4

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

RBWM Officers: Harriet Baldwin, Suki Coe, Andrew Green, Harjit Hunjan, Mike McGaughrin, Paul McGrath, Craig Miller, Chris Nash and Karen Williams.

Parish and Town Councils:

Bray: Councillor Graham
Bisham: Councillors Cooper and Robson Brown
Cookham: Councillors Fry and Kellaway
Datchet: Councillor O’Flynn and Graham Leaver (clerk)
Hurley: Councillor Baker (also Secretary of DALC)
Old Windsor: Councillor Dawson
Sunningdale: Councillor Gadd and Anne Martin
Waltham St Lawrence: Councillor Birkett
White Waltham: Councillor McDonald and Doug Stuart (clerk)
Wraysbury: Councillors Davies and Hughes

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 three issues (Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy / Public Health Changes, Flood Prevention Measures and Food Recycling Scheme) would be dealt with by way of information leaflets rather than as discussion items for the agenda.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None received

MINUTES

The minutes of the last meeting held on 18 October 2012 were approved

BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN AND NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANS

The Conference received an update on the borough Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans from Paul McGrath, the Borough’s Planning Policy Manager. Conference noted that planning was the process of managing the development of land and buildings. Its purpose was to contribute to sustainable development. A range of policy documents supported the process:

· National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
· Borough Local Plan
· Neighbourhood Plans
· Supplementary Planning Documents

Conference noted that sustainable development meant meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For the planning system this had three dimensions:

· Planning for prosperity (economic)
· Planning for people (social)
· Planning for places (environmental)

The 1999 Local Plan still legally existed but the weight attached to its policies depended on their consistency with the NPPF. An up-to-date Borough Local Plan would provide:

· Certainty and confidence for local communities and developers.
· A strategic context for Neighbourhood Plans.
· More local decision-making and hence less appeals

An updated Plan would also provide strategic policies for the Royal Borough, based on research and evidence. The Plan would be assessed by the Planning Inspector against four tests of soundness:

· Positively prepared
· Effective
· Justified
· Consistent with national policy

Conference noted the proposed timetable for the progress of the Borough Local Plan:

Drafting Plan (based on robust and credible evidence)	Summer 2013
Consultation	Summer 2013
Final Draft Plan – effectively this is the plan RBWM want to adopt	Winter 2013
Consultation - at least six weeks	New Year 2014
Examination begins (including Hearings)	Spring 2014
Inspector’s Report	Autumn 2014
Adoption	Winter 2014

It was explained that a number of pieces of work had been commissioned, including in relation to flood risk, transport modelling and housing, which would be finalised by the summer of 2013 and feed into the draft plan for consultation.

Conference noted that there were nine Neighbourhood Plans underway in the borough. All areas were covered other than Cookham which had, at this stage, decided to undertake a Village Design Statement. Neighbourhood Plans would be drafted based on the views of the local community. Two stages of consultation would be followed by examination and a referendum before a Neighbourhood Plan came into force.

The Examiner would look at whether the Neighbourhood Plan contributed towards the achievement of sustainable development and also was:

· Appropriate with regard to national policy.
· In general conformity with the strategic policies.
· Compatible with human rights requirements.
· Compatible with EU obligations

Conference was advised that Neighbourhood Plans could add value and detail to Local Plan. However, they could not promote less development than the Local Plan. Neighbourhood Plan policies would have precedence over non-strategic policies in the Local Plan. The aim was to get all nine Neighbourhood Plans drafted by summer 2014.

The Royal Borough’s role, as a vanguard authority was to:

· Support local groups who wished to shape development and planning decisions in their area.
· Work closely with parish and town councils to help prepare Plans.
· Take a formal role in designating areas, publicising submitted Plans, examination and referendum.
· Provide a Link Officer from the Policy Team, supported by Development Management colleagues.
· Provide professional and technical support.
· Share evidence and information.
· Learn from experiences and sharing best practice.

Councillor Mrs Bateson, as the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Neighbourhood Planning would meet with each Steering Group. Meetings had already been held with Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale, Old Windsor, Hurley and the Walthams and a meeting with Bray was scheduled for 26 February 2013.

It was confirmed that a draft of the Borough Local Plan would be available by the summer. An outline of the policy areas to be covered had been circulated to Neighbourhood Plan groups already. This would enable Neighbourhood Plans to be drafted in tandem. However, it was noted that a Neighbourhood Plan could be submitted for examination prior to the adoption of the borough Local Plan. In this case, it was suggested that the Neighbourhood Plan would need to be in line with emerging policies to ensure as long shelf-life.

It was anticipated that less appeals would occur as a developer was less likely to go to appeal if they knew a decision had been taken based on an up to date Plan and in light of the NPPF.

DEVOLUTION TO PARISHES

Suki Coe, Development Control (DC) Manager provided information on the devolution of S106 and planning decision making to Parishes.

In relation to S106 funding, the proposal would allow parishes to manage the spending of funds for the following local projects:

· Informal open space
· Community facilities
· Public art
· Biodiversity/allotments

Each Parish taking up the offer would have to agree a memorandum of understanding to ensure transparency. An annual reporting of moneys spent would need to be issued to show funding had been spent in accordance with the legal agreement on infrastructure spending to mitigate the impact of the development. Parishes would still be required to specify projects on an annual basis to be included in the collection of Section 106 through the planning application process. The proposal was being trialled by Eton Town Council and its success would be monitored.

In relation to the devolution of planning decisions, the Parish Council would be able to make planning decisions for minor developments including all householder applications. The Royal Borough would become a consultee with the Parish Council planning committee makes the decision. RBWM Planning Officers would continue to process and recommend applications and present them to fortnightly parish meetings. The Parish council would be responsible for running the meetings and managing public speaking. It was noted that Borough Councillors would still have powers to call in applications for Borough decision.

Potential issues included:

· The impact on performance to decide applications within the eight week government target
· Costs to both Parish and Borough councils
· Monitoring and managing the risk
· Training for Parish Councillors
· Probity issues

In relation to risk it was confirmed that the borough would take the potential cost risk rather than the Parish. However if the Planning Officer in attendance felt there was a significant cost risk, the decision could be referred back to the borough. Datchet Parish were likely to be the first to pilot the scheme.

Conference raised concerns in relation to the availability of Parish Councillors to attend fortnightly meetings, and also their proximity to residents. It was acknowledged that, particularly for small parishes, the proposal would be difficult to implement. It was highlighted that the proposal was not compulsory for any parish.

Parish Councillor Graham (Bray) reported that Bray was due to sign a memorandum of understanding for the devolution of planning decisions, although he commented that fortnightly meetings may prove an issue.

Parish Councillor Fry (Cookham) commented that Cookham was positive about the devolution of S106 decision making, however it was felt the administration of planning decision making would overwhelm the parish office. The DC Manager commented that the pilot scheme with Datchet would help streamline the process.

Doug Stuart (Clerk, White Waltham) commented that training had been requested at previous Parish Conference meetings when the issue had been discussed. The DC manager agreed to look into this and contact Parish Councils accordingly. Doug Stuart also raised the concern that Parishes had not yet received S106 lists from projects submitted in September 2012. The DC Manager agreed to ensure lists were sent to Parish Councils.

Anne Martin (clerk, Sunningdale) suggested that there was reluctance on the part of Parish Councils to take on the extra work however she suggested that in situations where the Borough was minded to go against the Parish Council’s recommendation, further discussions for a compromise could be undertaken. The DC Manager confirmed that the borough needed to explain its views in such cases and she would expect the link Planning Officers to build relationships with the Parishes to facilitate such discussions. In relation to fees, it was confirmed that the fee paid for submission of a planning application did not cover the costs of administration by the Borough. However, she would explore the idea of sharing the fee with Parish Councils who undertook devolution of decision making. She also confirmed that the move from S106 to Community Infrastructure Levy would still allow for a community decision element.

PROCEDURE FOR NOTIFICATION OF ‘SPHERES OF MUTUAL INTEREST’ REGARDING PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The DC Manager stated that she was aware of the concerns of some Parish Councils that they were not notified of planning applications in bordering parishes. It was noted that in this instance, the Borough was only a consultee and therefore had no power or duty to consult parishes. However, it was noted that comments made directly to the deciding authority have most impact. It was therefore suggested that Parish council should sign up to notification of applications with adjoining councils. Although this could be done independently via the local authority’s website, the borough was happy to broker an arrangement if requested. The DC Manager agreed to send out a form for Parish Councils to complete indicating the adjoining parishes.
WIDENOISE PROJECT

Conference received a presentation on the WideNoise Project from Chris Nash, Environmental Protection Team Leader.

Conference noted the Royal Borough’s position on aviation noise:

· Opposition to night flights
· Abolition of the Cranford Agreement
· Strong opposition to proposals for a third runway at Heathrow
· Advocating need for effective noise mitigation packages for residents
· Responding to consultations from both the Department for Transport and Heathrow Airport Ltd.
· Engaging with residents and members of other Local Authorities to determine the most effective ways to engage on aviation matters and represent their views to aviation stakeholders

It was noted that WideNoise was the UK arm of an EU project to map aircraft noise. Individuals could download a free app to their smartphone which would capture any noise nuisance and plot it on a geographical location. The resident could also tag the noise to explain the disruption caused.

Conference noted the following benefits for the Borough:

· Legitimisation of a resident’s complaint.
· Facilitates a visual verification of not only the levels of noise but more importantly the experience of those residents affected by aviation noise.
· Significantly widens the borough’s monitoring capacity.
· Use of the results to better inform local decision making.
· Application is run and administered by University College London, funded by money from the European Union, making the project extremely cost effective.

WideNoise had been trialled in Hounslow and had received national media coverage. The borough was reviewing promotional opportunities for the scheme, including advertising on waste collection vans. The borough was now recruiting Community ‘Widenoise Champions’. The scheme was due to be launched, with training and Smartphone distribution was expected to take place in April 2013. Monthly updates would be available using the borough’s online GIS capability. Experience Mapping was capable of displaying not only noise data, but the experiences as reported by residents using their smartphones. The borough was also considering incentivisation of residents who want to get involved through collaboration with reward partners. There was a potential for the scheme to extend to the provision of static noise monitors by UCL to target specifically the effect of night flights to residents.

It was noted that the quality of smartphone recording would not be as good as type 1 noise detectors, however UCL would apply corrective measures. The noise level was only one element of the project, which would also allow residents to register their experiences.

Some attendees expressed concern that the borough had a negative position towards Heathrow, which provided jobs and transport facilities to many residents and that the scheme would only attract those critical of the airport. The Environmental Protection Team Leader stated that it had never been the borough’s position to challenge the existence of Heathrow. The WideNoise scheme simply provided residents with an opportunity to have their voice heard. The Managing Director commented that the borough was fully supportive of the improvements to Western Access to Heathrow. The scheme would provide evidence to aid future discussions of noise problems.

Councillor Beer stated that he was Chairman of the Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) which represented 20 councils including the Royal Borough. The purpose of LAANC was not to close or reduce the business effectiveness of Heathrow, but to protect the interests of residents. Heathrow was a very well-funded organisation with huge resources for publicity. Very little data was available on noise disturbance and therefore the scheme would provide useful evidence. He commented that although the noise of an individual aircraft had reduced over the years, the volume of movements had increased.

DEVOLUTION OF SERVICES MENU

The conference received the latest version of the Devolution of Services menu. Feedback was requested on progress within each Parish. The Community and Business Partnerships Manager commented that concerns over capacity and staffing were recognised and officers would be happy to discuss the scoping out any proposals.

Parish Councillor Graham (Bray) suggested decision making in relation to Temporary Event Notices could be considered.

Doug Stuart (clerk, White Waltham) commented that parishes used to report issues via lilac cards, which seemed to no longer be available. The Community and Business Partnerships Manager agreed to look into this issue.

COMMUNITY RIGHT TO BID

The Conference noted that the Community Right to Bid (CRTB), which had come into force under the Localism Act, provided opportunities for local communities to identify buildings and assets that had a social impact on the local area. Assets could then be listed and, in the event of being sold, local organisations would have the opportunity to submit a bid to purchase the asset. Local communities were being encouraged to list assets as early as possible. A simple form was available on the borough website. It was noted that the owner would have the right to appeal through the planning process.

Parish Councillor Davies (Wraysbury) provided Conference with his parish’s experience of the CRTB process. Over the years the owners of a number of gravel lakes in the parish had erected fences to obstruct access. The Parish Council had indicted their interest in the lakes to the owner, but had not been notified when they had been put up for sale. With help from the borough, the Parish Council had then initiated the process to list the lakes for recreational use by residents. To establish a precedent of recreational use the Parish council had undertaken a survey and received 200 responses over a weekend. Once the lakes were listed as assets with community value, the Parish decided to submit a bid to purchase the lakes. The Parish Council consulted with Colne Valley community Interest Company to manage the lakes on their behalf. The Parish Council decided to request funding form the Public Works Loans Board which provided relatively low rates of interest. Unfortunately as the lakes were generating a modest income, they could be classed as a going concern and therefore fell outside on the CRTB process. The Parish Council was however optimistic for the future as the positive meetings had been held with the new owner.

Parish Councillor Davies highlighted that the key was for local communities to identify assets at the earliest possible time and to back up the submission with evidence. The Chairman commented that such assets could also be listed in the area’s Neighbourhood Plan.

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING

Conference noted that the Participatory Budgeting scheme allowed local organisations to submit projects for funding of up to £2000. Projects were then voted on by local people and those receiving most votes on a monthly basis received funding. A number of Parish Councils had already been successful, including Hurley and Old Windsor. It was suggested that Participatory Budgeting could be a model for decision making at the parish level.

It was requested that a full presentation be made to next meeting, scheduled for 17 June 2013.

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 17 June 2013. It was noted that the dates of all meetings in the 2013-14 municipal year had been circulated by email earlier that day.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, ended at 8.50pm.