3

RBWM Councillors: Mrs Christine Bateson (Chairman) and Richard Kellaway.

RBWM Officers: Harriet Baldwin, Andrew Brooker, Terry Gould, Harjit Hunjan, Gordon Oliver and Karen Williams.

Parish and Town Councils:

Cookham: Councillor Kellaway
Datchet: Councillor Lyons-Davis and Graham Leaver (clerk), Katy Jones (trainee clerk)
Hurley: Councillor Baker (also Secretary of DALC)
Old Windsor: Councillors Dawson and Green
Shottesbrooke: Councillor Warren
Sunningdale: Councillor Gadd and Anne Martin
Sunninghill & Ascot: Councillor Story
Waltham St Lawrence: Councillor Birkett
White Waltham: Councillors Brayne, Brett, Mullen and Kemp (clerk)
Wraysbury: Councillor Davies

Also present: Vaish Dandavate (Chair, Youth Council), Charlotte Lynn (Vice Chair, Youth Council) and Chris Caughey (Youth Service)

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, Aviation Policy Framework – Department for Transport consultation’ 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 Councillor Harrington and Cherry Woodley (clerk) (Hurley) and Councillors Robson-Brown and Cooper (Bisham)

MINUTES

The minutes of the last meeting held on 6 June 2012 were approved

YOUTH CABINET QUSTION AND ANSWER SESSION

The Conference welcomed Vaish Dandavate (Chair) and Charlotte Lynn (Vice Chair) from the Royal Borough’s Youth Council. Ms Lynn explained that the Youth Council met once a month to debate issues and try to find solutions to problems. The Youth Council included young people from all walks of life so a variety of issues were brought forward and a wide variety of voices were represented. Ms Dandavate commented that until she had attended a council meeting, she had had very little contact with the council; she continued to learn about the way it operated. She and Ms Lynn wished to attend the Conference to understand more about the way parish councils worked.

Parish Councillor Gadd commented that it was important that all age groups were involved at the parish level. She explained that parish councils were the grass roots of local government and closest to the people of a local area. Parish Councillors represented the residents of their parish to the borough council.

Ms Dandavate explained that a recent issue considered by the Youth Council had been ‘safer streets,’ in particular a lack of street lighting. In this instance, the Youth Council had been pleased that action had been taken in response to their representations.

Parish Councillor Dawson commented that getting young people involved in developing Neighbourhood Plans had proved to be very difficult. Any input from this age group would be very useful and she asked the Youth Council representatives to pass the message back to their colleagues.

Parish councillor Baker explained that DALC had planned a workshop for young people in February 2013. Ms Lynn commented that workshops and hands-on experience events were attractive to young people. Feedback on discussions, actions and outcomes was also well received.

Conference requested the contact details for the Youth Council be circulated to all parish councils.

Parish Councillor Davies commented that he had joined Wraysbury Parish Council after retiring from full-time employment. He later became chair of the parish council and was now chairman of DALC. He found the role very rewarding as he felt he could contribute to his local community. Parish Councillor Baker added that involvement in parish councils gave an individual a chance to input into decisions made about their local community. Parish Councillor Story provided an example of when she had felt she had achieved something in her role on the parish council. She had helped to restore relations between the church and local community after disagreements about the use and governance of the community hall. Parish Councillor Davies provided a further example of his involvement in the introduction of traffic calming measures in his village following a bid for funding to the Royal Borough. Parish Councillor Kellaway highlighted that parishes also had representatives on other community bodies, for example in relation to health services in the community.

The Chairman thanked Ms Dandavate and Ms Lynn for attending the Conference.




ORGANICS ROLLOUT

The Conference welcomed Terry Gould, Head of Public Protection, to the meeting. Mr Gould provided an update on the Borough’s roll-out of organics waste collection. Waste collection was a key service area as it touched every household in the borough on a weekly basis. People were sensitive about waste and the service they received. Any changes to the service required community support. The Conference noted that the council’s waste strategy was to achieve sustainable waste management solutions by:

• Reducing costs and securing affordability;
• Encouraging recycling;
• Reducing waste and reliance on Landfill.
• Developing/improving existing services;
• Developing new services and solutions;
• Facilitating the public’s acceptability, responsibility, support and increased participation.

The council had implemented a programme to tackle bio-waste to divert as much as possible from landfill and hence improve recycling rates. This would mitigate the escalation of costs related to landfill tax and reduce environmental impacts. The process could also produce valuable end products, including compost and liquid fertilisers, and generate heat and power through anaerobic digestion or as direct fuel. There was also a potential income stream for the council from dealing with commercial waste.

Conference noted that recycling rates in the borough had reached over 50% in recent months; the target for 2013 was to reach 60%. This would only be achievable if behavioural changes were made by residents. To encourage such change, the council needed to ensure the system was convenient and accessible. Incentivisation schemes had also proved to be effective.

Every household in the Borough had been due to receive a leaflet explaining the new collection scheme, prior to the delivery of their new kitchen caddy. Unfortunately there had been problems with the distribution of the leaflets and Mr Gould requested parish councils notify him of any areas where it was known leaflets had not been received.

Conference noted details of the new scheme:

Ø A new weekly service to 46k low rise and up to 15k flatted properties
Ø RBWM were supplying a 23L external caddy and a 7L kitchen caddy
Ø We must optimise participation
Ø Utilising new anaerobic digestion facility secured as part of new long term waste disposal contract
Ø Enhanced choice for residents to purchase compostable caddy liners; composting bins; up-graded containers (e.g. ‘In bin’)
Ø Incentivisation opportunities
Ø A comprehensive communications and PR strategy

It was noted that the total cost of waste collection in the borough was £5m per annum. Organic waste made up 50% RBWM’s household residual waste stream equivalent to a disposal cost to the borough of £500K p.a. in landfill costs. Potential savings were estimated to be circa £260k p.a. The organics collection had been negotiated as part of the overall contract and its implementation had therefore not increased costs for the council. Split vehicles were used to avoid the necessity for extra collections.

Conference was shown photographs of the new waste trucks that were already in use. The messages detailed on the side of the trucks were designed to be distinctive and clear and would be changed every few months. A ‘one-stop gaze’ approach had been adopted. Twenty trucks were currently in use, each named for a parish area.

It was confirmed that residents could request a smaller bin for general waste, given that the volume had reduced as recycling rates had increased. The organic waste caddies were designed so that when the handle was lifted, they locked and could not be opened by animals. It was suggested that newspaper was a suitable liner for the caddies to avoid the need to wash them out each time.

The Chairman thanked Mr Gould for his presentation.

LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT

Conference welcomed Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, to the meeting. Conference noted that the comprehensive spending review in 2010 meant less money was available, including for welfare payments. The national agenda now focussed on localisation and incentivisation rather than targets. The Local Government Finance Bill, assumed to be effective from April 2013, had three relevant streams

– Localisation of business rates
– Localisation of support for Council Tax
– Technical changes to Council Tax

In relation to business rates, it was noted that local authorities would be incentivised to promote local economic growth. Initial proposals had been changed as the scheme had been developed. The Government was now taking 50% of the risk and reward on a national basis. The borough currently collected £76m; it was anticipated it would retain less than £10m. Current calculations suggested the borough would keep 28% of any growth but would have to finance the first £1.5m of any reduction. Valuations would remain with the HMRC Valuation Office and the rate in the pound would be set by the Treasury.

There were currently a range of discounts available on Council Tax:

– Empty property
– Single person
– Second home etc.

New freedoms would allow the level of these discounts to be reviewed locally (with the exception of the Single Person discount). A premium could also be placed on long term empty properties.

In relation to the localisation of support for council tax, it was noted that at present 100% of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit properly paid was reimbursed by the DWP. The new scheme would reimburse 90% (from the DCLG). Pensioners and vulnerable claimants were to be protected. The aim was to encourage claimants back to work. Support would be delivered as a discount to Council Tax rather than a payment.

Conference noted that the potential risks of the new scheme, which were to be shared with preceptors:

• It was felt that a ‘discount’ would be more popular than a ‘benefit’, hence increased take up
• The local authority would bear the risk of increased claimants
• The local authority would be rewarded for increased economic activity leading to lower level of claimants
• The borough would collect relatively small amounts of money from low income groups

The risks could lead to a potential bill in excess of £1m. The Borough approach was currently out to consultation. Proposals to restrict support for all claimants to 10% and increase the excess income taper by 10%, and an assumption that only 70% would be collected by new payers, would not mitigate the £1m gap. Therefore the borough was looking at Technical Changes to contribute to the shortfall, including:

– Removal of the current second home discount
– Removal of the long term empty discount
– Introduction of a 50% discount from day one for empty properties for whatever reason
– Charging a premium of 50% on properties that were empty for over two years

Conference noted that the impact on the tax base would be different from parish to parish. The distribution of empty and second homes would not be even; those with more second homes would benefit as the tax base would increase. Some would have more benefit claimants leading to a reduced tax base with new 10% discount. The DCLG had recognised the impact on preceptors, and were requiring major preceptors to share the risk. Some allowance had been made for increased risk in grant settlements. The Borough received a notional allowance of £76k that could be used to mitigate the impact for parish councils. Whilst no formal decisions had been taken, current thinking was that two tax base calculations would be completed, one using the existing discount scheme and the second reflecting the new discount and benefit schemes. The borough would then identify those parishes that were net losers and make a pro rata distribution of the grant.

It was confirmed that the income level before council tax would be charged was likely to be as low as £100 per week for a couple.

The Chairman thanked Mr Brooker for his presentation.

PARISH PRESENTATION – OLD WINDSOR

Parish Councillors Dawson and Green presented on Old Windsor’s successful funding bids. Parish Councillor Dawson explained that the current parish office, although atmospheric and attractive, was not fit for purpose. A few years previously the parish had made enquiries about utilising a disused toilet block to create a new parish office. Positive feedback had been received. Her first piece of advice was to get any positive feedback and support in writing, as time quickly elapsed. Legal issues had delayed the project for a number of years. What was expected to be a simple project had also been complicated by construction, design and management issues.

Parish Councillor Dawson’s second piece of advice was to get ‘funding smart.’ She had attended a one-day course on grant funding for beginners. The third piece of advice was to ask for help. Old Windsor had received help from Jonathan Adams of Our Community Enterprise. He had helped the parish council to look at the project in a critical light and identify areas of the project that would be attractive to potential funding bodies. The fourth piece of advice was to be flexible and creative. It had become clear that funding bodies were more likely to support a community hub than a parish office. Community and accessibility became the key drivers for funding bids. The fifth piece of advice was to stay positive and get the support of the entire parish council.

An opening day for the Old Windsor Jubilee Hub was planned for 16 December 2013. It was confirmed that the parish had raised £40,500 with funding provided by BAA Large Grants, Awards for All, Radian and the borough. The total cost of the project was expected to be £130,000. The gap would be made up by a loan from the Public Works Loan Board. In hindsight, the parish would have been bolder in its funding bids. It was noted that the level of detail required for approval from the Public Loan Works Board had increased in recent years.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillors Dawson and Green for their informative presentation.

BROADBAND

The Conference received an update on broadband access in rural areas from Harjit Hunjan, Community and Business Partnerships Manager.

Conference noted that there were pockets of poor broadband provision (less than 2MB/second or no service at all) in all six Berkshire unitary authorities. In the Royal Borough there were 6847 residential properties and 378 business premises with poor service, predominantly within Parish/Rural areas.

David Allen (Aldermaston Parish Councillor) had been appointed as Project Manager to oversee the next phase of the project (Procurement). Berkshire's Local Broadband Plan was formally approved by Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) on 22 May 2012. Preparations were underway to source a broadband solution from the marketplace using BDUK's Procurement Framework, with a signed contract in place by 31 January 2013.

Work would start after contract signature and would continue until May 2015 to reach a target of 90% of premises served by superfast Broadband (24Mb/s or faster) and the remaining 10% receiving broadband speeds of at least 2Mb/s. Funding would total £6m. The private sector would supply 50% of the upgrade costs, 25% would be funded by central government, with the remaining 25% by the six Berkshire councils. The Royal Borough and West Berkshire would provide the majority of local authority funding, based on need.

Conference noted that the project was expected to benefit over 37,000 premises across Berkshire. The successful supplier would be contracted to supply the service from February 2013, and would identify hot spots to prioritise work. These ‘keen’ areas would get 24Mb/s broadband early in the process. No interest areas may well not be upgraded at all. To register local interest and to show the eventual supplier the demand for better broadband, residents were being encouraged to visit the website and register: www.superfastberkshire.org.uk/register

West Berkshire had already registered over 2000 people, whereas the Royal Borough had so far only registered 80. Parish Councils were asked to promote the issue to their residents and encourage them to sign up. The Project Manager was available to attend parish meetings and events to highlight the issue.

The Chairman thanked Mr Hunjan for the update.

LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN

The Conference welcomed Gordon Oliver, Principal Transport Planning Officer, to the meeting. Conference noted that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) was a long-term strategy providing high level borough-wide policies covering all local transport networks. The document, which had strong links to the Borough Local Plan and reflected the Council’s core values, had five key themes:

– Access to Everyday Services and Facilities
– Safety and Security
– Sustainable Economic Growth
– Quality of Life
– Climate Change

The key challenges for the borough over the period of the plan were noted to be:

• Accessibility: Ageing population, availability, affordability, physical accessibility, transport interchange
• Safety and security: Maintaining casualty / crime reduction, improving personal safety
• Economic growth: Congestion, new development, tourism, Crossrail, Western access to Heathrow
• Quality of life: Air quality (three areas of the borough), noise, health, natural / built environment
• Climate Change: Mitigation and adaptation

The key measures for the borough over the period of the plan were noted to be:

• Economic growth: ‘Smarter choices’, highway network / parking management, rail integration, minimising impact of new development, improved links to Heathrow, visitor management
• Accessibility: Travel information, walking and cycling, public transport, taxis, interchange, public rights of way, physical accessibility
• Safety and security: Education (particularly road safety) enforcement (the Borough was working with Thames Valley Police on bike crime) engineering
• Quality of life: Traffic management, ‘smarter choices’, noise mitigation,
lighting design, active travel, SANG, de-cluttering
• Climate change: Electric vehicles, low-emission buses, street lighting,
drainage, construction and maintenance standards

It was noted that the Borough was in discussion with Crossrail about the creation of a transport interchange at Maidenhead station. The Berkshire Strategic Transport Forum was involved in the campaign for a western rail link to Heathrow. There were two public charging points for electric vehicles in Hines Meadow car park. Inductive plate technology charging was on its way and it would be important for the borough to keep up with such changes in technology.

There were a number of supporting documents to the LTP, which provided detail on complex subjects (air quality, highways maintenance, noise, parking and public rights of way). All could be updated separately to the main LTP. Additional strategies could be added at any time. Implementation plans included capital programmes for the current and future year. Future programmes would be informed by technical assessments and Neighbourhood Plans.

It was noted that funding mechanisms included:

• LTP grant
• Developer contributions
• Council funds
• Local Sustainable Transport Fund
• Major transport schemes funding
• Growing Places Fund
• Other third party funding

Parish Councillor Davies commented that the recent resident survey showed public satisfaction with public transport in the borough at 37%. Mr Oliver confirmed that public transport in rural areas was an area for development. A fundamental service review was being undertaken by his colleagues in the highways department. An independent consultant had been brought in to review the service, suggest best practice and new ideas. A series of workshops were planned to discuss a number of areas from the resident survey, including road maintenance, congestion and public transport. Officers were working with schools to develop the smarter choices agenda and encourage more children to cycle or walk to school.

Councillor Davies commented that he had been disappointed that parish councils had only received six weeks to respond to the consultation on the LTP, given the size of the document. Mr Oliver explained that it had originally been intended that the consultation would be included in Around the Royal Borough however the timescales had not matched. A good response had been received to the consultation at the Issues and Options stage.

The Chairman thanked Mr Oliver for his presentation.

The clerk was asked to circulate copies of all the presentations made to the Conference that evening.

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 25 February 2013.

MEETING

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