Council to influence the nature of telecommunications development, provide up to date information to the community and encourage the active engagement of the community in finding solutions to provide the required coverage as well as seeking to provide telecommunications infrastructure as an integral part of new developments where appropriate.

3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

3.4.1 The requirements for Local Development Frameworks are set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. Other principal areas of national and regional guidance relevant to this report are:
q Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications
q Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks
q Creating Local Development Frameworks: A Companion Guide to PPS12

3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

3.5.1 The relevant Council strategies and policies are:

q The Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016
q The RBWM Local Plan (incorporating Alterations Adopted June 2003)
q RBWM SPG Telecommunications Development, 2000
q The RBWM Local Development Scheme
q The RBWM Statement of Community Involvement, June 2006
q The Community Strategy for the Royal Borough Partnership
q The RBWM Borough Strategic Plan 2006-7

All RBWM strategies which have implications for the use of land

The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

	Relevant? Yes / No
Key Themes:
Supporting Children & Younger People	No
Supporting Adults & Older People	No
A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough	Yes
Safer & Stronger Communities	Yes

4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

4.1 The Council’s Telecommunications Forum was party to original discussions concerning the need to review the existing SPG in autumn 2006 and reviewed and guided the content of the draft SPD. The draft SPD and associated documents were the subject of public consultation during 7th July to 7th September 2007. A Consultation Statement summarising the responses received is available in the Members’ Group Rooms, on the Council’s website and in the Council’s Customer Service Centres.

4.2 The main thrust of the SPD was supported by respondents, particularly the sections seeking to increase community involvement in influencing the way equipment is provided and providing guidance on minimising the visual impact of equipment. The chapters explaining the background to the growth of telecommunications and the controls available to the Council were also welcomed.

4.3 Respondents made positive suggestions for improvements in the document which have been accommodated in respect of matters including:

· Reasons for the increase in masts;
· Ecological considerations in relation to protected sites;
· The weight to be attached to the outcome of community engagement;
· Flood risk considerations in the siting of masts; and
· The impact of physical attachment to historic buildings.

4.4 The main area of objection from consultation respondents where it has not been possible to amend the document is in respect to health considerations, where the Council is required to work within a national framework specified by Government.

5. IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Financial

Ensuring the Council has up to date guidance against which to judge applications under the Planning Acts minimises the opportunities for costs being awarded against the Council at appeals. Increased community engagement with the Operators in finding solutions to network capacity requirements and increased availability of up to date information should also reduce the number of refused applications and the subsequent level of staff resource required to defend appeals.

5.2 Legal

The SPD has been produced under powers within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and related Regulations. When adopted the Document will become part of the Council’s Local Development Framework and will be part of the statutory set of policies and guidance against which the Council must determine applications under the Planning Acts. SPDs are required to be in general conformity with local policies and national guidance, which has been confirmed by the South East England Regional Assembly.

5.3 Human Rights Act

The Articles affected by the recommendation in this report are:

Article 1: Protection of Property. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions, except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by the law and by the principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of state to enforce such laws, as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Article 6: The Right to a Fair Trial. This relates to civil rights and obligations as well as criminal charges.

Any interference of these rights must be permitted by law and be proportionate. Any person whose rights are affected by the recommendations in this report is capable of being considered a victim under the terms of the Human Rights Act.

5.4 Planning

The SPD will supersede the current SPG and will, alongside the Regional Spatial Strategy and the documents produced by the Borough, form the statutory development plan for the Borough against which applications under the Planning Acts within the Borough must be judged.

5.5 Sustainable Development

The principles of sustainability are fundamental to the review of the development plan. The process of review has incorporated a Sustainability Appraisal.

5.6 Diversity and Equality

In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy, the recommendations of this report have no negative equity and diversity implications.

Background Papers

: Supplementary Planning Document and accompanying Sustainability Appraisal, Appropriate Assessment and Consultation Statement

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated Regulations

Report to Cabinet 31st May 2007

Minutes of Telecommunications Forum 18th September 2006

Minutes of Telecommunications Forum 18th January 2007

Local Commission for Administration –

Special Report: Telecommunications Masts

June 2007

meetings_080130_peosp_telecomms_appx.pdf Meetings 080130 Peosp Telecomms Appx

Meeting documents

Meeting documents

Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Wednesday 30 January 2008

Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting documents

Meeting documents

Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny PanelWednesday 30 January 2008

Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Wednesday 30 January 2008