3

RBWM Councillors: Mrs Bateson (Chairman) and Coppinger.

RBWM Officers: Peter Hitchen, Harjit Hunjan, Eric Livingstone, David Oram, Ian Trenholm and Karen Williams.

Parish and Town Councils:

Bisham: Councillors Cooper, Keene and Robson-Brown
Bray: Councillor Graham
Datchet: Councillor Lyons-Davis and Graham Leaver (clerk)
Hurley: Councillors Burfitt and Baker (also Secretary of DALC)
Old Windsor: Councillors Dawson and Troughton
Sunningdale: Councillor Gadd
Sunninghill & Ascot: Councillor Story
Waltham St Lawrence: Councillor Birkett
White Waltham: Councillors McDonald and Mullen and Doug Stuart (clerk)
Wraysbury: Councillors Davies and Hughes

WELCOME

The Chairman of the Conference, Councillor Mrs Bateson, welcomed everyone to the meeting.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Fiona Hewer (Cookham PC).

MINUTES

The minutes of the last meeting held on 21 June 2011 were approved.

MATTERS ARISING

The Chief Executive reported that, following comments at the last Parish Conference and in other Council meetings, the Council had raised the issue of farmers assisting in snow clearance with the government. Recent guidance issued by the government stated that red diesel could be used for farmers undertaking community acts, without fear of prosecution. It was noted that details were already included on the Borough website in relation to the winter maintenance programme.

DEVOLUTION OF SERVICES – UPDATE BY PARISH

The Community and Business Partnerships Manager explained that an updated menu of services that could potentially be devolved to parishes had been circulated to parishes following the last Parish Conference. This had been followed up by email and telephone contact to capture feedback and register areas of interest. He said that some parishes had asked for further information and this was being followed up.

Parish Councillor Davies, Chairman of DALC, proposed that a workshop be held at the end of November/beginning of December 2011 which would enable parishes to talk informally with relevant officers and gain the information they required. The key issue for a number of parishes was knowing what the Borough currently did before a judgement could be taken in relation to the administrative burden for the clerk.

The Streetcare Manager updated the Conference on the street cleaning contract which was due to be let from April 2012. The tender had entered the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire stage a few weeks previously. Thirteen suppliers had originally expressed an interest, which had been narrowed down to 8 on grounds of financial viability. Of the 8 companies, 4 were major players in the industry. The Invitation to Tender had been issued earlier that day, with a deadline of 28 November 2011. Evaluation would take place within the two weeks following the deadline, therefore parishes would be contacted at the beginning of December with details. Tenderers had been requested to suggest alternatives to the pricing structures. Parishes would be able to take over the service entirely for their area, or, over the period of the contract, take on small sections. Parishes would be able to deal directly with the contractor, or could choose to opt out completely.

It was suggested that, given the timetable, details of the contract could be available at the planned workshop. The Streetcare Manager agreed to circulate details of the coverage and frequency of the current street cleaning contract. The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful if this were circulated prior to the workshop. The Director of Environment requested that the Community and Business Partnerships Manager work with the Streetcare Manager on the timing of the workshop to ensure details of the street cleaning contract would be available. The Director of Environment commented that he was encouraged by feedback via his team about the good relationships between parishes and the Borough for the benefit of residents, in areas including grit bins for winter weather, rights of way, parish travel plans, solar lighting in Sunningdale and parking provision in Cookham. He encouraged parishes to come forward in advance of the workshop to discuss any specific ideas for devolution of services not already proposed.

CHANGES TO THE PLANNING SYSTEM

The Conference welcomed Peter Hitchen, Planning Policy Manager, to the meeting. It was noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published in July 2011; the consultation would close later in October 2011. The NPPF was one of a number of proposed changes to legislation under the Localism Bill, which envisaged the devolution of planning responsibilities to a more local level. Regional Plans were to be abolished alongside the removal of top down targets. Local decision making by local communities including parishes would involve neighbourhood development orders and the Community Right to Build (CRB).

The NPPF included a presumption in favour of sustainable development, to ‘grant planning permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date. The NPPF redefined sustainable development in favour of economic growth, sidelining environmental and social aspects. The previous planning guidance was reduced to 57 pages, with the following core principles:

· Planning to be ‘genuinely plan-led’
· Identify and meet housing, business and other development needs
· Assume the default answer to development proposals “is yes”
· Planning policies and decisions should:
- take account of environmental quality
- protect environment and heritage appropriate to their significance
- make effective use of land
- focus significant development in locations that are sustainable

Under the NPPF, local authorities would be required to have up to date local plans through which objectively assessed development needs should be met. Plans should indicate broad locations for strategic development, allocate sites to promote development and meet household and population projections. Local authorities should also collaborate across boundaries. The Royal Borough would be revising and updating the Council’s Local Plan in the coming months.

Neighbourhood plans gave communities direct power to plan for their area and develop a shared vision for the neighbourhood. All neighbourhood plans would have to align with the Borough’s Local Plan.

In relation to housing, it was noted that existing housing principles remained but would need to meet full requirements for market and affordable housing. It would also be a requirement to maintain a 5 year rolling supply of housing sites plus at leas an additional 20%. In relation to the Green Belt it was noted that the NPPF incorporated established principles of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open but:

· The extension or replacement of all ‘buildings’ (to include farm buildings) was supported rather than limited to dwelling houses
· The infilling or redevelopment of previously developed sites was supported rather than limited to major developed sites defined by the Local Plan, which was a weakened approach.
· Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order was supported where other forms of housing would not be supported
· Deleted the ‘rural exceptions’ policy for affordable housing

In relation to town centres, it was noted that the NPPF retained a general emphasis, on location of retail development but there was a preference for retail and leisure being in town centres and the edge of the centre rather than being a strict requirement. Offices were no longer seen as a ‘town centre first’ use, which could lead to transport and traffic issues. In relation to transport, the NPPF stated that transport systems needed to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes but removed the maximum parking standards for non-residential development. The NPPF also removed the presumption in favour of conservation of the historic environment, which could have an impact on Windsor, Eton and other historic areas in the Borough.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:

· The NPPF stated that the replacement of buildings would become appropriate. This would refer to an existing building, rather than a historical site.
· The historic environment was being given less attention
· The Localism bill was currently in the report stage in Parliament, for agreement by the end of 2011.
· There were no proposed changes to floodplain policy.

Parish Councillor Graham (Bray) stated that he felt the NPPF was nothing less than an attack on the local area. He commented that the NPPF was published part way through the neighbourhood planning process, yet would be taken into account by a Planning Inspector immediately. It was confirmed that it was open to Neighbourhood Plans to provide more development than a Borough Plan; but a neighbourhood plan could not provide less.

It was noted that the consultation was due to end on 17 October 2011; however the Royal Borough had been given an extension to allow it to respond following the meeting of Cabinet on 27 October 2011. At the same meeting, Members would consider a report on the Borough Plan, which set out the Council’s intended programme to replace the Local Plan, taking into account government guidance. The draft Plan would be completed by the summer of 2012, after which it would undergo a public examination. It was hoped the Plan could be adopted early in 2013.

The draft regulations accompanying the Localism Bill referred to ‘qualifying bodies’. The Planning Policy Manager agreed to look into the issue of whether parish councils were ‘qualifying bodies’ and inform Parish Councillor Gadd (Sunningdale). It was noted that Neighbourhood Plans could fail at the referendum stage if the whole community was not supportive. A number of attendees expressed concern that the hard work undertaken by local people could be wasted if a small but determined group opposed to a section of the plan launched an effective campaign at referendum stage.

It was noted that census data would not be available until July 2012, hence the Borough Plan would include assessments about land use for dwellings based upon population estimates. Councillor Davies (Wraysbury) commented that population projections were difficult to identify as net immigration and emigration could fluctuate widely, particularly in relation to the economic situation.

Parish Councillor Gadd (Sunningdale) commented that the launch of the parish’s plan had been at Ascot Racecourse had attracted over 200 attendees. The plan was still open for comments online.

The Chairman requested that the presentation be circulated to all Parish Clerks. She thanked the Planning Policy Manager for his presentation.

BIG SOCIETY PARISH WORKSHOP

Parish Councillor Davies (Wraysbury/Chairman of DALC) proposed a workshop be held to look at the issues of volunteering and empowerment. He highlighted that, under the Big Society, the Borough was offering funding for appropriate projects, however it was unclear as to what would be deemed ‘appropriate’. A workshop would give parishes the opportunity to talk to council officers on an informal basis.

Parish Councillor Davies highlighted that, in his experience, few members of the public attended parish council meetings. He felt it was important to generate more public interest in the role of parish councils, which had the power to make important decisions for the local area. He also commented that the average age of parish councillors was over 65. He recognised that it was difficult for younger people to find the time to devote to community affairs on a regular basis but felt it was important to discuss how such people could be more greatly involved.

Parish Councillor Davies suggested that the workshop would be held in a Windsor location in the coming weeks, but at least 2 or 3 weeks away from the devolution workshop.

PARISH PRESENTATION

Parish Councillor Davies (Wraysbury) explained that the parish had, for the last 15 years, been cutting the grass in the parish on behalf of the Borough. The Parish Council had opted to take over the service as it felt a better service could be provided. Discussions with officers resulted in a regime being developed. Wraysbury Parish was relatively built up with 3000 electors in 1500 houses. The Borough previously funded rural cuts three times a year and urban areas 15 times a year. The Parish Council received £4500 from the Borough to undertake the work. Under the parish scheme rural areas were cut four times a year and urban areas 21 times a year. The Parish decided to fund the difference to provide a better service to parishioners. The benefits included control, the ability to employ local a contractor and flexibility. If required, an extra cut could be added in for £200.

In response to questions, Parish Councillor Davies confirmed that, in total, the parish council spent £25-£26,000 per yearon grass cutting, including maintenance. The Parish had not undertaken a tender process to test the market. The Parish had sat down with the Borough to discuss which areas required cutting before agreeing the value of the contract.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Davies for his presentation.

PRESENTATION AT THE NEXT CONFERENCE

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

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

RURAL BROADBAND

The Chief Executive explained that the rollout of superfast (at least 20MB/second) broadband was being planned for the whole of Berkshire. The county was roughly divided into two areas: those which received superfast broadband on a commercial basis and those described as being in ‘market failure’. The proposal was to part-subsidise the introduction of superfast broadband to those areas deemed to have a failing market. This would mean at least 90% of the county would have Superfast Broadband. The remaining 10% would receive 2MB/second as the absolute minimum. The council was working with the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) to put together a bid to government to draw down £1.5m funding. The market would provide a further £3m. The six local authorities would then need to fund the final £1.5m. A range of ways to identify the necessary funding was being considered, including discussion with parishes about increasing the precept. The Borough would formally write to parishes in this respect in the coming months. It was expected that the tender process would take place during 2012.

Parish Councillor Graham (Bray) commented that the parish had identified Oakley Green and Fifield as a suitable area for such a project and would therefore be likely to be willingly involved.

It was noted that there were a number of technical solutions to delivering superfast broadband and the tender process would identify which combination of approaches would deliver the best performance / cost.

DATE OF NEXT CONFERENCE

It was noted that the next Parish Conference would take place on 20 February 2012 in Windsor.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, ended at 8.40pm.