3

RBWM Councillors: Mrs Christine Bateson (Chairman)

RBWM Officers: Harriet Baldwin, Michael Beaven, Stephen Brown, Chris Donnelly, Simon Hurrell, Maria Lucas, Mike McGaughrin and Karen Williams.

Parish and Town Councils:

Cookham: Councillors Brar and Hewer
Datchet: Councillor Lyons-Davis and Graham Leaver (clerk)
Hurley: Councillors Baker (also Secretary of DALC), Harrington and Cherry Woodley (clerk)
Old Windsor: Councillor Green
Shottesbrooke: Councillor Warren
Waltham St Lawrence: Councillor Birkett
White Waltham: Councillor Brett and Doug Stuart (clerk)
Wraysbury: Councillor Davies

WELCOME

The Chairman of the Conference, Councillor Mrs Bateson, welcomed everyone to the meeting. It was noted that, in consultation with the Chairman of DALC, it had been agreed that one issue, ‘RBWM Policy on unauthorised works on common land’ would be dealt with by way of an information leaflet rather than a discussion item for the agenda.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Durgan and McDonald (White Waltham), Freda Bovingdon (Horton) and Derek Fry (Cookham).

MINUTES

The minutes of the last meeting held on 20 February 2012 were approved

THE NEW OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE

The Conference welcomed Mike McGaughrin, the recently appointed Chief Operating Officer (COO) to the meeting. Mr McGaughrin explained that the Operations Directorate had been established in April 2012 by merging the former Resources and Environment directorates. Conference noted that the new Directorate was responsible for a wide range of issues, including internal areas such as HR and Finance to more customer-facing areas such as Highways and Public Protection. Day to day contact for residents would be via the Customer Service Centre (CSC) to ensure all queries were tracked. However it was recognised that Parish Councils required key contacts within certain services, and these were detailed in the agenda papers. It was confirmed that the COO was one of the direct reports into the Chief Executive. David Oram currently held the role of Interim Chief Executive following the departure of Ian Trenholm.

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

Ø There was no current plan to roll-out pay on exit parking across Borough car parks. However, feedback on the pay-on-exit system recently introduced at the Nicholson’s car park would be considered by Members in 3-4 months time.
Ø The Environment Agency (EA) was responsible for flood protection on the Thames but the council was the responsible authority for smaller tributaries. Officers were currently looking at the issue of landowner responsibility to clear ditches. It was requested that the advice sent to landowners be circulated to Parish Councils for information.
Ø 80% of calls to the council came in via the CSC. The aim was to provide a one-stop shop so that residents were not ‘passed on’.
Ø The council aimed to fix all reported potholes within 24 hours. It was hoped that the proposed changes to the council IT system would enable the use of hand-held devices by outside staff to improve efficiency.

Parish Councillor Green (Old Windsor) commented that he had found the voice recognition system to be very effective in enabling direct access to officers.

The COO explained his plan for the directorate. Internal support functions such as IT, HR and Finance would have an internal focus to manage overheads more effectively. Customer-facing areas would be asked to improve services rather than just cut costs.

The Chairman thanked Mr McGaughrin for his presentation.

STANDARDS UPDATE

Conference attendees were provided with copies of the borough’s draft code of conduct and also a model code of conduct that had been drafted by NALC (National Association of Local Councils).

It was noted that the Localism Act had received Royal Assent in November 2011 and sections of the Act were slowly being brought into force. As of 1 July 2012, a new code of conduct would be required for the borough and Parish Councils, along with the appointment of an independent person and arrangements for dealing with breaches. At the moment, there were no transitional arrangements in place to deal with complaints still in the system. Disclosable pecuniary interests had yet to be properly defined; further details were awaited from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

It was noted that model codes had been produced by the DCLG, the Local Government Association (LGA) and NALC. The DCLG and LGA models were very short. In contract, the NALC code was more detailed and hence provided clearer guidance. The Monitoring Officer suggested that Parish Councils adopt the NALC code or the Borough code, which would make dealing with complaints (a Borough responsibility) more straightforward.

The draft borough code, which was based on the shorter DCLG code, would be considered for adoption by full Council on 26 June 2012. It was likely that the borough code would not include non-pecuniary disclosable interests – only disclosable pecuniary interests. If a Member failed to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest, this would be a criminal offence under the Act. It was noted that under the new arrangements, those with a disclosable pecuniary would not have the opportunity to make representations before leaving a meeting. The NALC code allowed Members to stay and make representations if they had a non-pecuniary interest. Clerks were welcome to contact the Monitoring Officer for advice to enable them to advise their Parish Councillors. The Monitoring Officer also agreed to provide scenario training.

It was noted that one Independent Persons with two deputies would be put forward to June Council for appointment. Parish Councillors were advised that, if they were the subject of a complaint, they would have the right to talk to the Independent Person for advice. Under the Borough draft code, all complaints would go to the Chief Executive for consideration, assisted by the Independent Person. Where possible, complaints would be dealt with by negotiation and seeking resolution. Complaints would be acknowledged within three working days and a response, where possible, would be issued in 10 working days. It was anticipated that only exceptional complaints would require investigation.

The Monitoring Officer commented that the NALC code had been drafted specifically for Parish Councils; and was more detailed than the DCLG and LGA codes. Parish Councils had the right to adopt whichever code they wished. She advised that the NALC code would be less open to interpretation. She requested that Parish Councils adopt the NALC code or the Royal Borough code. It was highlighted that it was mandatory for all Parish Councils to adopt a code by 1 July 2012. Parish Councils would therefore need to consider holding a special meeting if necessary. The Monitoring Officer would write to all Parish Councils once the regulations had been issued by the DCLG.

The Monitoring Officer agreed to provide a further presentation for parishes to enable fuller discussion on the Codes. Andrew Davies agreed to investigate likely numbers and potential dates for such a session to take place over the next two weeks.

The Chairman thanked Maria Lucas for her presentation.

FEEDBACK FROM THE DALC WORKSHOPS INCLUDING THE ACTION PLAN – ‘INCREASING CIVIC PARTICIPATION IN PARISHES

Parish Councillor Davies (Chairman of DALC) explained that the two workshops held in December 2011 and February 2012 had been very productive and had highlighted the problems Parish Councils were facing in attracting people of different ages. It was noted that most positions were filled uncontested. This meant that new members were most often people of a similar background, which did not foster a variety of viewpoints.

The proposed starting point for the Action Plan was with Borough schools. The hope was that if 16-18 year olds became interested, at some point late in their life they would consider joining a Parish Council. Presentations to civic participation lessons and to the PTA would hopefully generate interest in pupils and their parents.

The second strand of the Action Plan related to communications. All Parish Councils needed a website that was regularly updated. However, it was also recognised that not all residents would actively access information on a website. Newsletters delivered directly to residents’ homes would also be a useful tool. Younger residents would be more likely to use social media applications.

The third strand involved raising the profile of the Parish Council. The devolution of services could be used to promote the role of Parish Councils, but it was recognised that resourcing was an issue. Projects such as Adopt-a-Street, which did not require major resources, should be used to promote a Parish Council’s work. It was also noted that funding from the council was available for other projects, for example via the Big Society Fund.

It was noted that implementation of the Action Plan was the responsibility of the Parish Councils.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Davies for his presentation.

SOURCES OF FUNDING

Michael Beaven from Our Community Enterprise presented to the Conference on potential sources of funding for Parish Councils. He explained that the most straightforward and effective source was the Lottery funded ‘Awards for All’ programme as the majority of Parish Council activities would fit the criteria. A number of Parish Councils had already successfully bid for funding. The key criteria were that the organisation was not for profit and that the proposal would provide community benefit. It was confirmed that funding could not be applied for once a project was complete. A Parish Council could submit more than one bid for funding to the Awards for All programme, however it was likely that the later bids would receive lower priority.

The Reaching Communities fund helped projects to improve or replace existing buildings where a wide range of community activities took place. The criteria for this fund meant that only Horton and Hurley would be eligible. Village SOS funded projects in communities with a population of 3000 or less. Sustainable energy projects were often funded.

Conference noted a number of funding opportunities run by waste and landfill operators. The schemes focussed on improving amenities in communities affected by landfill activities. Small grants up to £20,000 were most common. Parish Councillor Green (Old Windsor) commented that his Parish Council had applied directly to Veolia for funding. The Chairman requested that a presentation be made by Old Windsor Parish Council at the next conference on their successful funding bids. Parish Councillor Green agreed to take the request back to his Parish Council.

Mr Beaven concluded by highlighting the support available to Parish Councils from Our Community Enterprise:

· Help to identify funding sources
· Guidance on writing applications
· Business planning and project development support
· A ‘critical friend’
· Exploring new ways of funding

The Chairman thanked Mr Beaven for his presentation.

PLANNING – DEVOLUTION OF SERVICES

An update on the devolution of planning services was circulated to attendees. Simon Hurrell, Head of Planning, commented that the document had already been discussed with a number of Parish Councils at recent meetings he had attended. The document clearly identified the officer to contact for any queries.

Mr Hurrell explained that the results of the consultation on the Borough Local Plan, which had ended in March 2012, had been reported to Cabinet in April 2012. A further report would be submitted to Cabinet in July 2012 to highlight key spatial issues and key areas of policy. Further consultation would focus on specific issues in specific areas of the borough. It was noted that some tensions had arisen between groups developing Neighbourhood Plans. If groupings changed, the borough would continue to provide support.

Good discussions had been held with Parish Councils on the issues of the delegation of planning decision making S106. It was recognised that both were challenging projects. Parish Councils had welcomed the initiative but had concerns over resourcing, costs and risks. Assurances had been given that there would be no risk to a Parish Council in terms of the legal process around appeals. The Head of Planning would shortly be writing to all clerks to provide a copy of the delegation agreement and to seek clarity on each Parish Council’s position. It was noted that Eton Town Council had requested to take on S106 delegation, it was hoped that others would follow. The Chairman reminded attendees of the need to identify potential S106 projects for the Supplementary Planning Document. It was suggested that Parish Council requests be listed earlier in the SPD. The Head of Planning agreed to look into whether this was possible.

It was noted that the re-organisation of the planning department to focus on neighbourhood plan areas, was almost complete.

It was confirmed that, initially, officer support would be provided to Parish Councils who wished to take up planning decision making powers. The vast majority of applications were householder applications for which legal advice would not be necessary. If it was thought that legal advice was necessary, the borough would arrange for an officer to be present and would cover the costs. Extra training would also be provided.

Graham Leaver (clerk, Datchet) commented that the Parish Council had initially decided not to take on any extra powers; however with additional staff recently recruited he believed that the position may change.

It was confirmed that housing targets were still being developed for the Borough Local Plan, and these would be included in the report to Cabinet in July 2012.

The Chairman thanked Mr Hurrell for his presentation.

SITING OF A-BOARDS

The Conference welcomed Stephen Brown, Head of Highways to the meeting. Mr Brown explained that the policy reflected the need to encourage small businesses to recover from the recession whilst being mindful of the council’s duty to ensure pavements were safe and uncluttered. Section 115E of the Highways Act 1980 covered the licensing of boards, goods on the highway and tables outside cafes and restaurants. A separate policy had been developed for each area. The policy included a maximum size and acceptable standard for boards. It was confirmed that there was a process in place to deal with premises owners who did not follow the policy, including enforcement. Mr Brown explained that the policy applied only to the highway and therefore did not cover all shop frontages, for example those in arcades or with a private forecourt.

In relation to vehicles parked on the pavement it was explained that the council could take action if vehicles were parked on yellow lines. However if there were no yellow lines, this became a police matter for obstruction. The council had a manifesto commitment to improve verge parking problems and a budget had been allocated. Parish Councils were asked to advise the council of ongoing problems that could be addressed using this budget.

The Chairman thanked Mr Brown 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.

DATE OF NEXT CONFERENCE

It was noted that the next Parish Conference would take place on 18 October 2012.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, ended at 9.00pm.