To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hari Sharma and John Story. 

Apologies for absence were also received from Superintendent Rai (Thames Valley Police) and Parish Councillor Spike Humphrey (his sub, Parish Councillor Margaret Lenton, was in attendance).

It was noted that Councillor Carwyn Cox was running a little late but would join the meeting very shortly.

The Chairman informed everyone present that the meeting was being recorded and that the audio would be available on the RBWM website shortly. 

The Chairman also informed everyone present of the fire evacuation procedures.

To receive declarations of interests from Members of the Panel in respect of

any item to be considered at the meeting.

None.

To note the Part I minutes of the Crime & Disorder Overview & Scrutiny Panel held on the 14 December 2016.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY; That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on the 14 December 2016 were agreed as a correct record.

To comment on the report to be considered by Cabinet on the 9 February 2017.

The Finance Partner - Corporate Services & Operations, Mark Lampard, explained that the report set out the Council budget for 2017/18.  Members were informed that the priority in setting the budget had been to ensure the continued delivery of quality services for all residents, especially the most vulnerable, whilst the Royal Borough remained a low tax council.  The Finance Partner - Corporate Services & Operations gave Members a brief presentation on the highlights of the proposed budget for 2017/18 which covered the following:

·         Local Revenue Investments.

·         Revenue recommendations.

·         17/18 Capital investment.

·         Business Rates – for business.

·         Context.

It was noted that the budget proposed a 0.95% increase in core council tax (£8.62) and a 3% adult social care precept at band D (£27.75) adding to the 2016/17 precept of £18.14.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were noted:

·      That the monetary terms increase for Council tax Band F could be found in the report papers.

·      That 2019/20 was the proposed date for full retention of Business Rates

·      That information about the Nicholson’s Centre could be found in the Capital section of the report under the ‘Broadway Opportunity Area’. 

·      That the Parking Provision paper had been before Cabinet this week, including potential  capital spend proposals including a proposed additional deck at Riverside Car Park.

·      That an explanation about how the reserves were maintained could be found in the report papers.

·      That appropriate cost and income budgets were inflated by 2% (based on RPI in September 2016).

·      That there were £5.9m savings identified in the budget across three directorates.  It was noted that the CCTV proposal could be found in ‘Delivering Differently in Operations..   

·      The Apprentice Levy was primarily about training funded by charge of  0.5% f the Council Payroll. The £180k was a corporate figure that included schools. 

Councillor Werner questioned why the budget paper was being put forward before the CCTV proposal had been decided.  The Finance Partner - Corporate Services & Operations explained that the majority of savings proposals were included in the paper that had been approved by Cabinet and that the CCTV proposal would be going before Cabinet in January.

Councillor Werner stated his disappointment that the Council was breaking its Manifesto pledge about Council Tax.

The Crime & Disorder Overview & Scrutiny Panel unanimously agreed to recommend to Cabinet that they note the report and approve the:

i)             Detailed recommendations contained in Appendix A which includes a Council Tax at band D of £915.57, including a 0.95% increase of £8.55.

ii)            Adult Social Care Precept of 3% (an increase of £27.75 on the £18.14 precept included in the 2016/17 budget) to be included in the Council’s budget proposals, making this levy the equivalent of £45.89 at band D.

iii)           Fees and Charges contained in Appendix D are approved.

iv)           Capital Programme, shown in appendices F and G, for the financial year commencing April 2017.

v)            Prudential borrowing limits set out in Appendix L.

vi)           Business rate tax base calculation, detailed in Appendix O, and its use in the calculation of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

To comment on the report to be considered by Cabinet on the 26 January 2017.

The Head of Community Protection & Enforcement, Craig Miller, explained that Cabinet, at its meeting of 30 June 2016, had considered a proposal to undertake an initial review of the CCTV function.  Members were informed that this report set out the findings of the initial review of the Council’s CCTV system and proposed a further full technological review be undertaken, to be reported to Cabinet in August 2017, to investigate how modern digital CCTV technology could enhance service provision.

The Head of Community Protection & Enforcement added that the Council had shared the report with the Thames Valley Police (TVP) and that as a result they had made recommendations as to how the TVP and Council could make enhancements to the service.  It was noted that the Area Commander for the TVP had stated that it would not provide a detriment to the Royal Borough if some of the CCTV cameras were removed.  Members were informed that the report also looked at alternative operating models. 

The Lead Member for Environmental Services including Parking, Councillor Cox, stated that he had nothing further to add to what the Head of Community Protection & Enforcement had already said.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were noted:

• That the Head of Community Protection & Enforcement and Lead Member for Environmental Services including Parking were fully committed to meeting with all the Ward Members were the proposed 30 cameras for decommissioning were located to discuss their values.  It was noted that this was being done in line with the full technical review and that decisions made with regard to individual cameras would not simply be made on statistics alone. 
• That the term ‘under used camera’ related to the amount of time a camera was used for its primary and secondary use.  It was noted that some of the 30 cameras identified were in areas where a private asset could be used, where there were multiple cameras in some of the areas and where other cameras could be used to cover the area in question. 
• That the cost of decommissioning a camera was felt to be high as it covered the removal of the full column and making the ground good.
• That if cameras were simply turned off and left at locations to be used as deterrents then the Council would need to add signs to the cameras to state they were no longer in use.  It was noted that if cameras were left at locations the Council would still need to maintain them even if they were no longer in use.
• That parts for the current CCTV system were no longer manufactured.
• That Cabinet would ultimately make the decision on this proposal.
• That the number of arrests made by the TVP supported by CCTV footage was not available / recorded. 
• It was suggested that Thames House in Victoria Street could have a fixed 270 degree camera installed to monitor the three nearby streets.
• Councillor Bowden and Councillor Werner both mentioned specific cameras in their wards which the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

·         Thursday 20 April 2017.

The Chairman informed Members that the dates of the next meetings were as follows:

·         Thursday 20 April 2017.

It was requested that if the above meeting date in April resulted in any membership clashes then it be changed to an alternative date.

To comment on the report to be considered by Cabinet on the 26 January 2017.

MINUTES

resolved unanimously that: the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2017 be approved.

Delivering Differently COMMUNITIES DIRECTORATE – CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SERVICES

(Not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 2, 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

Councillor Cox introduced the report and stated the report proposed a new operating model which was required due to the parking rules in the Borough becoming more complicated. Members had asked for various parking schemes within their wards and it was more difficult to police.

The proposal was to contract parking enforcement to a private company called NSL Ltd for two years with an extension of a further two years and then for a further one year. It was a short term contract. The company would be able to deal with issues of resilience such as holiday and sickness cover and would also be able to increase the volume of patrols. NSL Ltd would also be able to rectify the time lag currently experienced when uploading data.

The contract would cost £837,319 per annum which was approximately £33,000 less than the Borough currently spent on the service. The service would also be able to deploy officers more effectively with better technology and more staff being deployed. If the Borough provided the same level of service offered by NSL, it would cost over £1m and would raise the current civil enforcement officer FTE level from 18 to 24.

A pilot was run in 2016 and covered Maidenhead Town Centre and Cookham which was a rural area. At the start of the pilot, there was an increase in tickets issued but with a lesser error rate. Towards the end of the pilot, the volume of tickets issued reduced as compliance rates increased.

Councillor Cox stated the trial was a success and supported the proposals. There had been concerns that NSL Ltd would incentivise issuing parking tickets but, there was no incentive for that in the contract. Instead, the contract incentivised accuracy levels so that tickets issued were issued correctly. If NSL ltd issued tickets incorrectly on a large scale, the council could withhold a percentage of the contract fee.

NSL Ltd had a good reputation in the industry and Officers were asked if there were any incidents where a local authority had revoked a contract from NSL Ltd; the answer was no and other local authorities had continued to renew contracts with NSL Ltd.

The proposal was what was best for the council with savings to be achieved whilst providing a better service for residents. The uniforms for the enforcement officers would still be branded with the RBWM logo but might also have an additional logo for NSL Ltd.

Andy Jeffs, Executive Director - Communities confirmed that all net income raised from tickets issued would need to be reinvested into highways and transport projects. He added that paragraph 2.3 in the report listed all the functions that NSL Ltd were to carry out.

Maidenhead  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.