To welcome everyone to the meeting.

The Co-Chair Councillor Bateson welcomed the Forum to the meeting.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies received from Councillor David Cannon, Phillip Mortimer, Mary Fallon, William Emmett and James Copas.

David Scott, Head of Communities, read out William Emmett’s letter of resignation as co-chair of the Forum.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor Rayner declared she was a farmer and a Councillor.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held 30 November 2021.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 30th November 2021 were a true and accurate record.

Proposed by Alan Keene. Seconded by Councillor Hunt.

To receive an update on rural crime.

Sergeant Andy Ward, from Thames Valley Police, gave a verbal update on rural crime. Since the last meeting held on 30th November 2021, there were 28 incidents flagged as rural crime incidents. When breaking down these reported incidents, hare coursing was the biggest recorded issue reported to Thames Valley Police (TVP) with 18 incidents being related to hare coursing.

While two reported incidents have been recorded as hare coursing, other reported incidents such as wildlife hunting offences, suspicious vehicles or persons, and criminal damages had been related to the issue of hare coursing.

In the same timespan (since November 2022), roughly 800 domestic incidents were reported to Thames Valley Police. While these numbers were relatively low in comparison to other crime types, it was suspected that there were more incidents going on which were undetected or underreported to TVP.

Sergeant Andy Ward stated that TVP had been working with Alan Keene around developing a WhatsApp group with the local community in RBWM; the group had over 40 members. Sergeant Andy Ward mentioned that he had cross-referenced all the information from this WhatsApp group, and they all referred to incidents that had been reported to TVP.

Sergeant Andy Ward then discussed the rural crime task force. On 8th March 2022, they did some targeted patrols and linked up with local officers. They also took the opportunity to speak to some local farmers. As a local team and with consultation with William Emmett and other local farmers, TVP have been working with the rural crime taskforce to develop its existing rural operation. This would involve changing from conducting hotspot patrols to do something more targeted.

Sergeant Andy Ward added that TVP were also looking into training local officers in the use of off-road vehicles to enable better capabilities with patrols and police action. They were also looking into pulling its local resources alongside other local police areas to promote more collaborated local operations across the areas.

After expressing appreciation to the police for their actions, Geoffrey Copas gave an update to the Forum of a recent meeting between farmers and the police, organised by David Scott on 8th March. He stated the most important point to report from the meeting was the change in approach in the police of being prepared to meet farmers, which Geoffrey Copas approved, and believed the meeting was the best way to resolve crime.

He added that at the end of the meeting, when farmers were asked if there should be another meeting with the police, no hands were raised. Geoffrey Copas stated that this suggested the farmers were satisfied with the police’s action.

On hare coursing, Geoffrey Copas mentioned it definitely occurred south of Maidenhead because of the existence of large open fields.

Councillor Hunt asked if there was any idea of the perpetrators of hare coursing. Sergeant Andy Ward replied that the main focus of TVP, working alongside the rural crime taskforce, was to identify and catch the perpetrators in the act. He then stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

To receive an update.

Geoffrey Copas gave a verbal update. He started off by stating that the reason for the existence of the Rural Forum was because roughly 82% of Borough was countryside. Being the managers and owners of countryside, who had little representation on the Council, the farming community needed to be given the opportunity to express their views and interests to councillors and local people who have an interest in the countryside. According to Geoffrey Copas, both had little rural knowledge to make better informed decisions on the countryside and to be fully aware of the impact of their decisions on the future of the countryside. He reminded the panel that it was farmers who created the countryside by clearing forests as well as utilised it to produce food. The farmers were successful in creating and maintaining the countryside that urban dwellers designated it as a greenbelt.

Geoffrey Copas stated farmers did not want the whole countryside to be developed because they wish to farm it to produce food as long as their farming business remained viable and sustainable. He expressed concern of a vocal minority who wished to “preserve every inch” of the greenbelt. He argued that the countryside had always changed to meet societal needs, which had increased, and then conveyed some examples to support this statement.

Geoffrey Copas acknowledged that more land was needed to meet societal needs – housing, employment, sport and transport – and major decisions would be made which would not satisfy everyone but were nevertheless accepted as the will of a democratic-majority. With that said, he expressed concern that single-issue actions groups cherry-pick facts and information to justify their cause and ignore the side effects. He also expressed concern of these action groups using modern communications and technology to influence decision makers, which could lead to governance by minority and “lynch mob decisions”.

Geoffrey Copas rhetorically asked if local councils wanted farming to remain in the main use of the greenbelt countryside, citing that there was currently one dairy farm (owned by the Crown Estate) compared to 30 dairy farms in his youth. While Geoffrey Copas believed there was a desire for farming to remain, he stated it was important for local councils to make this loud and clear.

Geoffrey Copas also added that for farms to continue, farmers had to be viable and sustainable, which was easier in areas of countryside where it was not designated as greenbelt as the interests of national parks, second homeowners and single-issue action groups was what prevented changes in greenbelt. He also mentioned that Brexit, the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine had created changes which affected farmers.

Geoffrey Copas asserted that the question that needed to be considered was not only how the greenbelt was contained but who was going to do this, where was this person going to live, who was going to pay for it, and what was the greenbelt going to be used for. Based on this, he argued that the Rural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To discuss the future meeting arrangements going forward and also whether to continue virtually or return to in-person meetings.

David Scott introduced the item. After a review of the Rural Forum, the Council decided to make the Rural Forum an outside body rather than a formal council meeting. He also added that the renewal of the municipal year (1st May) and William Emmett’s resignation as Co-Chair gave the Rural Forum an opportunity to reflect upon itself.

David Scott then stated that after having discussions with Forum members, there needed to be a clear understanding of the membership of the Forum. He reminded the Forum that there were two groups of members: 6 elected Councillors, nominated by the Council, and a group of 10 organisations on the list. These organisations included the National Trust, BCA (Berkshire College of Agriculture), Woodland Managers, Country Landowners Association, the Crown Estate, CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England), NFU (National Farmers’ Union), Smallholders’ Association, Parish Councils, and officers of the Council. He added that while there were other groups who had an interest, there needed to be caution around groups who have single-issue interests and wider interests.

David Scott also stated it was ideal that there was robust attendance at the Forum meetings to ensure they were being well used as a basis of policy development as well as provide dialogue between the Council and members from the rural community.

David Scott suggested that the Forum could hold another meeting before the next meeting on 29th November if they believed it was appropriate as November was a long time away.

With the new municipal year approaching, the Forum would need to decide on the next chair of the Rural Forum. He also endorsed the suggestion of having agenda planning meetings prior to the scheduled Forum meetings; though he added that they would probably best if they were more formal rather than through email.

The Co-Chair Councillor Bateson commented the organisations that were usually invited never attend, and that the farmers should decide on which groups should attend. Alan Keene replied that farmers were not really responsible for the groups listed. He also added that Royal East Berkshire Agricultural Association (REBAA), the organisation which he represented, did not have a formal role in the Forum and followed that he would ask for REBAA to have a formal role, which could help with coordinating the farming input. Alan Keene also gave the view that the Rural Forum was focused on farming and not so much on non-farming rural people.

ACTION: David Scott to invite representatives from various rural-based group to attend Rural Forum meetings.

Geoffrey Copas made a few suggestions on the arrangements for future Forum meetings. He commented that it would be better if there were more farm and landowners becoming members of the Forum, reiterating that these people managed the countryside. He also reiterated that it was important to get as many Councillors as possible to attend the Forum meetings as they were the ones who made the decisions.

(Councillor Clarke entered the meeting via virtual call)

Geoffrey Copas supported the principle of having a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Forum to note future meeting dates and decide upon a rural site visit location in June if desired.

Dates of Future Meetings:

·       29 November 2022

·       Rural Site Walk TBC

·       7 March 2023

The Co-Chair Councillor Bateson asked for confirmation on an additional meeting in the summer. David Scott replied that there seemed to be a desire for an extra Rural Forum meeting before November 2022 as this was a long distance away. He also reiterated the plan to schedule the rural walk on 28th June 2022.

Geoffrey Copas raised the issue with having an extra meeting was that farmers had busy harvest schedules around August and September. Therefore, the meeting in November was a good time and it would be expected to have a better turnout from farmers.

Nick Philp stated it was probably best the current meeting structure – 2 meetings in March and November, and rural walk in June – remained the same as this was better for farmers; though he added that it would be preferably for the meeting scheduled in early-March rather than late-March. He also added that another reason for the low turnout for the Forum meeting was because of the sunny day and farmers would be working on their fields.

Barbara Story wondered if the timing of the meetings should change, whether earlier or later, as this could have an effect on the turnout of farmers.

Geoffrey Copas preferred the meetings were scheduled at 16:30 and that they took place at Maidenhead Town Hall rather than York House, Windsor.

The Rural Forum noted that the next meeting on 29th November would take place as a hybrid meeting in the Council Chamber at Maidenhead Town Hall.

Geoffrey Copas requested that chief planning officers be invited to the next meeting in November 2022 so they could explain how the Local Borough Plan affected farmers and how the countryside was to be managed.

Geoffrey Copas also raised concern of the uncertainty caused by the war in Ukraine and how this could impact farmers and the countryside, considering much agricultural commodities came from Ukraine as well as a potential settlement of Ukrainian refugees in Maidenhead.

ACTION: Invite the chief planning officers to explain the impact of the Local Borough Plan on farmers and the countryside.