Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online access

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Video Stream: Click here to watch this meeting on YouTube

Items
No. Item

91.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Taylor.

92.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 969 KB

To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 23 February 2021 and the Extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 2 March 2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

 

i)             The minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2021 be approved.

ii)            The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 2 March 2021 be approved.

93.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor Larcombe declared a personal interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he owned land in the floodplain.

 

Councillor Cannon declared a personal interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he owned land and resided in the floodplain.

 

Councillor Rayner declared a personal interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as her family owned property and land in Wraysbury and Datchet.

 

Councillor Knowles declared a personal interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he lived in the floodplain.

 

Councillor Jones declared a personal interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as she lived in the floodplain.

 

94.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 61 KB

To receive such communications as the Mayor may desire to place before the Council

Minutes:

The Mayor had submitted in writing details of engagements that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor had had undertaken since the last ordinary meeting, which had been limited die to COVID-19. These were noted by Council.

 

The Mayor also announced the launch of the Royal Borough's Garden in Bloom competition.  The council had been running the competition for nearly 30 years to recognise and acknowledge the important contribution private gardens made to the appearance of a neighbourhood. He had always seen Garden in Bloom as the council's way of saying thank you to residents for the work they did in their gardens to brighten up their neighbourhood. This year's competition came as the country began to emerge from lockdown and he hoped it would play a small part in lifting people's spirits. The rules were the same as always: any garden visible from a footpath or road was eligible to enter. Nominations could be made by residents or anyone passing by the garden including, of course, councillors. Residents could enter online, by email, by post, or a councillor could simply select a garden they think was worthy of consideration.


All entrants would receive a newly designed certificate. In each ward there would be a runner up who would receive a certificate and a rosette? as well?. The winner in each ward would receive a certificate, a rosette and, thanks to the support of Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce, a £20 voucher to spend at the excellent Braywick Heath Nurseries.

95.

Order of Business

Minutes:

Councillor Davey proposed a motion to amend the order of business to enable Members to debate Motion d as, if it were successful, it would have an impact on the meeting. Councillor Hill seconded the motion.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Order of Business Motion Rejected
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 96.

    Public Questions pdf icon PDF 128 KB

    a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    How will the Royal Borough take advantage of the Government’s Changing Places initiative to improve or introduce larger accessible toilets for people who cannot use standard disabled toilets?

     

    b)   Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

     

    Highways improvements conducted under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Programme were assessed by officers to form a prioritised programme approved by Cabinet.  None of these items were prioritised prior to the budget as the council was approving an area improvement scheme not a set of specific highways improvements.

    Should the CIPFA Report commissioned by this council have mentioned this point?

     

    c)    Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

     

    With reference to the governance arrangements included in the Environment and Climate Strategy, please could the Lead Member indicate when the current interim board will be replaced by a full Stakeholder Advisory Board, meeting on a bi-monthly basis as stipulated, and will she provide details of the stakeholder organisations to be represented on the Board?

     

    d)   Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

     

    Would the Lead Member please indicate whether those Active Travel Measures proposals that did attract public support through consultation, including installing a zebra crossing on Boyn Hill Road, will be prioritised and go ahead as part of the 2021/22 Capital Programme and will these projects be eligible for Department for Transport grant funding?

     

    e)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

     

    The Wider Area Growth Study part2 was due for delivery last year. Its remit was to "look at supply, capacity and constraints... to identify specific locations within its boundary where housing development could be deliverable and sustainable." Has RBWM received any drafts of this document, and have you now identified which sites could be deliverable and sustainable for housing development?"

     

    f)     Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

     

    The demolition of the Nicholson centre was projected to commence as early as July, and will presumably lead to a significant loss of business rate income for several years. What is the estimated loss of income to RBWM during the construction phase, and how will any such losses be balanced in the budget?

     

    (The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with public questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before  ...  view the full agenda text for item 96.

    Minutes:

    a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    How will the Royal Borough take advantage of the Government’s Changing Places initiative to improve or introduce larger accessible toilets for people who cannot use standard disabled toilets?

     

    Written response: The Changing Places Consortium has recently been out to consultation regarding the locations for the new Changing Places toilets using the funding that was announced by Government. The council has responded to the consultation putting the borough forward as a location and this will be followed up by a letter to the consortium from the lead member.

     

    By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson asked when would RBWM residents know that the borough had obtained funding from the Changing Places scheme and how would the borough advise residents of proposed projects.

     

    Councillor Johnson responded that there was no timetable yet confirmed. Once a definitive timetable had been confirmed, the council would be looking to go out to appropriate consultation on locations. The appropriate Lead Member would liaise with Mr Wilson and indeed all relevant parties at the appropriate time.

     

    b)   Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

     

    Highways improvements conducted under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Programme were assessed by officers to form a prioritised programme approved by Cabinet.  None of these items were prioritised prior to the budget as the council was approving an area improvement scheme not a set of specific highways improvements.

    Should the CIPFA Report commissioned by this council have mentioned this point?

     

    Written response: A copy of the CIPFA report is given in the link below:

     

    https://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s32109/meetings_200625_Cab_CIPFA%20REVIEW%20COVER%20REPORT%20JUNE%202020%20Cabinet%20DS%20v0.4.pdf

     

    All capital schemes are prioritised by officers, regardless of whether the scheme is a specific area scheme or Highway improvement scheme.

     

    In this rare case, the scheme was added as a member request after the prioritisation of the proposed capital programme had been undertaken by budget steering group.

     

    The CIPFA report mentions that the scheme was not subject to a proper prioritisation process. 1.2 of the Executive summary reads as follows.

     

    “The Managing Director was concerned that the scheme failed to meet RBWM’s overall objectives, that it was not subject to a proper prioritisation process, that no business case or plan had been produced regarding the

    scheme’s deliverables and that there was no plan to demonstrate how it would be managed.”

     

    This issue has been addressed as part of the governance framework. It has not happened since nor will it happen in the future

     

    By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson commented that Councillor Hilton’s only issued seemed to be that the scheme was included after the proposed capital budget was considered by the Budget Steering Group. His recollection of that meeting may differ from some of the other participants, therefore Mr Wilson asked if he would be prepared to publish the minutes and papers for the relevant meetings and a full  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

    97.

    Petition for Debate - River Thames Scheme Funding pdf icon PDF 155 KB

    The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

     

    In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

     

    a) The Mayor may invite the relevant officer to set out the background to the petition issue.

    b) The Lead Petitioner to address the meeting on the petition (5 minutes maximum) c) The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors present to address the meeting. (5 minutes maximum each)

    d) The Mayor to invite the relevant officer to provide any further comment.

    e) The Mayor will invite all Members to debate the matter (Rules of Debate as per the Constitution apply)

    Minutes:

    Members considered the following petition:

     

    The Council honours its commitment to partnership funding of the River Thames Scheme

     

    Andrew Vallance, Head of Finance, explained that the full details of the petition and the council’s response were contained in the published report. It would cost the authority £1.3m per year for 50 years to fund the amount requested in the petition (£40m of additional funding for Channel 1). This would equate to an extra 2% council tax per year. Since there was no government action on the borough’s request for a flood levy, it would unfortunately remain unaffordable in the present referendum limits.

     

    Margaret Lenton, lead petitioner, explained that she was Chairman of Wraysbury Parish Council. She was speaking with the support of the Parish councils in Datchet, Horton and Old Windsor. Mrs Lenton reminded Members of the 2014 floods when Wraysbury, Datchet and parts of Old Windsor had been inundated and lives had been put at risk. Without the help of the army lives could have been lost. Families were evacuated and others suffered flood damage. The psychological damage was still apparent and was compounded when the Environment agency (EA) put out flood warnings. Flooding on such a scale had occurred in 1894, 1947 and 2003. Significant flooding was becoming more frequent and may be a direct result of global warming. The Prime Minister at the time and Royal Borough leaders had assured residents that money was no object and the area would be protected.  The EA had done considerable work to deliver the scheme between Datchet and Teddington. If there was an alternative, the EA would not have worked on the current scheme and spent such considerable sums of money.  Having consulted with specialists, Wraysbury Parish Council was convinced there was no alternative scheme or short-term measures that would protect the village in the way the Jubilee River protected Maidenhead and Windsor.

     

    The EA had suggested bringing in mobile flood barriers, but these would not protect all properties at risk and were opposed by residents as failing to provide adequate protection. Supporting the scheme would allow the borough to generate income by releasing land for development. Not going ahead with the scheme from Datchet to Egham had already proved detrimental as residents had had difficulty getting flood insurance. Councillors, in particular the ward councillors in Old Windsor, Datchet and Horton and Wraysbury, should understand the concerns of residents and the need for long-term protection.

     

    Councillor Jones stated that on 16 February 2019 Councillor Dudley, then Conservative Leader, had said the Conservatives were investing millions in the River Thames Scheme (RTS) to stop flooding. There was no viable alternative to the RTS as stated in the EA Flood Risk Management Strategy Appraisal Report of August 2010. In October 2020 a report went to full Council to say the scheme was still needed but did not highlight there were no alternatives that gave the villages of Old Windsor, Datchet and Wraysbury the same protection that the borough had given to Maidenhead  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Petition for Debate - River Thames Scheme Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 98.

    Petitions

    To receive any petitions presented by Members on behalf of residents.

     

    (Notice of the petition must be given to the Head of Governance not later than noon on the last working day prior to the meeting. A Member submitting a Petition may speak for no more than 2 minutes to summarise the contents of the Petition).

    Minutes:

    No petitions were submitted.

    99.

    Referrals from other bodies

    To consider referrals from other bodies (e.g. Cabinet)

    Minutes:

    i)             Finance Updates including referrals from Cabinet

     

    Members considered finance updates and approvals that required approval from full Council, either directly or as a referral from a recommendation from Cabinet.

     

    Councillor Hilton explained that the report sought Council’s approval for a number of changes to the Fees and Charges report approved at full Council in February and a further slippage in the 2020/21 capital programme. He explained that there were a number of corrections to the registrars’ charges. As people may book a registrar service a year in advance the charges for both 2021/22 and 2022/2023 should have been included. Appendix A to the report detailed both the 2021/22 and 2022/23 charges.

     

    From 30 June 2021 this year the shared building control services contract with Wokingham and West Berkshire Council would cease. Building control services would then be provided by the Royal Borough and fees and charges agreed as part of the Shared Service agreement would become the council’s responsibility. The fees and charges agreed for 2021/22 for the shared services were proposed to continue to be implemented by the Council.

     

    The delivery framework for the Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area requires the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SAANG) as mitigation for development within 5 kilometres of the SPA. Developers were charged for the use of this green space. The schedule of charges was missed from the fees and charges schedule so were added as in appendix C.

     

    A number of clarifications to Highways fees and charges were shown in Appendix D. The main changes were the separation of the administration fee from the licence fee to make the charges more transparent. Some gaps in the fee structure relating to unauthorised hoardings, scaffolding etc on major and highway amenity roads were also included.

     

    At Cabinet on 25 March 2021an increase in slippage in the capital programme by £9,917,000 was reported bringing to total to £34.911mn. The additional slippage was mainly Local Enterprise Partnership schemes and some highways, schools and property schemes. The list of schemes first published with the 25 March 2021 Finance Update report was shown in appendix E.

     

    Councillor Baldwin expressed concern that a number of the mandatory consultees listed in the table on page 92 of the agenda had not commented on the report.

     

    Councillor L. Jones commented that she supported the report coming forward as a step towards transparency.

     

    Councillor Johnson thanked Councillor Jones for her comments on transparency.

     

    Councillor Hilton echoed the thanks. All issues that required approval by full Council would as a matter of course come forward to full Council.

     

    It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and:

     

    i)          Approves the clarification to the fees and charges for Registrars 2021/22 set out in Appendix A.

    ii)         Approves the proposed Building Control fees and charges for the period from 1st July 2021 to 31st March 2022 set out in Appendix B

    iii)       Approves the Suitable Alternative Natural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

    100.

    Proposal for the introduction of two new Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) in Windsor, Maidenhead and Ascot to address dog fouling, dog control and cycling prohibition areas in Maidenhead and Windsor town centres pdf icon PDF 715 KB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered the introduction of two new Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) in Windsor, Maidenhead and Ascot to address dog fouling, dog control and cycling prohibition areas in Maidenhead and Windsor town centres.

     

    Councillor Cannon explained that PSPOs were brought in as part of a government commitment to put victims at the centre of the approach to tackling anti-social behaviour, focusing on the impact behaviour could have on both communities and individuals, particularly on the most vulnerable.

     

    The borough currently had two PSPOs in place. These PSPOs addressed the consumption of alcohol and restriction of a public right of way in Eton and were due to run until 28 November 2022. However, Community Wardens had received many reports in relation to dog fouling and out of control dogs. They haD also received a request from the Parks and Countryside Team seeking further control and supporting the need for a dog control element.

     

    Community Wardens had witnessed many incidents of people cycling through pedestrianised zones and causing alarm and distress to residents. The borough had also received many requests from residents for the pedestrian zones to be upheld as pedestrian only use, and that cyclists be required to dismount and not cycle through these key pedestrian areas. Further incidents had been reported to Thames Valley Police. Existing legislation for cycling on the footpaths related to Highways and did not cover the areas mentioned in the PSPO. The proposals had been widely consulted on with the public and an EQIA had been completed on the council website.

     

    Councillor Cannon explained that the two PSPO’s in the recommendation were:

     

    ·         Public Space Protection Order (dog control and dog fouling) for Dog control (Borough wide). The requirement for a dog to be put on a lead at the direction of an authorised person. Dog fouling (Borough wide). An offence is committed when the person in charge of a dog fails to remove faeces deposited by the dog.

     

    ·         Public Space Protection Order (Cycling). Specified pedestrianised zones. Cycling on the highway in pedestrianised zones of High Street, Maidenhead and the pedestrianised zone of Peascod Street, Windsor.

     

    Both PSPOs would be enforced by the police and Community Wardens.

     

    Councillor Davey commented that it was great that officers had sorted out the admin and put the law in place. As he understood it, they would be enforced by both the forces of light and dark. The good cops, the Community Wardens, decimated in recent financial reshuffle, would do their best. There had been a great story that week about an overgrown garden underlining their style problem solving and being considerate to residents. The District Enforcement Crime Officers were known for their not so light touch. He hoped that the manager of the team could be successful in coaching of the external team.

     

    Councillor Baldwin commented that the proposals had originally been slated to come to a Sub Committee meeting on which he had been a panel member. He had therefore undertaken a lot of preparation. He had concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Proposal for the Introduction of Two New PSPOs Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 101.

    Constitutional Amendments pdf icon PDF 608 KB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered a number of constitutional changes.

     

    Councillor L. Jones commented that as the proposed Constitutional Working Group was not a committee of Council and not subject to political balance rules, she would prefer that Members of whatever party had a particular interest in the constitution or the right skill set should be allowed to join it.

     

    Councillor Hill suggested an issue the Working Group could consider would be lowering the requirement for 1500 signatures on a petition before it could be debated at full Council. He had researched other local authorities, a number of whom had lower limits.

     

    Councillor Rayner highlighted that the constitution was a living document and therefore she welcomed the idea of a working group to provide flexibility and make democracy work better in the borough.

     

    Councillor Johnson commented that he would hope that all respective groups would have Members with the right skill set and desire to look into constitutional matters; the working group would therefore reflect political balance. Group Leaders should look to appoint the most appropriate Members from their respective groups. Members had not that long ago debated the threshold level for petitions for debate. He also highlighted that Council had recently debated three substantial petitions on Maidenhead Community Centre, Maidenhead Golf Course and Flooding; these were exactly the sort of issues that should be debated at full Council level. He had looked at levels in other authorities and some were significantly higher, but also allowed for other mechanisms such as a debate at Cabinet or a meeting with the appropriate officer or lead member.

     

    Councillor Johnson referred to the change in job title from Managing Director to Chief Executive, which aligned with other local authorities. He confirmed there were no changes to terms and conditions.

     

    It was proposed by Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Rayner, and:

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: Thatfull Council notes the report and:

     

    i)          Approves amendments to the constitution detailed in Section 2 and Appendices A- E

    ii)         Delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to update as appropriate and publish the council constitution.

     

    102.

    Urgent decision pdf icon PDF 247 KB

    To consider the above report

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chief Executive, Duncan Sharkey, explained that urgent decisions were not regular occurrences but there was provision in the constitution to take such action following consultation with the Chairman of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel. In taking the decision, he had consulted with the Chairman of the Infrastructure O&S Panel and the Mayor as Chairman of Council, as normally such an addition to the capital programme would come to full Council. The Leader of the Council, Group Leaders and  the Chairman of the Corporate O&S Panel were also notified. The decision was urgent because the council only had a certain number of days’ notice of the auction.  The council had been successful at auction in purchasing the property at a figure lower than it would have been prepared to pay. The property would be used by the housing team and also offered a savings opportunity.

     

    The Mayor explained that there would now be an opportunity for Members to ask questions of the Chief Executive.

     

    Councillor W. Da Costa asked for clarity on the authority for the decision, which he believed to be the homelessness and rough sleeping strategy. He asked how many families were in temporary accommodation after the extra 10 units that had been acquired. Councillor W. Da Costa commented that the current local authority housing rate meant the ten units would equate to £113,000 but the report said the council was only getting £95,000-96,000 which would suggest a 2-month non-occupancy rate during the period. He would have expected the extra increment of 56% for temporary accommodation to be much higher. Councillor W. Da Costa requested confirmation of the rate of return. In relation to the environmental case he asked whether the refurbishment would look to use carbon neutral processes and would an ecologist be asked to look at biodiversity enhancements. In terms of ongoing operations, he asked if the property would have net zero energy use.

     

    Duncan Sharkey responded that the decision supported both the current and emerging strategy to look to improve the quality of and control the council had over accommodation and reduce costs. The current figures were 250 homeless households in temporary accommodation, down from 268 in December 2020.  The purchase did not change the figures as the council already used eight of the nine available units. Part of the rationale to purchase the property was the potential to purchase further units in future. Mr Sharkey confirmed that the provision that was made for voids and bad debt was 4% of the income costs. He also pointed out that the appraisal and the finances were different things. The appraisal made clear that had the council paid the maximum it had been prepared to go to, the payback would have been around 20 years. The council would be borrowing over a longer term thereby reducing the minimum repayment provision and the interest in the short term and inflation would eat away at those figures over time. The property did pay for itself in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

    103.

    Members' Questions

    No Member questions were submitted.

    (The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with Member questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

     

     

     

    Minutes:

    No Member questions had been submitted.

    104.

    Motions on Notice

    a)    By Councillor Bond

     

    The motion is proposed in response to the recently published government white paper on health & social care ‘Integration and Innovation’.

     

    This Council: 

    i)     Notes approvingly that in putting the Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) on a statutory footing and encouraging cooperation rather than competition, it is essentially an evolutionary change rather than a top down reorganisation of the NHS.  

    ii)    Considers that the following should be part of the development and implementation of the proposals: 

    a.    The ICSs should encompass a range of stakeholders including doctors (GPs) to continuing to give them a voice, and local authorities to reflect peoples’ ‘place-based’ experience of health and care services 

    b.    Besides continuing to improve collaboration across health and social care, that decision-making bodies recognise the importance of effective prevention & public health, addressing the social determinants of health and wellbeing, and of mental health services.  

    iii)   Looks forward to the government’s proposals on the funding of social care.  

    b)   By Councillor Rayner:

     

    The provision in legislation allowing council meetings to take place virtually ceases on 6 May 2021. High Court proceedings are being pursued to seek confirmation that councils can continue with virtual meetings post 6 May. If this is unsuccessful, to ensure Annual Council can take place in a COVID-safe environment, it is proposed to amend the date of the meeting.

     

    This Council:

     

    i)             Agrees to amend the date of Annual Council from 25 May 2021 to 4 May 2021; and as a result:

    ii)            Agrees an Extraordinary meeting of full Council be held on 29 June 2021 to consider the Development Management Review.

    iii)           Agrees that for the municipal year 21/22 only, the requirement in the constitution for each Overview and Scrutiny Panel to meet within 30 days of Annual Council be waived (noting all O&S Panels already have a meeting scheduled in June 2021)

     

    c)    By Councillor Johnson

     

    This Council believes that all Members should, under Regulation 13 of the (LA Members Allowances) Regs 2003 and as detailed in the RBWM Members’ Allowances Scheme,  give notice in writing to the Head of Governance that they wish to forgo the indexation applied in 21/22 in relation to the Basic Allowance and any Special Responsibility Allowances they receive.

     

    d)   By Councillor Hill

     

    This Council agrees that in the interests of full and open debate all time-limits on debates at full Council meetings be removed and the prerogative for the duration of debates be given solely to the Mayor

     

    (A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

     

    Minutes:

    Motion a)

     

    Councillor Bond introduced his motion. He explained that the council had significant involvement in the health and care system, through its Health & Wellbeing Board and its responsibilities for public health and the Better Care Fund. With the significant changes going on he had felt it was an appropriate time for councillors to be better aware in order to make the system and changes more accountable. Because the changes were evolutionary, it would be easy for the ground to move without there being a particular point at which the council took stock.


    As well as increasing cooperation among different parts of the system rather than working in silos, another trend had been to become geographically larger in order to capture economies of scale. For example, when the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) of GPs started, the local one covered most of the borough. They then started working more closely with neighbouring CCGs, and now all they all worked together in an organisation called ‘the collaborative’ that covered the same six council areas as the Frimley Hospitals Trust and the Frimley Integrated Care system, a population of 800,000. There was potential for tension between organisations covering a big geographical area and therefore perhaps feeling distant and on the other hand the importance of place and councils’ knowledge of their local area. The motion therefore set out areas that the council might consider to be important. To give an example, he had not seen much comment on the role of GPs in the new structure but involving them more in how health and care services were run seemed to be to be one of the good aspects of the last government reorganization, as they had experience at the front line. On health prevention, health inequalities and mental health, although he was not suggesting they were being overlooked at the moment, in the past he was sure they had felt like the poor relation of health services so the motion highlighted their importance.


    The White Paper provided a framework rather than being prescriptive about detailed organisational structure, so a lot of the local arrangements were down to local decisions.  Councillor Bond commented that it would be wrong to take the message from this that the White Paper was all ‘motherhood and apple pie’. There were proposals about increasing the Minister’s say over the running of the NHS that had been more controversial, however those did not seem relevant to a motion from the perspective of a local council. Councillor Bond explained that he had added the last point about looking forward to government proposals on the funding of social care because otherwise it would be a an elephant in the room. 

     

    Councillor Carroll commented it was an interesting motion and raised some reasonable points although he had been disappointed that Councillor Bond had not reached out to him as he felt some improvements could have been made. However, he was broadly supportive of the motion. The point about competition needed to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Motion c - amendment Amendment Rejected
    Motion c Motion Carried
    Motion d Motion Rejected
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  •