3

RBWM Councillors: Mrs Christine Bateson (Chairman), David Coppinger and Leo Walters.

RBWM Officers: Harriet Baldwin, Chris Donnelly, Simon Hurrell, Harjit Hunjan, Maria Lucas, Ian Trenholm and Karen Williams.

Parish and Town Councils:

Bisham: Councillors Cooper, Cubley, Keene, Robson-Brown and Sless
Bray: Councillors Foulger, Elvin and Janice Eden-Bagley (clerk)
Cookham: Councillor Coker
Cox Green: Councillor O’Brien
Hurley: Councillors Burfitt and Baker (also Secretary of DALC)
Horton: Councillor Davies and Wendy Coates (clerk)
Old Windsor: Councillor Troughton
Shottesbrooke: Councillor Warren
Sunningdale: Councillor Gadd
Sunninghill & Ascot: Councillors Story and Hilton
Waltham St Lawrence: Councillor Birkett
White Waltham: Councillor McDonald and Doug Stuart (clerk)
Wraysbury: Councillor Davies

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) and Chris Graham (Bray PC).

MINUTES

The minutes of the last meeting held on 18 October 2011 were approved, subject to an amendment to page 5, to read:

‘It would also be a requirement to maintain a 5 year rolling supply of housing sites plus at least an additional 20%.’

OLYMPICS

The Conference received an update on Olympic planning in the Borough. The Council was working with local partners in the preparation stage. A number of events for businesses had been held, to consider issues such as traffic and travel plans. Discussions with Parish Councils had also been held. It was anticipated that a formal announcement detailing the route of the Torch Relay would be made in mid- March 2012. Workshops for schools, businesses and Parish Councils likely to be affected were being arranged. The Torch Relay convoy would act as a rolling roadblock and would take approximately 20 minutes to pass through. The torch would be carried either on foot or on a convoy vehicle. It was possible that the torch could arrive in Bisham by boat from Henley.

DEVOLUTION OF S106/PLANNING DECISIONS

The Conference welcomed Simon Hurrell, the recently-appointed Head of Planning and Development, to the meeting. The main planning provisions in the Localism Act were noted as:

Ø The abolition of regional strategies
Ø A duty to co-operate between authorities, for example on housing forecasts, travellers, waste and minerals.
Ø Introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy
Ø Neighbourhood planning
Ø Neighbourhood Development Orders
Ø Community Right to Build Orders
Ø Strengthened enforcement
Ø National significant infrastructure projects

Mr Hurrell explained that seven areas of the Borough were preparing Neighbourhood Plans. The Borough Local Plan was also underway and was subject to consultation. Any qualifying body (a parish council or neighbourhood forum) was able to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to adopt. The LPA was responsible for carrying out an independent examination of the plan, arranging a referendum on the plan and adoption if more than 50% of those voting within the area were in favour. It was noted that the level of detail in a Neighbourhood Plan was to be set locally. The LPA could not adopt any Neighbourhood Plan until the Borough Plan was adopted. This was expected to happen in spring 2013. Neighbourhood Plans that conflicted with the Borough Plan could not be adopted, even if the referendum was in favour. Parish Councillors expressed the view that they would need to know the contents of the Borough Plan before developing their own Neighbourhood Plan, otherwise time and effort could be wasted. It was noted that consultation on the Borough Plan was due to take place in the autumn of 2012. The Chairman commented that officers would guide Neighbourhood Planning teams if it was felt they were going off course.

It was noted that a Neighbourhood Development Order was similar to an Article 4 Direction in that it gave planning permission in relation to a particular neighbourhood area for development or any class of development specified in the order. A Community Right to Build Order granted planning permission for specified development in relation to a specified site in the specified neighbourhood area. The Act introduced a new requirement for developers to consult with local communities and ‘specified persons’ before submitting planning applications, giving local people the chance to comment on proposals before they were submitted. However there were as yet no draft regulations to indicate the threshold that would trigger consultation. In addition, ‘specified person’ had not yet been defined. Under the Act, the LPA’s powers to deal with enforcement had been strengthened. For example, the LPA could decline to determine a (retrospective) application for a development which was subject to an enforcement notice.

The Conference was advised that, to increase transparency, Cabinet had recently agreed to delegate S106 decision making to Parish Councils. All clerks had been written to, inviting comments on the proposals. It was noted that £4m was raised annually in RBWM, of which approximately 20% could be administered locally. Delegation was about:

Ø Influencing allocation of s106 funding
Ø Determining some s106 spend locally
Ø Taking responsibility for projects/services on which money was to be spent

It was highlighted that there was no obligation on Parishes to take up the proposals. There was also no intention to add to administrative burdens or costs. The Royal Borough would continue to administer the scheme, monitoring spend and accounting to developers. There would be no charge for this support. Ward Members would be closely involved in local allocations and would have the power to veto if proposals were not in accordance with the approved policy.

It was noted that, in 2011, 1600 planning applications (including Listed Building consents, Tree Preservation Orders and Certificates of Lawfulness) were processed in parished areas. This ranged from 15 in Horton to 296 in Sunninghill. About 85% of all planning applications were dealt with under delegated authority. The Royal Borough proposed that most planning decision-making be delegated to Parish Councils. The current system for administration would remain (although Parish Councils could take some of this on if they wished and a share of the application fee would be made available).The Borough would not charge for the support it would provide to Parish Councils. It was noted that the legal responsibility for any decision would lie with the Royal Borough, therefore it was in the Council’s interest to ensure Parishes were properly trained and had all the relevant information. Training would include structured decision making.

The Royal Borough would continue to be the local planning authority and Parish Councils would act as agents. Parish Councils could consider householder applications initially, or a wider range as agreed. The Planning Case Officer would deal with an application and provide a report to the Parish Council. The Case Officer could attend Parish Council meetings as required. Applicants and interested parties including objectors could make representations at these meetings. Full training for Parish Councils would be provided by the Borough. Parish Councils could design a system of further delegation (to a small number of members for example). The scheme would be subject to an annually-renewable delegation agreement.

Parish Councillor Coker, of Cookham Parish Council, expressed concern that Parish Councils were no longer notified of spheres of mutual concern. The Head of Planning and Development agreed to address this issue. Concern was also expressed about the availability of documents on the Borough website. The Head of Planning and Development agreed that Parish Councils would need quality plans and information available to make appropriate decisions. It was explained that the 18 staff in Development Control would be split into seven teams and allocated to specific parishes.

It was confirmed that the Borough would undertake to deal with any planning appeals arising from a Parish Council decision. The Chief Executive stated that the Borough would stand behind Parish Councils in the same way that officers defended appeals when a decision had been against officer’s recommendation. Parishes would be expected to make decisions in good faith with reasons given. However, the Head of Legal commented that if a Parish Council made a decision that they had been advised by the Council was totally unreasonable, the Parish would be required to pick up any resulting costs. The Chief Executive commented that he presumed Parish Councils’ professional indemnity insurance should cover any scenarios. He advised Parish Councillors to discuss the matter with their clerk.

Concern was expressed about the administrative burden on Parish Councils of dealing with public speakers. It was advised that Parish Councils could choose to further delegate decision making. Parish Councils could choose to opt out of the scheme at a later date if it proved to be overly burdensome. The Chief Executive commented that the aim was to delegate decision making to the local level without adding to bureaucracy. He welcomed discussions as to how this could be best achieved.

It was confirmed that the Borough would liaise with neighbouring authorities on issues such as availability of office space.

The Chairman thanked Mr Hurrell for his presentation and requested that it be circulated to all Parish Councils.

FEEDBACK FROM THE DEVOLUTION OF SERVICES AND BIG SOCIETY PARISH WORKSHOPS

The Community and Business Partnerships Manager provided the Conference with feedback from the two workshops held at the end of 2011, which had been run by DALC with the support of the Borough. The first workshop on devolution of services had allowed detailed discussions between officers and Parish Councillors on issues such as devolution of S106. The second workshop had focussed on local involvement and civic participation. One of the outcomes had been the suggestion of running a workshop to get more young people involved. In parallel, a Participatory Budgeting exercise for young people was being conducted.

Parish Councillor Davies, Chairman of DALC, commented that he felt the workshop format had worked very well, enabling Parish Councillors to talk directly to officers in a less formal setting. He hoped more workshops could be held in future. In relation to Big Society, four key areas had been identified:

Ø The involvement of young people
Ø Community projects and Big Society
Ø Improving communication
Ø Adapting projects such as Adopt a Street

The next stage would be to convene a special executive meeting to consider the issues in greater detail. A feedback report would be provided to the next Parish Conference.

STREET CLEANING PARISH DEVOLUTION

The Conference noted that unfortunately, the proposed presentation had been cancelled as a result of bereavement.

The Chief Executive explained that, as discussed at the last Parish Conference, the Council had successfully procured a points-based contract to ensure flexibility. Parish Councils were urged to book in workshops on the new contract with the Streetcare team.

UPDATE ON THE LOCALISM ACT/STANDARDS

The Conference received a presentation on the Localism Act 2011 from Maria Lucas, the Borough’s Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer. It was noted that the Act had received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. Its aim was to shift power from central government downwards and outwards to individuals, neighbourhoods, professionals and communities, as well as local councils and other local authorities.
The Act had 241 sections and 25 schedules, which were coming into force on a gradual basis up to 1 July 2012.

The Act included:

Ø A general power of competence
Ø Freedom to offer business rate discounts
Ø Different forms of governance
Ø Directly elected mayors for cities (not applicable to the Royal Borough)
Ø The transfer of public functions to Councils to improve local accountability or promote economic growth

The rights and powers for communities provided by the Act included the community right to challenge, the community right to bid for assets of community value and the community right to build. It also contained the planning permissions outlined by the previous speaker.

In relation to Standards it was noted that the Standards Board for England no longer had a role in relation to standards from 31 January 2012; local standards committees would continue. The council was required to adopt a local code of conduct by 1 July 2012, including how breaches would be dealt with and the appointment of an Independent Person. The Independent Person could not be a Councillor, officer or existing member of the Standards Committee. The Council would be required to consult the Independent Person on any decision on a complaint about a breach of the code The Independent Person could also be consulted by the person being complained about. Any arrangements must include a register of disclosable pecuniary interests. If an interest was not put on the register, this could be considered a criminal offence. It was noted that NALC was looking to develop a model code of conduct with the LGA. This would be considered by the Royal Borough. Parish Councils could decide on their own code but it was hoped they would adopt the model adopted by the Borough to maintain consistency. It would remain the responsibility of the Council to deal with any breach of the code by a Parish Councillor. Once developed, a copy of the draft code of conduct would be circulated to Parish Councils for comment.

It was noted that a report detailing the proposed actions and timetable would be considered by Full Council on 28 February 2012.

In response to a question from Councillor Walters, it was confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was due to come into force in April 2012, would replace previous guidance notes. As policy guidance rather than primary legislation, the NPPF could be altered by the Secretary of State.

The Chairman thanked the Head of Legal for her presentation and requested that it be circulated to all Parish Councils.

PARISH PRESENTATION

Parish Councillor Keene presented to the Conference on Bisham Parish Council’s purchase of The Orchard. Parish Councillor Keene stated that without the assistance of the Borough, the project would not have been possible. He advised other Parish Councils not to be scared of ambitious projects as support was available. The Orchard was a piece of land in the ownership of Bisham Abbey until 1978 when various plots were sold to developers. The Orchard was located next to The Green and the playground, split by Bisham Brook. In 1994 The Orchard, a two acre site in poor condition, was put up for sale.

Parish Councillor Keene thanked David Oram, (Estate Surveyor and Valuer at the time) for his fantastic help in getting the project underway in June 1994. At an extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council on 27 July 1994, feedback was given on meetings with David Oram and Tony Dixon who had both supported the Parish Council’s plans in principle. It had been agreed that the Borough would provide a loan. Bisham Parish Council agreed to purchase The Orchard for no more than £20,250.

It was noted that the objectives were to:

Ø Safeguard against development
Ø Establish an amenity for the use of residents
Ø Address the issue of a lack of open space in the village
Ø Provide a suitable area for older children

The bid was accepted, following which discussions were held with the developer about the two adjoining plots of land. The vision was to develop an open space, linked by a footbridge across the brook. The sale was completed on 17 July 1995 with a total cost of £23,000 for the three plots of land. The Royal Borough arranged a ten-year loan at 9% per annum interest and a grant of £6500 from the Assistance to Parishes scheme.

The immediate considerations were noted as:

Ø Minimal clearing to allow safe access for a consultation exercise
Ø Public safety
Ø Insurance
Ø Wildlife survey
Ø A boundary fence to secure the site
Ø Clearance of old sheds
Ø Outline development proposals

A consultation was then undertaken, including a series of public meetings. A questionnaire led to 20 written and verbal responses. Most were supportive although there were varied suggestions as to the balance of tended and natural areas. Concerns were also raised in relation to safety and attracting ‘undesirable elements’.

Initial development work with a budget of £17,000 included clearance of shrubs and bushes, laying out of open areas and woodland, fencing and the footbridge. The official opening took place on 6 June 1998 with the Borough Mayor in attendance.
Ongoing enhancements included:

Ø Upgrading of playground equipment
Ø Improving access to the bridge for people with disabilities.
Ø Upgrading of bins and benches
Ø Replacement of a picnic table
Ø Replacement of a large apple tree that had blown down
Ø Two trees in memoriam of Parish Councillors

Grounds maintenance was undertaken by Braywick Heath Nurseries which employed people with learning difficulties. Annual running costs totalled £6743, the majority of which covered grounds maintenance. The Royal Borough empted the litter bins at no cost.

The area was covered by very few rules and restrictions, other than no dogs in the playground area. A number of Parish Council events had been held on the land, including one for the Royal Wedding in 2011. Bisham Primary School also used the land for nature walks.

The Conference noted the Parish Council’s future plans:

Ø A new hedgerow on the road side of The Orchard
Ø New tree planting in the ‘wetland’ area
Ø Wildlife conservation enhancements including bird boxes
Ø A tree to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee
Ø A new bench on The Green
Ø A circular bench round a tree in The Orchard
Ø Replacement and upgrading of some playground equipment

The Parish Council was currently in discussions over S106 develop contributions relating to the Compleat Angler and The Bull. He thanked the Head of Planning and Development for his advice and support in this respect.

Parish Councillor Keene concluded by stating The Orchard was ‘a jewel achieved through great teamwork.’

The Conference congratulated all those involved on a very impressive project.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Keene for his interesting 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.

DATE OF NEXT CONFERENCE

It was noted that the next Parish Conference would take place in June 2012. Once the Council’s programme of meetings for 2012/13 had been confirmed following the Full Council meeting on 28 February 2012, the clerk would confirm future meeting dates with Parish Clerks.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, ended at 9.15pm.