Sustainable Communities Act Panel
Wednesday 15 July 2009
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT – PANEL OF REPRESENTATIVES – 15.07.09
vi
ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT – PANEL OF REPRESENTATIVES
15 JULY 2009
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT – PANEL OF REPRESENTATIVES
15 JULY 2009
PRESENT: Ian Trenholm (Chairman), Cllr Mrs Bateson, Cllr Bicknell, Cllr Burbage, Cllr Chelani, Cllr Mrs Quick, David Bell (Atlantic Business Solutions), Richard Coates (Local Community in Horton Parish), John Chetter (Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce), David Coppinger (WMVA), Ronnie Epstein (BLB), Nigel Horton-Baker (SEEDA), Michael Innes (Cookham Parish Council), Andy Mancey (RBFRS), Brian Morgan (RBFRS), Karnail Pannu (WAMCF), Nicole Target (RBFRS) and Gary Whitworth (Fire-Stat International Ltd)
Officers in attendance: Michael Beaven, Andrew Brooker, Liz Hornby and Harjit Hunjan.
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Ian Trenholm welcomed the Panel and introductions were made.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs Bateson declared a personal interest in the Royal Borough Fire Provision due to being a Council Representative on the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority.
Councillor Mrs Bateson declared a personal interest in both items due to her being Vice Chairman of the Cross Party Panel.
Councillor Burbage declared a personal interest in both items due to him being Chairman of the Cross Party Panel.
Councillor Burbage declared a personal interest in both items due to him being Chairman of Maidenhead Town Partnership.
Councillor Bicknell declared a personal interest due to him being a Council Representative on the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority.
Councillor Chelani declared a personal interest due to him being a member of the Transition Town Maidenhead.
Councillor Mrs Quick declared a personal interest due to her being a member of the Cross Party Panel.
3. BACKGROUND TO THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
Ian Trenholm commented that the Panel of Representatives discharged the Council’s responsibility by consulting with residents and interested parties. Harjit Hunjan explained that the Sustainable Communities Act was a way of enabling local communities to make bids to bring services into the local community. The Council of the Royal Borough ratified the process late in 2008. There was no limit to the number of submissions that may be made, and there was a requirement for the Authority to consult with local residents, stakeholders and interested parties.
4. CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS
- 1. BUSINESS LINK
- Michael Beaven introduced the proposal and reported that the proposal was to move away from SEEDA and the Local Business Board as it was felt neither body was providing the service that local businesses would expect. An online survey by the Chamber of Commerce was carried out and responses had so far been in favour of this proposal. A key issue that had been raised about expertise would be addressed in the proposal itself. It was also noted that there was a very high level of businesses within the Royal Borough.
Speakers
Objectors
Ronnie Epstein (BLB) commented that BLB was responsible for meeting SEEDA targets. He commented that 92% of customers were reportedly satisfied with the level of assistance they had received. Ronnie Epstein also reported that 310 individual businesses had been assisted with starting up and that there were 14,500 businesses being assisted.
It was noted that the performance was tracked quarterly and that for the year 2008/2009 a quality of excellence had been achieved. Councillor David Hilton was known due to his involvement with the local economic development and Business Link Berkshire.
Three comments were made in reference to the contents of the proposal – namely
- Ø Point 2.3, paragraph 3 which quoted ratio of advisers in the Borough was low and this was reported as not correct.
Ø Telephone support was not funded separately and was integral to the service.
Ø That .6 of a person would be employed which would raise issues should this one person go sick or be on the phone. How would the Borough cope?
- Ronnie Epstein asked if it were correct that FSB had withdrawn their support for the proposal. He also commented that Business Link would work pro-actively within the Borough.
Proposers
John Chetter (Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce) noted the number of statistics quoted by the objectors and commented that the Chamber of Commerce would put forward the proposal as members of the Chamber were in favour. Members wished for local availability and accountability which they believed would improve all round effectiveness which would then in turn improve the local economy.
Karnail Pannu (WAMU) commented on the number of empty shops in Maidenhead at present and commented that the Asian business community, most notably the ‘corner shops’ believed they had received little or no support from Business Link and supported the Chamber of Commerce proposal as they would prefer a ‘local touch’.
David Coppinger (WMVA) commented that SEEDA had many excuses for not achieving their targets and also commented that the community WMVA serves, namely the charity sector and those with disabilities.
Questions and Answers
Harjit Hunjan confirmed that although the FSB had been involved with the consultation process, the FSB reported that until it had surveyed its members, it would prefer to be withdrawn from the proposal for the time-being.
2. ROYAL BOROUGH FIRE PROVISION
- Ian Trenholm reported that he had received a letter from Browne Jacobson, a firm of solicitors, who were acting on behalf of the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority copies of which were circulated to the Panel.
David Bell (Atlantic Business Solutions) introduced the Fire Provision proposal which was to devolve power to the local community. Local residents had expressed concern in relation to the proposed night-time closure of Windsor Fire Station and had also expressed support for a local authority run fire provision. Windsor had 17.5 million visitors per year, it also had many ancient sites and buildings and therefore fire cover 24-hours a day was considered vital.
It was noted that due diligence would be undertaken and that it would be more efficient, practical, sustainable and affordable for the local authority to run the local fire provision.
- Speakers
Objectors
Andy Mancey (Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Service) read out a prepared statement which contained some questions for the local authority to answer – as follows:
Thank you for inviting us to this Panel of Representatives Meeting. We are here to listen to the discussion.
As we hope you will appreciate we only received the draft proposal on Friday 10th July and have not seen the business case and feasibility study to which the proposal refers. We ask that we be supplied with copies of both the business case and feasibility study as a matter of some urgency as well as other information already requested and as I shall outline shortly.
At present we do not have all the information on which the proposal is based, and in the absence of such regrettably we are not able to offer our fully considered comment.
We understand that one of the requirements the Sustainable Communities Act is that any proposal to transfer power requires the power holding authority to be consulted. In this case we believe that we should have been properly consulted regarding this proposal in sufficient time and with all the information needed to allow us as the fire authority for Berkshire to properly consider the suggestion and for the authority to make a reasoned response.
We wish to place on record that we have not been invited to participate in any previous discussion or have otherwise been consulted at any point prior to tonight and do not consider that an invitation to tonight’s meeting is in itself consultation. In any event it is not adequate to discharge the consultation requirement of the Act.
On first reading, which is all we have been able to do in the short time since receiving the proposal we have identified a number areas where further information is required and key matters that the Royal Borough will need to identify in its proposal. These are not exclusive and we may on further reading identify additional areas where further information is required. Our initial reading however highlights a number of areas that the proposal does not address at all or adequately deal with where mentioned. We would ask that this situation be rectified before submission and we reserve our right to make further comment once we are in possession of the information we have requested.
1. What will the response standards for the new Authority be?
- How will they maintain/improve the existing standards?
2. What is the proposed Fire safety enforcement inspection programme?
3. What is the proposed Community Safety engagement programme?
4. What are the Proposals for 24 hour Officer cover?
5. What are the proposals for the provision for mutual aid? What fire authorities have been approached? And what agreements have in principle been made?
6. How will call centre provision be made for receiving calls and mobilising appliances on a 24 hours basis until cut over to the Regional Control Centre?
7. What are the proposals for the provision for training and recording of training?
8. What are the proposals for the provision of appropriate health and safety arrangements for operational and non operation support staff?
9. Does the proposed RBWM FRS have a proposal for appropriate business continuity/resilience arrangements?
- And if so, what are they?
10. What provision has been made for specialist appliances?
11. A FRS is required by law to have an IRMP. In contemplating the acquisition of fire authority powers, what steps have been taken to prepare a draft IRMP? If one exists how has it been created? We would be grateful if we could be supplied with a copy.
Further, our initial review of the draft proposal has not indicated that there is any reference to how it applies or further CLG Fire Station provision policy. In our view it is necessary for this aspect to be properly addressed in the proposal.
As the Fire Authority it is our duty and responsibility to provide fire and rescue services to protect all the residents of Berkshire. We cannot support a proposal that at this time is incomplete and lacks so much as to make it impossible to establish whether the proposal for alternative provision is viable. This is a proposal that will have consequences for all the residents of Berkshire not only those within the Royal Borough. We invite the Council to reconsider its position and defer submission of this proposal until such time as the proposal has been properly and fully worked out and full and proper consultation has been carried out with all those parties who may be affected both within and outside the Borough.
Proposers
Gary Whitworth (Fire-Stat International Ltd) and Richard Coates spoke in favour of the item. An outline of the history was reported that in the Windsor Town Council Minutes it was noted that a reduction of services was not, at the time, appropriate. In 1974 control of the service was taken over nationally but that now the authority wished to take back control of the Fire service. It was noted that Windsor residents wished for 24-hour cover at Windsor Fire Station following an announcement by the Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Authority and concerns had been raised over the response times should the station be closed during night times. It was also noted that should night-time cover cease in Windsor, this would have a knock on effect in outlying villages and area and would therefore potentially put residents at risk.
- Other Speakers
Karnail Pannu (WAMU) commented that their organisation had good contacts particularly with the local fire service through assistance with Health & Safety issues, training etc. WAMU commented that they would appreciate the local touch as this would be a valuable service to the local community.
David Coppinger (WMVA) provides assistance to charities and have a unique understand with the young and disabled residents of the Borough who have all expressed a preference for a local service.
As the Chairman of a local Parish Council Mr Coppinger confirmed that they had been consulted that that the Council, as a whole, supported the Royal Borough’s proposal.
Questions and Answers
Councillor Burbage asked the RBF&RS whether they would be willing to support the Royal Borough’s proposal should it be accepted. Andrew Mancey commented that they would have no other choice but to assist the Borough with all their requirements.
- It was impressed upon the Panel that due diligence would be undertaken if the proposal was to be put forward to the next stage. It was also noted that at the next Cross Party Panel the proposals would he ratified to be put forward.
It was asked what the statistics were for day-time and night-time callouts. Andrew Mancey commented that he didn’t have the figures with him, but that he would provide the information if required.
5. SUMMARY AND CLOSE
Ian Trenholm reminded the meeting that should anyone wish to submit any written comments, that this be sent directly to Harjit Hunjan by 5.00pm next Monday, 20 July 2009.
6. DATES OF FUTURE SCA MEETINGS
- Cross Party Panel – Monday 20 July at 8.00am in Desborough 4, Town Hall, Maidenhead.
- - Monday 27 July at 8.00am in Ascot/Bray Room, Town Hall, Maidenhead.
7. MEETING
The meeting, which began at 6.04pm, closed at 7.20pm.