iv

Present: Councillors Mrs Bateson (Chairman), Kellaway, Mrs Pitteway and Wiles.

Jonathan Cole (CCB), Elaine Cook (CCB), Geoffrey Copas (Farmer), Sarah Copas (farmer), James Copas (farmer), Parish Councillor Coppinger, John Emmett (farmer), William Emmett (Farmer), Phillip Everett (Crown Estate), Carolyn Finlay (Berkshire East PCT), Arlene Kersley (Community Council for Berkshire), Karen McDonald (Windsor Housing), Su Ormerod (CCB), Andrew Randall (farmer), Parish Councillor Mrs Story (Sunninghill & Ascot Parish Council), and Parish Councillor Westacott (Hurley Parish Council) and Paul Yates (Windsor Housing).
Also present: Councillor Hilton

Officers: Peter Herlinger, Peter Hitchen, Harjit Hunjan and Michael Kiely.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Jane Jennings, Rachel Locke and Richard Simmonds.

DECLRATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2009 were approved.

RURAL HOUSING – A PERSPECTIVE FROM A HOUSING ASSOCIATION

The Chairman welcomed Paul Yates and Karen McDonald from Windsor Housing.

During the presentation, the following points were raised:

Ø Windsor Housing was established in 1995 and since then had managed over 4,000 homes in the Royal Borough and neighbouring boroughs.
Ø Affordability remained an acute problem. Average house price in the south east in 2008 was £277k, over twelve times the average regional income of £22,100.
Ø The situation was even worse in the Royal Borough, with the average price being £420k, over fifteen times the average income of £27,500.
Ø Demand for affordable housing was therefore high.
Ø In the last year rural house prices had fallen 13%, compared to an urban drop of 18%. At September 2009 average rural prices were 21% higher than urban prices.
Ø Barriers to the delivery of new homes in rural areas included the shortage of suitable land for affordable dwellings, the speculative nature of development, the green belt, NIMBYism, affordability and accessibility of land, and the presence of flora and fauna.

Ø The recession would mean that development would be slowed, and less affordable housing would become available.
Ø Potential solutions included the organisation of a strategic housing land availability assessment (SHLAA), the identification and development of exception sites, better use of section 106 monies, requirement to provide affordable housing on developments of fewer than fourteen dwellings, the imposition of more occupancy conditions, and more positive development in rural areas.

In the ensuing discussion, the following comments were made:

Ø A member expressed a view that the rural community should be better supported ‘in the round’ with improved bus services etc.
Ø It was confirmed that the numbers on the housing waiting lists had risen as a result of the recession.
Ø Many people on the lists were currently living with their parents.
Ø Exception sites were explained as a small group of houses (maximum approx 12 units) at the edge of a settlement within the Green Belt where there was a definite local need. Normally confined to rural settlements, needs would be identified through local surveys carried out with Parish Council involvement. Any affordable housing built would be maintained in perpetuity for local need, so there would be no right to buy outright.
Ø A member asked what could be done to improve the provision of land for housing. He described alarming headlines in the Spring of 2009 about potential development in White Waltham and explained that the SHLAA had now been deferred until after the general election. He expressed a view that the housing associations needed to convince the Borough to open up land for development.

In addition to the presentation by the Housing Association, the Forum welcomed Arlene Kersley from the Community Council for Berkshire. She acted as the Rural Housing Enabler which identified local housing needs by looking at very local areas in isolation.

During the presentation, the following points were raised:

Ø The provision of mixed housing was important for the maintenance of a balanced community and to sustain community facilities such as schools, shops and pubs.
Ø Housing need in rural areas was not just confined to younger people. There were also older people in need, such as those leaving employment where there was accommodation tied to the job.
Ø It was explained that exception sites did not necessarily yield the benefits that some people imagined. Private landowners would expect to make a profit on their land, reducing the prospect of providing housing which was affordable. It wasn’t just private landowners who were making exception land available. Other providers of land included churches and local authorities.
Ø There was a current shortage of three-bedroomed properties in the Borough, the most popular properties for families.
Ø It was explained that consultations could run over a number of years.
Ø There was a need to make land available for development to keep communities alive. There was the added problem that young people were often leaving education with significant debt and therefore unable to obtain mortgages.

At the conclusion of the discussion the Chairman thanked all the guest speakers for their informative presentations.

COMMUNITY COUNCIL FOR BERKSHIRE PRESENTATION

The Forum welcomed Elaine Cook, Jonathan Cole and Sue Ormerod from the Community Council for Berkshire (CCB).

Elaine Cook explained that a coalition was being formed by the CCB, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Local Government Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association. Matthew Taylor would chair the coalition, entitled “The future is rural too”.

During a brief presentation, the following points were raised:

Ø It was noted that rural communities were under pressure with pub and shop closures being a regular occurrence.
Ø Support services to older people were often provided by volunteers who themselves were also old.
Ø The South East Regional Forum had identified housing and planning as a key priority for their work.

Jonathan Cole highlighted to members the existence of a scheme aimed at protecting people who were vulnerable to crime, in particular distraction burglaries. Safe as Houses was partnership between the local Police, the Borough, and groups such as the Neighbourhood Action Group and Age Concern.

Following a security audit, a range of products were offered to householders. These included DNA security marking, a particularly successful method of marking property in the event of theft/recovery.

As well as being proactive in reaching vulnerable groups, it was also offered reactively to homes who had been victims of crime. Over 1,000 homes would receive assistance in the current financial year.

The DNA marking packs could also be purchased ‘commercially’. Residents could buy the packs at below retail price. Any profits generated from such sales would be invested back into the scheme.

At the conclusion of the discussion the Chairman thanked the guest speakers for their informative presentations.

RURAL WALK

It was agreed that a rural walk should take place in the Spring/Summer of 2010. mr Barton smith, owner of the Shottesbrooke Estate had indicated a willingness to host such an event. It was a traditional farm and park estate. The group could walk or tractors and trailers could be arranged. A presentation may be offered by the farm manager. Whilst the walk would mainly be for Forum members, other Borough Councillors would be free to attend. It was agreed that the clerk to the Panel would liaise with Mr W Emmett and Mr Barton Smith to make the necessary arrangements. 5.30pm on 7^th June 2010 was suggested as the date.




PRESENTATION FROM THE PRIMARY CARE TRUST

The forum received a presentation on health issues in the Borough from Carolyn Finlay, the Assistant Director of RBWM Locality Commissioning at the PCT.

Key issues for the Borough were the increase in older people, long term conditions, mental health problems, a significant rise in dementia, the projected increases in strokes, increases in obesity across the age groups, violent crime as a result of the night time economy, domestic abuse rates and high levels of need in the areas of children and adults with physical and sensory needs and children and adults with a learning disability.

The PCT had agreed a set of priorities as part of its Local Area Agreement. These were drug and alcohol misuse, smoking, crime reduction, children and adolescents with mental health issues, looked after children and obesity.

Future projections for service needs focused on the impacts of the recession and recovery from it. There would be an increase in unemployment and a reduction in house prices. There could be an increase in mental health problems, domestic violence and alcohol addiction. There could be an unequal recovery which could lead to an increase in inequalities.

In a brief discussion the following comments were made:

Ø The countryside had a lot to offer the community as a whole, particularly in the offer of space to relax and exercise.
Ø Access to public transport, and information on public transport was an issue for many rural communities.
Ø In other parts of the country local people acted as health ambassadors.
Ø In West Berkshire exercise opportunities had been taken to rural communities.
Ø Concern was expressed for the loss of ‘green lung’ space within Maidenhead. The importance of the creation and maintenance of public open space was underlined.

At the conclusion of the discussion the Chairman thanked the Assistant Director for her interesting presentation.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

It was suggested that each meeting of the Forum should feature an item entitled the State of Local Agriculture. Representatives from agriculture could then select topics of current relevance to present to the Forum.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING AND ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

The date of the next meeting was proposed to be 5.30pm on 21^st June 2010, preceded by the rural walk on 7^th June. These dates would be subject to the publication of the Borough’s Corporate Diary.

MEETING

The meeting, which opened at 5.30pm, ended at 7.30pm.