To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Dr. Lilly Evans and Lynne Jones.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Rankin declared an interest in the item ‘Increasing Home Ownership – Options’ as he was currently looking to buy a property in Windsor.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2015.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: that the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2015 be approved, subject to the following amendment:

E-consultation Update to read:

‘The committee agreed that we note the progress on this subject, speak with Councillor Coppinger and look into the transparency policy and add the item to the policy longlist for inclusion in the 2016 work programme.’

To receive a presentation from Tim Willcocks, Chair of the National Housing Group, and to consider the above report.

Members considered options for increasing the rate of home ownership within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. Members received an innovative solutions presentation from the Assistant Director of Land and New Homes at Radian, Tim Willcocks. Radian was a partner with the Royal Borough with stock in the area. Mr Willcocks explained that he was also the South East Group Chair of the National Housing Federation and also chair of the National housing Group which comprised housing associations across the country focussing on affordable home ownership. It was a lobbying and policy group.

Mr Willcocks began the presentation by outlining the policy environment. Central government’s aspiration for home ownership focussed on the delivery of new homes with delivery focussed around starter homes. Help to buy would be retained until at least 2021. Shared ownership was grant funded. The right to buy programme which had been heavily publicised during the election, no longer seemed to be talked about. The government planned for 1 million new homes during the lifetime of the parliament, including 200,000 starter homes by 2020. The industry sector had expected no grant for housing in the autumn spending review but funding of £2.3bn had been allocated, although in relation to very different products. A cap of £4bn had been put on funding for 135,000 shared ownership homes. Small allocations had been made for specialist housing and right to buy. The withdrawal of grant for affordable rent had required housing associations to change business models.

For Radian the impact of rent cuts amounted to £11-12m and would lead to challenges in four years’ time. Radian had signed up to the right to buy deal but had questions over the replacement scheme and funding. Radian expected the scheme to take place but at lower numbers than expected. Radian would need to model its development programme to reflect a different tenure mix.

Mr Willcocks then presented a number of home ownership options to Members:

Shared Ownership

•      Individuals could buy an affordable share in a new or resale home, with a  low rent on the remainder

•      As a result of the spending review, there had been changes to eligibility to broaden the scheme out beyond first time buyers or key worker groups.

•      The scheme was very popular and well understood

•      The cap had been increased to £80,000 which was important in high value areas

•      DIYSO was one scheme, already in use in the borough

Help to Buy

•      Individuals could buy a new home from a developer with a 5% deposit, 75% mortgage and a 20% equity loan free for 5 years then low interest

Starter Homes

•      Individuals could buy a new home at 80% of market price

•      The discount stayed for five years, then fell away

•      Only for first time buyers aged under 40

•      The scheme did not add to the affordable housing stock in an area

Right to Buy

•      Tenants had the option to buy their existing home

•  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To consider the above report

Members considered options to increase textile recycling in the borough. A recent study had demonstrated that just under 5% of landfill in the borough was textile based, much of it reusable. The task and finish group had researched a number of options to enhance the service currently offered to residents and also increase recycling rates.

Members noted the options as detailed in section 2 of the report. The recommended options were as follows:

·         Option 2 - Let an agreement with a single provider to supply and empty textile banks to overcome the issues of inconsistency in the current informal arrangement

·         Option 4 – work with a commercial or third sector organisation to provide door to door collection services. This would bring the opportunity to share income for reusable materials.

·         Option 5 - work with a commercial or third sector organisation to provide textile collection services to local schools.

With the options generating shared income the council would have flexibility in how the income was then used. There was healthy competition in the market for provision of such services and therefore value for money could be achieved. The council’s own trading entity could be used.

Councillor Cox commented that there were a number of ways to approach the issue. The current provision of bring sites was not quite right therefore options proposed would improve convenience for residents. Councillor Burbage referred to WRAP figures showing textiles had an approximate value of £200-£300 per tonne yet the income generation in the report suggested just £3000-5000 for the borough. It was explained that the figures were conservative and based on collection rates in other local authorities. There was no universal provision method therefore comparisons were difficult. The Cabinet Policy officer commented that the majority of authorities already recycling were London-based and local authorities had invested significantly in the services.

Councillor Rankin highlighted the EAST principles (easy, attractive, social and timely). For this service, enabling residents to place textiles in the blue bin would get the best result. Councillor Cox explained that this had been fully explored but the costs were not viable. Weekly collections meant the service was constrained by the vehicles dealing with all the different collection streams; it would be difficult to bring in a further stream at this stage but could be considered for future contracts.

Councillor Ms Stretton commented that a door collection service was the ideal way forward. Unlike other waste, textiles could be stored in the property for a while therefore monthly collections would be possible.

The Chairman stated that there was not enough information, particularly in relation to costs, to enable the committee to recommend options, therefore he proposed only the second recommendation be approved

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Policy Committee:

i.       Request that a report be presented to Cabinet setting out the options for enhanced textiles recycling services for consideration in March 2016. 

To consider the above report

Members considered an update on the work of the Nudge Sub-Committee (NSC) to date. The Cabinet Policy Officer explained that the sub committee had met a number of times since the report to the Committee in September 2015. The Committee was asked to endorse the work undertaken so far and add any further items to be explored.

Tackling Mental Health Issues in Young Men - Members noted the lead officer had been on compassionate leave and therefore more work would be undertaken on their return.

Boosting Business Rates Collection – Progress had already been noted by the Committee in relation to the letters sent out to ensure more timely and full payments. Collection rates of 97% were achieved but over 3-4 years. This performance was not good compared to the southeast.

Refreshing RBWM’s Advantage Card Offer – this was a pan-council initiative. Nudge could assist with incentivisation but this was a larger project and would return to the Committee in future with options including the move to a mobile app.

Boosting Active Citizenship/Volunteerism – Discussions had taken place in relation to a matching service.

Boosting In-House Fostering and Adoption Numbers – Adoption numbers were solid therefore the focus was on fostering, particularly for 10-14 year olds.

Demand-led budgeting in Home to School Transport – A scheme in Reading was being assessed to promote independence in SEN services. Demand-led budgeting would be a future issue for consideration.

The Chairman commented that the Advantage Card was a large project including communications and technology and the topic would therefore come out as a separate group. The proposals for home to school transport were welcomed both to improve independence as well as saving money.

Members did not identify any further topics for inclusion on the work programme.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Policy Committee:

i.           Endorses the Nudge Sub-Committees’ Work Programme.

To consider the above report

Members considered an update on the work of the Policy Committee to date.

Councillor Ranking suggested ‘Pocket Parks’ should be added to the long list.

Councillor Burbage commented that the council had a general commitment to 24/7 services. He suggested the option of libraries being open 24 hours per day on the basis that they were covered by CCTV and users would need a swipe card to enter and use the library. The Chairman referred to an earlier suggestion by Councillor Ed Wilson for the Tinkers Lane desk that was open 24/7 to be accessible to residents. He suggested that cashless parking and variable rate parking could be incorporated in the Advantage Card app.

Councillor McWilliams suggested areas should be considered that the council was not necessarily responsible for and could allow the private sector to provide. Members noted that a report would be brought to Cabinet in March 2016 to refresh the Transformation strategy which focussed on delivering differently.

The Chairman requested the updated list be emailed to all Members to invite additional suggestions.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Policy Committee:

i.          Notes the progress on work completed, see section 2.

ii.         Considers the longlist of policy suggestions, see Appendix A, and agrees a work programme for 2016. 

iii.        Delegates approval of the final work programme to the Chair of the Policy Committee in consultation with the Cabinet Policy Manager.

To note the following future meeting dates:

24 February 2016
18 April 2016

Members noted the following future meeting dates:

3 March 2016 (meeting date had been changed from 24 February)
18 April 2016