Meeting documents

Sustainable Communities Act Panel
Monday 6 July 2009

Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Sustainable Communities Act Panel

Meeting Date:
07/06/2009 Pick

Meeting Time:


Location:


Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):




Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I


Document Type: Agenda


Document Status: Final



N O T I C E

O F
M E E T I N G


SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CROSS PARTY MEMBER PANEL
will meet on
MONDAY 6 JULY 2009

at
5.00PM
in the

ASCOT/BRAY ROOM
TOWN HALL, MAIDENHEAD

TO: MEMBERS OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CROSS PARTY MEMBER PANEL (For action)

      COUNCILLOR BURBAGE (CHAIRMAN)
      COUNCILLOR MRS BATESON (VICE-CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLORS HOLNESS, MRS QUICK AND D WILSON.

Ian Hunt, Democratic Services Manager
Issued: 3 July 2009


Members of the Press and Public are welcome to attend this meeting.


In the event of the fire alarm sounding or other emergency, please leave the building quickly and calmly by the nearest exit. Do not stop to collect personal belongings and do not use the lifts. Congregate in the Town Hall Car Park, Park Street, Maidenhead (immediately adjacent to the Town Hall) and do not re-enter the building until told to do so by a member of staff.

The agenda is available on the Council’s website or by contacting the Panel Administrator
Liz Hornby – (01628) 796310
AGENDA

PART I

ITEMSUBJECT
WARD
PAGE
NO
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence
-
-
2DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive any declarations of interest.
-
-
3MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel on 17 June 2009.
-
i-ii
4PROPOSAL UPDATES
    Royal Borough Fire Provision
      Draft Proposal to be presented by Atlantic Solutions. (Document to be forwarded by Friday 3 July 2009)

      BMG Research Report
    Chamber of Commerce – Business Support
      Draft Proposal to be presented by Michael Beavan and Harjit Hunjan of RBWM.
Various


Various



Various
To Follow


1-10



11-20
5DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS

Cross Party Panel: Monday 20 July 2009 at 8.30am
Monday 27 July 2009 at 8.00am

Panel of Representatives: Wednesday 15 July 2009 at 6.00pm








Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead - Version 2

Business Case - Proposal to take responsibility for the Local Fire and Rescue Service under the Sustainable Communities Act Stage 2 – Local Development of proposals and submission to LGA
    o Background to The Business Case
    o The Local Perspective
    o Fire Authority National Trend
    o Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service Overview
    o Consultation
    o RBWM F&RS Solution
    o Implementation Considerations
    o Risks
    o Funding
    o Financial Impact Summary
    o Conclusions


Background to the Business Case

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead wishes to apply under the Sustainable Communities Act Stage 2 – Local Development of proposals and submission to LGA for the Secretary of State to approve the transfer of the financial and operational responsibility for the local fire and rescue services into the control of RBWM from the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Services (RBFRS) so that the local community has direct influence over the priorities affecting front line fire service delivery.

This community recognizes that there are a small number of vital services that are essential to the sustainability of the social and economic well being of our unique Royal Borough, which has a strong economy dependent in large part upon the historical and cultural tourism that the Royal Borough attracts. Tourism generates £444m with over 7.3m visitors each year.

A vital service has been identified in the local Fire and Rescue Service. Protecting and sustaining the environment and attractions within the Royal Borough is clearly of significant importance to our community and a recent survey provided an extremely strong view that local people, wish to have local control through their local representatives to ensure the service is focused on meeting local needs. 65% of respondents said they would like the Local Authority to manage the Fire and Rescue Service.

This is in keeping with the aims of devolving power to local communities, allowing priorities over economic well-being to be determined locally and supporting greater transparency over the use of local taxation.
It is understood that action may be required by the Secretary of State to facilitate this by a change to (or changed interpretation of) The Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004 (Ch21). The Act states conditions under which the Secretary of State has the Power to create combined fire and rescue authorities however it is not clear whether a divested fire and rescue authority can be created under these Powers.

The transfer would involve the budgets for 1 Whole time Fire Stations (Windsor), 1 Whole time and Retained Fire Station (Maidenhead) and 2 Retained Fire Stations (Cookham and Ascot), together with the appropriate proportion of budgets from the infrastructure and corporately managed services of RBFRS.

The transfer of responsibility will need to ensure continuity of Fire and Rescue Services and meet three criteria that the solutions are Practical, Sustainable and Affordable. It will therefore be necessary to ensure that appropriate agreements for mutual aid at incidents and, at least in the near term, access is maintained to the support structures applied by RBFRS to ensure continuity of Fire and Rescue Operations.


The Local Perspective
    1. A proposed reduction of overnight fire and rescue has attracted the attention of our local community as it involves a substantial reduction in services provided by RBFRS. There is strong local opposition - initially a petition and the local community has continued to be increasingly concerned. This is evidenced in a survey undertaken in June 2009 by BMG where an overwhelming 65% responded that they would prefer the Local Authority to manage the Fire and Rescue service. When specifically asked in the context of the fire station staying open through night, this rose to 73%. An indication of the strength of feelings is that when presented with a range of options, 66% of respondents preferred the service to be managed by the Local Authority while only 12% chose RBFRS.

    2. There is a wider context of a perception that the priorities and decision making of regional public service providers such as the Thames Valley Police, the PCT and the RBFRS are increasingly distant with weak democratic accountability to the residents of the RBWM. These Regional structures are not co terminus with the Royal Borough and there are issues with applying local influence on the public bodies beyond the control of the Local Authority.

    3. The reduction of services is of considerable concern and a matter of local confidence. There is a significant perception of a lack of understanding of the risks to RBWM’s reputation both historic and to the local economy should a major incident happen here.

        There are over 7.3m tourists a year to the area, with around 750,000 staying overnight. Windsor Castle is one of the UKs major attractions with 1.2m visitors, as is Legoland with more than 1.3m visitors. Over 900,000 visitors arrive by coach each year.
        Regional Authorities are not always conscious of factors known to the local population that have a bearing upon the services they need to provide. For example although Windsor has a smaller population than Maidenhead, it has almost 40% more retail floor space and more people working there due to the many visitors. Another example is that RBWM has 7,000 registered businesses twice that of Reading, ranging from many small businesses to international computing companies.

        In RBWM, there are 941 listed buildings, 17 scheduled ancient monuments and 9 historic parks and gardens.

        The estimated value of tourism in RBWM is £444m each year, and tourism employs over 11,000 people.

        The 1992 fire at Windsor Castle is cited and detailed as one of 3 major incidents on the RBFRS websites where severe damage occurred to some of the most historic parts of the building, the largest inhabited castle in the world. It is public record that staff and the local fire station were commended for their prompt response which led to many irreplaceable items of heritage being saved during an incident that escalated to involve appliances from London, Surrey and Berkshire.
    4. The proposal to reduce front line fire services is estimated to save RBFRS £500,000. This is close to an annual 19% reduction in spending on front line fire services in the RBWM. However in the 2008/09 Accounts RBFRS declare an under spend on corporate revenue budgets by £1.1m.The decision making and balance of priority between public facing front line services and corporate back office are currently not subject to the level of democratic scrutiny that the local population would feel to be appropriate.

    5. RBFRS suggest that they can respond to events from stations outside of the Royal Borough such as Slough. Unfortunately, this does not give the local population confidence as there are no guaranteed response times and local residents are most` aware of the risks of grid lock when relying upon the M4, M25, A404(M) and A308(M) as clear routes. In addition, the local FR&S response to incidents on these major roads require two appliances to be dispatched as the motorists are unaware of which carriageway they are on relative to the point of access for the fire appliances (North v South; East v West).

    6. The location of RBWM provides potential threats associated with flooding along the River Thames, there are nearly 12,000 properties that are deemed to be at high risk. Air traffic and terrorism incidents are among the added concerns due to the proximity of Heathrow and the Irish Guards garrisoned locally.
    7. A successful outcome of the Sustainable Communities Act proposal would achieve increased local democratic accountability and greater involvement in setting priorities for a directly delivered local fire and rescue service. The local community would have the confidence that what they perceive to be significant risks to the economic, cultural and historic well being of the Royal Borough were within their determination.

Fire Authorities National Trend is toward economies of scale
1. The trend in structure, governance and delivery of efficiencies in Fire & Rescue Services is toward consolidation.
        a. There are currently conversations about the potential choices over which 2 or 3 County Authorities may be brought together in a new structure involving RBFRS.
        b. The South East is consolidating the Controls into Hampshire from 2010.
        c. National specifications and economies of scale are being sought through purchasing using Firebuy Ltd with Chief Fire Officers and their teams for each Fire Authority collaborating on many levels.
2. The market for Fire Services and the opportunity to commission services is relatively limited at present.
        a. There appear to be no examples of local Fire Stations within a Fire Authority being managed by another Fire Authority or by third parties.
        b. There are examples of Fire Authorities purchasing support from other Fire Authorities in respect for example, of vehicle servicing and Fire training.
        c. It is probable that once formally established, the RBWM FRS would be able to purchase a range of support services from established Fire Authorities based upon current Fire Authority practice. This may extend to systems, pay roll and many important background support services.
        d. The potential to commission the whole service appears to be unlikely in the short term.
        e. Over time, RBWM has the opportunity through its close proximity with other Fire Authorities to elicit interest in a full commissioning model as there may be an economic benefit, at a time of efficiency challenges, to being able to further spread their corporate overheads.

Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service Overview

1. RBFRS has 19 Fire Stations, 7 whole time (4 in Reading, Slough, Langley and Windsor), 4 whole time /retained (inc Maidenhead ), 8 retained

2. Physical Assets


BuildingsVehiclesOwnedLeased
Fire Stations 19Water tenders3011
HQ1Specialist Fire Support Vehicles163
Training Centre 1Vans & Mini Buses52
Investment Properties 3Other Vehicles14
Boat1


      Depreciation Policy
      Property and equipment over useful economic lives using straight line method
      Vehicles - cars 5yrs; vans 7 yrs; fire engines 10 yrs

3. Financial Overview of Gross Expenditure 08/09

A Gross budget spend on Services of £34.2m

Major Components are
      Community Fire Safety
              o Prevention & Education £5.22m
              o Statutory Inspection £1.75m
      Firefighting & Rescue Operations
              o Communications & Mobilising £2m
              o Operational response £23.98m
              o Securing Water Supplies £0.21m
      Corporate & Democratic Core
              o Corporate Management £0.21m
              o Democratic representation & management £0.58m
      Capital budget £3m spend £1.6m in 08/09
      Grants
          Community Fire Safety £0.12m
          Regional Control £0.12m
          New Dimensions £0.036m
          Pension Top up Grant £1.997m
          S106 Contributions £0.005 capital
          Total £2.274m £0.005 capital
The local fire stations are the points of service delivery but they do not operate in isolation. RBFRS has a substantial and complex background infrastructure including
    a. Management structures (Chief Fire Officer, Assistant CFO)
    b. Response, Prevention & Protection Managers
    c. Many Officers with a wide range of specialisms related to Fire Service support and delivery
    d. Admin Support
    e. Control room centre;
    f. Head Quarters
    g. Training & development centre;
    h. Fleet and specialist equipment management and maintenance regimes;
    i. Human resources, HR systems and recruitment schemes;
    j. Procurement, contracts and facilities management
    k. Communications
    l. Community Fire Safety
    m. Finance
    n. Document Management
    o. Information technology systems (Crisis Command, GIS, Ordnance Survey, Integrated Building Information System
    p. Multi media graphics and design
    q. Operational Support
    r. Performance Review
    s. Bidding and deploying grant funding for national initiatives.

      This is illustrated in the following diagrams

      Diagram 1: RBFRS organisational structure & activity within each Directorate


Diagram2 RBFRS Structure for Service Delivery to the Public.
      The transfer of responsibility from RBFRS to RBWM would suggest a smaller Berkshire brigade structure being required to serve the remaining Authority Areas.
        Consultation
        Formal consultation is a condition of the Submission under the Sustainable Communities Act and will need to be described in the submission. RBFRS have been advised of the proposal and engaged in establishing the financial implications of the transfer. It is advised that the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) should also be consulted.
        RBWM F&RS Solution
        Advice has been sought from a highly experienced Chief Fire Officer as to the viability of a RBWM F&RS service. This has provided confidence that the solution is viable. There are examples of small fire authorities that operate currently, albeit because of the UK approach to scale in Fire Services, those that remain today are islands such as Jersey and Guernsey; the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight; and numerous one station Airport Fire Brigades, and several one station Industrial Fire Brigades.
        The RBWM F&RS would be a smaller scale version of a Fire Authority. A potential structure would have 3 Principle Officers (Chief, Assistant Chief and Head of Operations) with one always available on an emergency rota. There would need to be admin support and the functions required to manage a stand alone Fire Service. Many support functions could be “in” or “out” sourced such as maintenance of fire appliances, payroll, finance, training, systems support, recruitment depending upon the financial benefits and available supplier options. “In” sourcing would include both directly managing functions and utilizing the infrastructures and resources available within the Local Authority.

        There is only one area where it is considered that the operational solution is already determined. This is in the Fire Service Control Room where the Berkshire wide Control Room will consolidate with others across the South East from 2010. The infrastructure costs and procedures in a control room that map out every potential scenario so that escalation at major incidents occurs rapidly and smoothly are best assumed as a given and a bought in solution by RBWM F&RS.

        The accountability chain within the RBWM F&RS would be considerably shorter than at present and the ability to drive local initiatives significantly enhanced. For example a crucial challenge for all Fire Services is the turnover and recruitment of retained fire staff. The focus and networking these Officers will provide with locally employed people should ensure a more sustainable level of retained fire officers.
        A small, compact professional brigade has the advantage of developing and delivering locally with a customized approach and a speed that the larger organizations find increasingly difficult. It is anticipated that further opportunities will arise through:
        a. Improved Community Fire Safety Projects
        b. The creation of a Citizens Fire Panel
      c. Regular Local Fire Safety Campaigns (including Press Releases, Open days, Practical fire safety demonstrations etc
      d. Economical Fire safety Training for Commerce & Industry in the area
      e. Setting up a Sprinkler Campaign Group to offer advice and assistance to
      construction companies and housing groups
      f. Greater emphasis on improving "turn-out" times of the RBWM Fire & Rescue
      Service appliances.
      Many of these initiatives may attract sponsorship from Fire Industry Companies.
        The local focus will also offer opportunities to explore new ways of supporting the local community that for example recognize our growing trends of ageing and living alone such as working with the Health Service on “first response” where the fire officers are trained on CPR and respond when they are geographically closer to the incident than paramedics.

        3 Options were considered
            o Direct Managed Fire Service
            o Potential to Commission the Whole Fire service
            o Do Nothing
          At present the option to Directly Manage the Fire Service offered the only solution that addresses the main issues of the Royal Borough. However, a successful determination by the Secretary of State would change the negotiating position of all Parties and the opportunity to re commission the service on a basis that met the direct service accountability required by RBWM may then become a viable option.

      Implementation Considerations

      1. At all times an Operational F&RS must be maintained before, during and after the transfer of responsibilities. It would be a substantial risk to “lift and shift” the stations to RBWM without addressing the reliance upon, continued access to and feasibility of replacement strategies for critical aspects of the support infrastructure. Among the items of vital importance are vehicle and breathing apparatus servicing and replacements, communications systems, payroll systems and induction training.
        A “Transition Period” will be required to manage the Transfer, evaluate options for fulfilling the RBWM F&RS business solution and ensure Service Level Agreements and Bought In support services are fully in place. This will incur a non recurring cost provisionally estimated at £500,000. Whether this will be a mix of revenue and capital will need to be established. However spend on a range of items may quickly accumulate as the RBFRS infrastructure is withdrawn during the transition and the RBWM F&RS service is established: for example office space for Senior officers and Support staff, computers and the potential need to buy software, systems and communications in different configurations. To ensure continuity of insurances, build stores holdings, provide training to cover a wider range of responsibilities, engage staff and the local community and rebrand the service. One Fire Authority was close to being declared illegal because they failed to properly clear their proposed "Armorial Bearings" (Coat of Arms etc). On this basis, RBWMF&RS will need to change the badges, buttons, and fire engine and equipment branding.

      2. Prior to affecting the transfer of responsibilities it will be necessary to undertake a process of formal due diligence of budgets, expenditure, manpower, assets and other liabilities including TUPE, Pension liabilities, personal insurance, litigation, vehicle replacement cycle etc. Ensuring appropriate provisions for pensions, injury insurance and litigation have been independently advised as of significant importance. The due diligence will incur a non recurring cost provisionally estimated at £100,000.

      3. During the Transition, Agreements will need to be established that provide for
              i. Mutual F&RS support such as attendance at major incidents and dispatch of specialist equipment
              ii. Access to infrastructure where it is sensible that RBWM avoid duplicating potentially specialist arrangements, at least in the near term.

      Risks

      The primary areas that require mitigation are those that would directly put the continuity of providing the Fire and Rescue Service at risk. These include

      1. Under funding from the initial transfer of responsibility. This will be mitigated by due diligence.
                i. The budgeted direct costs of the 4 RBWM Fire stations (not including vehicles and equipment) in 2009/10 are
                Station Costs
                £'000
                Employee Costs
                2,700
                Travel (detachments)
                10
                Premises Running Costs
                126
                Consumables
                32
                Station Costs
                2,868









            These are direct costs and do not take into account spend related to the Control Centre, Support Services, Provisions, Reserves or a wide range of corporate items.
                ii. The RBWM share of RBFRS “Corporate” Revenue expenditure may be estimated on our share of the Berkshire Population or on the basis of one-sixth relating to the 6 Authorities covered by the brigade. This would suggest the RBWM proportion of non Station Revenue budgets could be £2,825m.

                The risks associated with this estimation are that
                  Grant funding includes a range of factors that would weight the allocation of funds to other parts of the RBFRS region. For example these include Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) of which RBFRS has 3 in the highest tier in the Reading Area and socio demographic factors such as absences of pupils from schools would favor other areas in the region.
                  Some of the funding will be ring fenced to specific items such as our contribution to the Control
                  Some of the funding will be associated with personnel and systems where the committed costs to RBFRS will not readily translate into cash available to discretionary spend by RBWM .

      2. Routine servicing of appliances is critical and access to spare vehicles as cover is essential. The due diligence will establish the register of vehicles and whether additional cover vehicles are required. Agreements may be required with RBFRS or other Fire Authorities to support fleet availability. The estimated capital cost of procuring an additional appliance as cover is £90,000 to £120,000.

      3. A provision of £100,000 should be made for Due Diligence

      4. A provision of £500,000 should be made for Transition Activities

      5. The additional costs of the RBWM F&RS Management team and Support Staff is estimated at a provisional cost of £410,000 recurring per annum. The grading of Chief Fire Officer for RBWM and other senior roles will need to be benchmarked against the national scales. Initially it is thought that the CFO role may be equivalent to a Divisional Officer.

      6. It is assumed that other important costs of the divested service will be covered by the one sixth of RBFRS budgets that transfer to RBWM. It is essential that the due diligence establishes this and identifies any significant exposures at an early stage. The areas of major spending risk include Vehicles, Equipment, Pensions, Insurance Provisions, Communications, Facilities, Training, Stores, Mutual Aid, Pay Roll. For example the cost of training a new fire person is £16,000; the net cost of Mutual Aid may be £20,000 pa.

      Funding
          Council Tax £3,569,000
          Formula Grant £1,940,000*

          * Assumption reflects prosperity of area and low risk of COMAH facilities
      Financial Impact Summary

      £,000
      Non Recurring costs for Due Diligence and Transitions 600
      Total Recurring Costs estimated ahead of Due Diligence5,980
      Funding – Council Tax(3,569)
      Funding – Formula Grant(1,940)
      Impact on Local Tax471
      Expressed as a % on Council Tax 0.67%



      Conclusions
        1) The proposed transfer of the F&RS to RBWM will meet the 3 criteria, it is practical, sustainable and affordable
        2) It would be a substantial risk to “lift and shift” the stations to RBWM without addressing the reliance upon, continued access to and feasibility of replacement strategies for critical aspects of the support infrastructure.
        3) Prior to affecting the transfer of responsibilities it will be necessary to undertake a process that will involve,
            a. Formal due diligence of budgets, expenditure, manpower, assets and other liabilities including TUPE, Pension liabilities, personal insurance , vehicle replacement cycle etc.
            b. Agreements being established that provide for
                iii. Mutual F&RS support such as attendance at major incidents and dispatch of specialist equipment
                iv. Access to infrastructure where it is sensible that RBWM avoid duplicating potentially specialist arrangements, at least in the near term.





































      Annex 1

      The following Options have been considered

      Option 1 – Direct Delivery
      A conventional fire station model with directly employed fire personnel, on a relatively small local fire service

      Of prime importance are:
        a. Due Diligence to establish the base line for transfer of financial and other resources
        b. The Transition Plan
        c. The transfer of adequate financial budgets covering the direct costs and “corporate costs” are of prime importance.
        d. People related provisions including pensions and insurances
        e. Ensuring availability of appliances to support the day to day operation
        f. Defining the roles and costs of the direct management structure and support resources
        g. Determining the “in” and “out” sourcing of support services
        h. Creating and negotiating Service Level Agreements and Mutual Aid


      Conclusions
        a. The model is Viable
        b. A provision of £100,000 should be made for Due Diligence
        c. A provision of £500,000 should be made for Transition Activities


      On a successful outcome of the Communities Act Proposal that transferred the budget to RBWM, it is recommended that a moment of reflection is taken to consider the change in negotiating positions between RBWM and RBFRS. At that point, consideration should be given as to whether the overall objectives of RBWM could be achieved by defining a new locally accountable service specification for RBFRS.


      Option 2 - Do Nothing

      No further opportunities to fulfil the requirement of the withdrawal of the threat to out of hours cover at Windsor or provide increased RBWM influence over priorities exercised locally by RBFRS were identified.

      Option 3 - Commissioning

      The market for Fire Services and the opportunity to commission services is relatively limited at present.
      1. There appear to be no examples of local Fire Stations within a Fire Authority being managed by another Fire Authority.
      2. There are examples of Fire Authorities purchasing support from other Fire Authorities in respect for example, of fleet and vehicle servicing and Fire training.
      3. There are providers of support services but not including the direct delivery of Fire and Rescue

      Conclusions
      1. It is probable that once formally established the RBWM FRS would be able to purchase a range of support services from established Fire Authorities based upon current inter Fire Authority practice. This may extend to systems, pay roll and many important background support services.
      2. The potential to commission the whole service appears to be unlikely in the short term
      3. Over time, RBWM has the opportunity through its close proximity with other Fire Authorities to elicit interest in a full commissioning model as there may be an economic benefit at a time of efficiency challenges to further spreading their corporate overheads.


      $meetings_090706_scacpp_bmg_research.doc.pdf Meetings 090706 Scacpp Bmg Research





      23







      The Sustainable Communities Act proposal form

      Using this form

      This form should be used to submit proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act to the LGA for short listing. Please complete all sections and then email a copy to selector@lga.gov.uk. These must be received by July 31st 2009, and you will receive confirmation that the form has been received.

      Once submitted, information within this form may be made publicly available, unless you request for it to be kept private. We will treat information submitted sensitively. If you wish to attach any relevant presentations or graphs etc. please attach them separately in the email.

      For questions regarding the act or the role of the Selector, please see our FAQs. Any further questions can be directed to selector@lga.gov.uk.


      Section 1: Proposal Summary

      Proposing Authority

      Under the terms of the Sustainable Communities Act, all proposals must be submitted by a local authority, or group of authorities, in England. Any group, organisation or individual may originate or develop a proposal. However all proposals will require Local Authority endorsement and submission to the Selector.

      Parish councils and other organisations and agencies must seek support and formal endorsement from a proposing local authority (defined in the Act as county councils, district councils (including metropolitan, non metropolitan and unitary authorities), the common council of the city of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly).

      1.1 Lead Authority name

      Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

      1.2 Is this proposal submitted by this authority alone, or is it a joint proposal with other local authorities? (If joint please list authorities)

      Sole proposal

      1.3 Who is the lead contact (s) in the authority for this proposal? Please provide email address and telephone number - The LGA will direct any enquiries to this contact.

      Harjit Hunjan
      Harjit.hunjan@rbwm.gov.uk

      Supporting Organisations

      Whilst proposals may only be submitted by a local authority, we acknowledge that local partners and outside organisations may wish to register support for the proposal. This is entirely voluntary.

      1.4 Please provide details below of supporting organisations to your proposal. Please explain if the organisation is a charity, company, unincorporated association or other body. If a charity or company please provide registration numbers. If a local partnership please explains the relationship to the Local Strategic Partnership for the area.

      Maidenhead and District Chamber of Commerce
      Windsor Chamber of Commerce
      Federation of Small Businesses


      Summary of your proposal

      Please summarise your proposal. You may wish to include:

      The main elements of your proposal

      What issues your proposal is addressing and how it will promote the sustainability of the local community

      Who is affected by this proposal and how?

      Which public bodies might be affected?

      What are the main actions needed from Government?

      What do you expect this proposal to achieve?

      1.5 Please enter your summary below (word limit 1000 words)
      Small businesses make a significant contribution to prosperity in the local community. They provide employment. The taxes that they and their employees’ pay contribute to the services that Central Government provide. They are very much part of a successful and sustainable community.

      There are many schemes available to provide help and support to businesses, but this help and support is not being taken up to the extent that it should.

      Business support is provided by Business Link, operating an Information, Diagnosis and Brokerage (IDB) model, with referral on to the publicly funded “Solutions for Business”. Business Link is under contract to SEEDA, and will be provided on a regional basis from April 2010. This remoteness from the local community means there is a tendency towards a “one size fits all” approach, with little consideration given to local conditions or needs.

      This proposal is to devolve the provision of Information, Diagnosis and Brokerage (IDB) services, and their associated budgets, to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the local authority. In order to be consistent with the Business Support Simplification Programme, they would use Business Link branding. These services would be accountable to a Local Business Board, which would include representatives of local business groups (eg Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses, Windsor and Maidenhead Voluntary Action).

      This proposal anticipates that local, democratic, control of business support services will lead them to be more sharply focused on business needs. It also anticipates that the relevance of Business Link will be increased by bringing it within the local authority, by including support in areas such as Business Rates, public sector procurement , environmental health and resource efficiency within the core offer.

      The primary beneficiaries of this proposal would be small businesses in the Royal Borough, including the 10,000 people who are self-employed (NOMIS), the 7,970 businesses on the Inter-Departmental Business Register, and the estimated 40,000 plus employees of SMEs. This accounts for approximately half the working age population of the Royal Borough, and over two-thirds of the economically active population.


      The benefits of this approach will be that businesses will find it easier and less time consuming to access the help they need / want. The take up rate will improve, leading to sustainable development. Local prosperity will improve which in turn will contribute to national prosperity. The whole community will benefit from improved prosperity, employment and skills.

      Section 2: About your proposal

      The form asks a set of questions to gather as much information as possible to allow for assessment and short-listing by the Selector. A word-limit is stated for each part of the form.


      We appreciate that SCA proposals will vary in range and scope, and some questions will be more relevant than others for any one proposal. Please do not feel that answers are required for every questions or that the full word limit need be used in respect of each and every question box. If you are submitting a joint proposal, please include evidence for all areas.

      Impact on sustainability (word limit 2000 words)

      2.1 Please explain how your proposal promotes sustainability as defined locally (for example in your Sustainable Communities Strategy or LAA)
      The Royal Borough Partnership’s vision is - “we want the Royal Borough to be a place where everyone can thrive in a safe and healthy environment, take an active part in decisions and continue to learn and develop throughout their lives”.

      This proposal will improve the provision of business support services locally, leading to the general improvements in the provision of local services, through business growth and increased rates of business survival and increased local procurement. It would also provide positive feedback between the Community Partnership and business support services, driving the ambition for a thriving economy locally.

      The proposal will also have positive effects on social wellbeing, by maintaining and growing the enterprise culture within the area, leading to sustainable economic growth and a stronger local economy. By specific outreach work to groups who face barriers to entry into enterprise (eg women, people with disabilities, certain ethnic groups) this proposal will advance equality, reduce social exclusion and promote community cohesion.

      This proposal would have a direct effect on involvement in local democracy, as it would bring business support services under local control, when otherwise it would be directed at regional level. Through involvement of the business representative bodies (Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses) this would promote social inclusion and local democracy.

      2.2 Over which geographic area will your proposal impact? (e.g. neighbourhood, town, city, sub-region)?

      This proposal will improve business support services in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, comprising the towns of Maidenhead and Windsor, the rural town of Ascot and the rural parishes throughout the Borough.

      2.3 Who would benefit from your proposal?

      The primary beneficiaries would be small businesses in the Royal Borough, including the 10,000 people who are self-employed (NOMIS), the 7,970 businesses on the Inter-Departmental Business Register, and the estimated 40,000 plus employees of SMEs. This accounts for approximately half the working age population of the Royal Borough, and over two-thirds of the economically active population.

      Currently, many small businesses are not aware of the range of help and support that is available because the schemes are administered by many different organisations. Finding what is available takes time, applying for help takes time, meetings take time and getting the help implemented takes time. By bringing business support services into local control, this will enable the services to be more responsive to, and appropriate for, small businesses needs.

      The proposal will also benefit the wider population of the Royal Borough, by maintaining and growing the enterprise culture within the area, leading to sustainable economic growth and a stronger local economy. By specific outreach work to groups who face barriers to entry into enterprise (eg women, people with disabilities, certain ethnic groups) this proposal will advance equality, reduce social exclusion and promote community cohesion.

      2.4 What steps will you take to mitigate any adverse affects on sustainability from your proposal (if relevant)?

      The rationale for this project is to improve the sustainability of the local economy, so it will have a positive effect .

      2.5 What project, activities and changes would take place in your area if your proposal was successful?

      Business support services, provided by the current and future Business Link providers, would be provided by the local authority, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. So as not to undermine the principles of the Business Support Simplification Programme, services would use Business Link branding, and adhere to the guidelines for publicly funded business support in “Solutions for Business”.

      Business Link provides Information, Diagnosis and Brokerage (IDB) services to businesses, and is the main point of access to Solutions for Business products. Businesses can access the national website, which can refer on to local providers, or call the national number to access Business Link – many customers receive the information they require this way. The most valued aspect of Business Link, however, is access to their skilled advisers, and one-to-one support (Intensive Assists).

      Currently, business support is supplied by Business Link Berkshire, and this will move to delivery by a regional provider in April 2010. The current provision for Berkshire is 19 advisers (including 5 consultants), plus 10 support staff, giving an approximate allocation of 3.1 advisers for RBWM. This equates to one adviser to 2,571 businesses; below the Berkshire average of one adviser for 1,847 businesses. Through bringing Business Link into the local authority, it will be able to generate efficiency savings, increasing the numbers of advisers to 3.75 (including 1 consultant), equating to one adviser to 2,125 businesses (a 20% increase in resources).

      Local businesses would still have access to web-based and telephone support, and to other Solutions for Business products, which are funded separately from Business Link’s IDB services. In particular, the availability of skills development support, through Train to Gain (Solutions for Business Product) , BCA (FE provision) and Grow Our Own (RBWM project), would be more apparent, bringing benefits to businesses.

      In order to maximise the benefit to the local economy of these increased resources, the service would be accountable to a Local Business Board, which would include representatives of local business groups (eg Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses, Windsor and Maidenhead Voluntary Action). This would enable activities to be directed to sectors and businesses that would most benefit (eg tourism advice, high skilled workforce).

      All businesses have an existing customer relationship with the Local Authority, and are highly likely to go to it for business support (eg 59% for advice on sustainable business practices). Bringing Business Link into RBWM would increase it’s reach, with the possibility of improved marketing to local businesses. The value of Business Link advice would also be increased, by including support on areas such as Business Rates, public sector procurement , environmental health and resource efficiency within the core offer.

      2.6 Does your proposal involve transfers of responsibilities between public bodies in the area? If so what are these? What budgetary implications might be involved?

      Business Link is the sole point of access for business support, and is provided under contract to SEEDA. This responsibility would be transferred to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. SEEDA is unable to provide a budget figure for business support in RBWM, but indicates it approaches £400k per annum.

      SEEDA is currently tendering for a regional business support contract, which will be operational from April 2010, and a decision on the provider will be taken in the next few months. There is therefore great uncertainty about the future budgetary provision for business support in RBWM, as the tender notice indicates a range between £18.8m and £32.07m for business support, and between £0.8m and £1.4m for Enterprise Coaching and Intensive start-up support for under-represented groups. Using the 2008 IDBR register, 2.35% of businesses in the SE are located in RBWM; this could imply budgetary levels of between £440k and £750k for business support, and £19 - 33k for Enterprise Coaching and Intensive start-up support for under-represented groups.

      Local authorities are required to ‘have regard’ to a set of specific issues when deciding whether to support SCA proposals. These are matters listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, as passed by Parliament The Sustainable Communities Act is available here : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/ukpga_20070023_en_1. It is worth noting that the issues listed in the Act are not supposed to be exhaustive and that ideas can cover anything that promotes the sustainability of the local area.

      Many of these matters may not be relevant to any one proposal. If you are submitting a joint proposal please include evidence for all areas.

      2.7 Please identify which, if any, of the issues authorities are required to have regard to, are relevant to this proposal and include any data and information which you feel would be helpful in the assessment process.
      a) the provision of local services /
      b) the extent to which the volume and value of goods and services that are- i) offered for sale, ii) procured by public bodies, and are produced within 30 miles (or any lesser distance as may be specified by a local authority in respect of its area) of their place of sale of the boundary of the public body.
      This proposal will improve the provision of business support services locally, leading to the general improvements in the provision of local services, through business growth and increased rates of business survival and increased local procurement. RBWM has a sustainable procurement strategy, and has worked with the local Chambers of Commerce to promote procurement from local businesses. The proposal will also lead to more co-ordinated services for skills development, and is strongly supported by Berkshire College of Agriculture (BCA), a local provider.

      c) the rate of increase in the growth and marketing of organic forms of food production and the local economy
      d) measures to promote reasonable access by all local people to a supply of food is adequate in terms of both amount and nutritional value
      There is evidence of a continued demand for organic produce, with Maidenhead Farmer's Market increasing in activity, and Transition Town Maidenhead developing a local food project. 21 businesses in agriculture are located within the Royal Borough, (March 2009) and improved business support locally is likely to have a positive impact on organic forms of food production.

      e) the number of local jobs
      Increasing the availability of local business support will lead to business growth and increased rates of business survival, having a protective effect on the number of local jobs.

      f) measures to conserve energy and increase the quantity of energy supplies which are produced from sustainable sources within a 30 mile radius of the region in which they are consumed
      g) measure taken to reduce the level of road traffic including, but not restricted to, local public transport provision, measures to promote walking and cycling and measures to decrease the amount of product miles
      By bringing business support services into the local authority, which has a Carbon Management Strategy and a Sustainable Travel Plan, this proposal will increase awareness and positive actions among SMEs in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

      h) the increase in social inclusion, including an increase in involvement in local democracy
      This proposal would have a direct effect on involvement in local democracy, as it would bring business support services under local control, when otherwise it would be directed at regional level. Through involvement of the business representative bodies (Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses) this would promote social inclusion and local democracy. The proposal would also strengthen links with Grow our Own, which aims to promote skills development among excluded groups, for the benefit of local businesses.

      i) measures to increase mutual aid and other community projects
      RBWM is aware of several nascent social enterprises, which could benefit from locally focused business support.
      j) measures designed to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases
      By bringing business support services into the local authority, which has included targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases within its Local Area Agreement, this proposal will increase awareness and positive actions among SMEs in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

      k) measures designed to increase community health and wellbeing
      Increased business growth and business survival will have positive impacts on community health and wellbeing, as the protective effects of employment are well documented. Increasing the availability of business advisers to small businesses struggling for survival will also have protective effects on the mental health of enterprise owners.

      l) planning policies which would assist with the purposes of this Act, including new arrangements for the provision of affordable housing
      n/a

      m) measures to increase the use of local waste materials for the benefit of the community
      The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is pioneering an incentive based recycling initiative (residents receive vouchers which can be redeemed in participating businesses); by bringing Business Link into the authority it would increase awareness, sign-up and maximise benefits to local businesses.


      Existing Barriers
      (Please do not write more than 1000 words for 2.8 and 2.9)

      2.8 What are the existing barriers to implementing your proposal?

      Business Link services are directed by SEEDA, and are currently provided by Business Link Berkshire. SEEDA are moving to a regional contract for Business Link, which will further remove Business Link from being locally relevant.

      SEEDA ‘s view is that business support services are generic, and that there is no need for local determination of business support services. It has indicated that Business Link will prioritise on a regional basis, with some (unspecified) scope for local flexibility. It has identified particular sectors as priorities:
      •Environmental technologies, engineering and construction sectors;
      •Advance, high-value R&D based engineering
      •Life sciences and health
      •ICT and digital
      •Creative industries
      SEEDA also states it will address the business development needs of the 50% of businesses that start off as micro- or home-based. Although this will address some of the needs of businesses in RBWM, it fails to recognise local conditions, and there is a tendency towards a “one size fits all” approach.

      There is uncertainty over the level of funding that business support services should, and do, receive in a local area, as SEEDA budgets on a regional basis. SEEDA is able to provide costs for Business Link services in Berkshire, as they currently contract on that basis, but is moving towards one regional contract. Without clear determination of the funding levels for business support services in the Royal Borough, it is difficult to consider basic questions over equity, effectiveness and affordability.

      There is a presumption that Business Link being brought into the local authority will increase cost and complexity, and is counter to the Business Support Simplification Programme. This proposal challenges this, as local authorities are seen as an important source of advice by local businesses, and so it will provide one point of contact for businesses in RBWM.


      2.9 What actions are needed by Government to make your proposal possible?

      Government needs to provide the Local Authority with the power to provide business support, and to transfer responsibility for Business Link in RBWM, and budget, from SEEDA. It also needs to confirm that these proposals are not counter to the Business Support Simplification Programme, and that access to the Solutions for Business portfolio would be available.



      Part 3: Local Authority Endorsement

      This section should be completed by the proposing local authority. (Under the terms of the act this means a county council in England, a district council (including metropolitan, non metropolitan and unitary authorities), a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the isles of Scilly)

      3.1 Have consultation requirements been met? (500 words max)

      Please confirm that your authority has met the statutory requirements for consultation on this proposal, via one or more panels of local representatives and persons from under-represented groups constituted in accordance with the Act and statutory guidance as set out in Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities.

      You may wish to describe who has been involved in discussions and development of the proposal (e.g. council, local community organisations and residents groups, parish or town councils, local partnership bodies, local or national organisations, political parties, church and faith organisations, local businesses or chambers of commerce and others.

      If you have not done so already please give brief details of relevant panel meetings.

      Please note if you are submitting a joint application please provide details of consultation and local support across all areas.

      The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has met statutory requirements for consultation

      This proposal has originated from the representative bodies for businesses in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. There is overwhelming support for these proposals from local businesses and community groups.

      A survey has been sent out to all businesses registered with the Chambers of Commerce for Maidenhead and District, Windsor and Ascot, and to members of the Federation of Small Businesses. It was also sent out to via the distribution lists of the Maidenhead and Windsor Town Centre Managers, and the Tourist Information Centre. The combined reach of these is approximately ?? businesses, including many sole-owner and micro-businesses.

      The proposal has been presented to a cross party panel on the 6 July, and following comments and amendments, to a panel of representatives on Wednesday 15 July. This includes representation from the following:



      3.2 What are the views from this consultation? You may wish to provide evidence of local support for your proposal? This might include petitions or letters of support from the public, local councillors, Members of Parliament, businesses, public bodies and agencies? Please describe this evidence below. (The local authority submitting the proposal is likely to wish to review such material and to summarise its content. Onward submission to the Selector of all original documentation will not normally be required).

      The views from this consultation can be summarised as follows:

      The local Chambers of Commerce and the East Berkshire branch of the Federation of Small Businesses support this proposal, as they believe it will improve the support to their members, adding value to the local economy.

      Individual businesses have indicated:

      1

      2

      3

      4

      Proposals may include a change/transfer of functions from one person to another. If this is relevant to your proposal please confirm that the duties under clause 2, subsection 3 of the act (consulting with organisations affected by a change in location of a function) have been carried out.

      3.3 Please give brief details of consultation with any affected organisations

      SEEDA and Business Link have been consulted on the proposal, so we can confirm that the duties under clause 2, subsection 3 of the act have been carried out. Officers of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead met with Nigel Horton-Baker, SEEDA’s Area Director, Surrey & Berkshire and Ganesh Selvarajah, Business Link Berkshire on Friday 26 June 2009, to discuss the proposal.


      3.4 Confirmation of council support
      The process for formal endorsement is a matter for local discretion; however we anticipate that authorities will wish to gain political endorsement and clearance for the proposal through the relevant processes at local level. Please give details of how formal approval has been attained.

      Formal approval has been obtained by the following process:
      An officer steering group, chaired by the Lead Member , has reviewed the proposal.

      The proposal has been presented to a cross-party panel, for discussion, challenge and endorsement.



      3.5 General comments
      This is an opportunity for the local authority to express any additional comments or views on the proposal: This may include: (1500 words max)
      - the council’s view of levels of local support for the proposal
      - any local opposition or objections that the Selector should be aware of
      - relevance of the proposal to the area’s Sustainable Community Strategy and Local Area Agreement
      - outcome of any local authority discussions with agencies or public bodies affected
      - potential regional/national significance of the proposal, if replicated elsewhere
      - any major resource implications for the council or its local partners
      - any other factors influencing viability and achievability of the proposal


      SEEDA is moving towards regionalising Business Support services, arguing that this will provide economies of scale. At the same time, it acknowledges a tension in this with being responsive to local needs and maintaining local delivery (Consultation response). By utilising the infrastructure of the local authority, which exists nationally, this proposal is able to make efficiency savings in the provision of business support, while increasing delivery locally.

      This proposal has taken account of the demands of the Business Support Simplification Programme, and has been explicitly designed to support this. Given that the local authority is often approached for business support, combining this with the Business Link brand will lead to there being one point of contact for publicly funded business support locally.



      Part 4: Assessment by the Selector

      SCA proposals will be assessed by the LGA as Selector. This will include consideration, short listing and negotiation with the Secretary of State via the LGA Selector panel made up of councillors from the four parties represented on the LGA

      The LGA Selector Panel is committed to undertaking the role in a transparent manner; as such reasons for decisions on proposals will be made available.

      There will be no appeals process in relation to decisions of the Selector Panel.

      4.1 Do you confirm your agreement to abide by the outcome of the Selector’s assessment and decision-making processes?

      Yes



      4.2 Would your council, accompanied by the originators of the proposal, wish to make a short verbal presentation to the Selector Panel, should this opportunity be available?

      Yes









      Thank you for completing this form.

      Please email it to selector@lga.gov.uk by 31 July 2009.