To receive any apologies for absence from Panel Members.

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor K Singh, Councillor Douglas was attending the meeting as a substitute.

Councillor Majeed was attending the meeting virtually.

To receive any declarations of interest from Panel Members.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14^th September 2023.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 14^th September 2023 were approved as a true and accurate record.

To receive the annual presentation from Thames Valley Police. The Chief Constable and the Police & Crime Commissioner will attend the meeting and Panel Members are provided with an opportunity to consider the work of the police and to ask any questions following the presentation.

If Panel Members have specific questions in advance of the presentation, please send them to mark.beeley@rbwm.gov.uk before 31^st January, so that a response can be prepared for the meeting.

Jason Hogg, Chief Constable at Thames Valley Police, and Clare Knibbs, Superintendent at Thames Valley Police, provided the Panel with a presentation on the work undertaken by the police over the past year. Thames Valley Police was the largest non-metropolitan force in England and Wales, covered three counties and had a total population of 2.5 million. The force was made up of 4,970 officers, 3,571 staff and 261 police community support officers. Data was shared for the Windsor and Maidenhead Local Policing Area:

• 1,284 incidents of crime.
• 1,302 cases of domestic abuse.
• 275 cases of burglary.
• 743 cases of violence with injury.
• 24 incidents involving knife crime.
• 261 sexual offences.

Actions and outcomes were shared from retail theft in the town centre, theft from vehicles, and rural crime.

Councillor Grove felt that there was more focus on tackling retail crime, she asked how the police would ensure that progress was not lost in tackling violence against women and girls.

Jason Hogg said that there had been an increase in neighbourhood officers to tackle both areas and resources could be allocated as and when required. Each offence of shoplifting did not need to be investigated, it was repeat offenders which needed to be apprehended.

Councillor Baskerville considered retention of police officers in the Thames Valley, particularly given the proximity of the Metropolitan Police in London who could offer higher salaries.

Jason Hogg said that there had been a focus on attraction rather than what the life of a police officer was really like. In November, the bar had been raised and extra checks had been brought in to make sure that new officers joining the force understood what the job was. There were not many officers lost to the Metropolitan Police but the higher London weighting on salaries was an issue and there were also a number of officers who moved to the private sector. Jason Hogg wanted to ensure that Thames Valley Police was a great organisation to work for and that all staff felt valued.

Councillor Walters asked for confirmation on the number of burglaries which took place across the Windsor and Maidenhead area.

Clare Knibbs confirmed that there had been a 9% reduction in burglary compared to the previous year.

Jason Hogg added that there had been a significant reduction in home burglaries since Covid and this had not gone back to its previous level.

Councillor G Singh commented that it was disappointing the Police and Crime Commissioner was unable to attend the meeting but thanked the officers present for their work and presentation. He felt that the good figures shared was different to reality and that there was a lack of frontline police on the streets. Councillor Singh suggested that there was a priority on Windsor and more support needed to be given to Maidenhead, particularly in relation to the night time economy.

Jason Hogg explained that due to the learning and training required for some officers, neighbourhood teams could be stretched and may not be seen  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

This report recommends that the Cabinet approve the publication of the draft Affordable Housing Delivery Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for public consultation.

The draft SPD provides more detailed guidance to support the implementation of the affordable housing policy requirements in the Borough Local Plan. It includes  guidance on issues relating to the amount, type, tenure, and location of affordable housing, and addresses also issues relating to development viability and how affordable housing provision should be integrated into the planning application process.

This report will be considered by Cabinet on 20^th February and is an initial draft version, so is subject to change before Cabinet. The Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel are provided with an opportunity to scrutinise the report, put forward their comments as part of the consultation period and agree any recommendations for consideration by Cabinet.

Ian Manktelow, Principal Planning Policy Officer, gave the Panel a brief presentation setting out the context behind the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). There had been a commitment in the Borough Local Plan to prepare an SPD and this would provide an opportunity to give more guidance to developers. The SPD would also allow the council to secure affordable housing that best met the needs of the borough. The report would be going to Cabinet on 20^th February for approval before going out to consultation for a minimum of four weeks in March or April. Consultation responses would then be reviewed and the SPD would be updated accordingly. The SPD could be brought back to Cabinet in July, dependant on the extent of the consultation responses and the issues raised.

Councillor Carpenter asked if the SPD would ensure that the council saw the maximum allocation of affordable housing being offered. It was stated in the report that those from minority ethnic backgrounds would struggle to gain housing in the borough but this was not what Councillor Carpenter had experienced in her conversations with residents. She asked what a designated rural area was and why this was important along with the significance of unparished areas. Councillor Carpenter considered the options available to developers and that an alternative site could be used, she questioned how the council could ensure that this was similar in quality to the original designs. For developers who chose the financial contribution, Councillor Carpenter queried what happened to this money and how would the council make sure that this was used to build further affordable housing.

Ian Manktelow said that the document would put the council in a better position when it came to viability discussions with developers. However, there could be site specific reasons why the target level of affordable housing could not be achieved. There was a review mechanism in place, for example if a planning application was approved in year 1 but the development did not start until year 3, the decision could be reviewed for more affordable housing due to a change in market demands. The comment on ethnic minority figures was a general comment picked up by the Housing team and Ian Manktelow would check this after the meeting. On rural areas, there were some parishes in south east England which were formally set out in legislation as rural areas. This legislation allowed the council to set a lower site size threshold at which the council could secure affordable housing. Unparished areas did not qualify as they were not parishes under the legislation. In relation to offsite provision, the priority was to get an appropriate level of affordable housing on the proposed site. If there were two sites coming through from the same developer, they could in theory allocate all of their affordable housing on one of the two sites but this was not the preferred approach. Where financial contributions were received from developers, this was ringfenced and could only be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

In accordance with section A3 of Part 4 of the council’s constitution, the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel are permitted to appoint a number of individuals as co-optees on the Panel.

Overview and Scrutiny has a vital role in performance management by linking the planning and delivery of services to the experiences of and impact upon local people. Expanding its membership to include representation beyond locally elected representatives strengthens these links and gives a voice to the key representatives from the local community.

All relevant bodies and organisations have been informed of these positions and both Overview and Scrutiny Panels are asked to approve the appointments which have been proposed.

The Panel are asked to note the report and recommend the listed appointments for approval by Full Council.

Mark Beeley, Principal Democratic Services Officer – Overview and Scrutiny, said that the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel were able to appoint two Parish Councillors as co-optees on the Panel. After contacting all Parish Councils, three nominations had been received. Two of these nominations had been received before the deadline, while the nomination received after the deadline was recommended to be a substitute co-optee. The Panel were asked to approve the report before it went to Full Council for formal ratification.

Councillor G Singh asked if any further information could be given on the proposed co-opted representatives.

Mark Beeley confirmed that he could share the nomination statements with the Panel after the meeting.

ACTION – Mark Beeley to share nomination statements from the three proposed co-optees after the meeting with the Panel.

Councillor Majeed noted that for the People Overview and Scrutiny Panel, there were representatives for the Church of England the Roman Catholic dioceses. He asked if other religions could also be included.

Mark Beeley explained that these were the positions set out in the RBWM Constitution, to appoint co-optees from other religions would require a change to the constitution.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel noted the report and recommended to Full Council that:

i)             The appointment of the following representatives were made to the Panel until May 2027:

a.    Louvaine Kneen as the Parish Councillor representing the Northern Parishes.

b.    Roly Latif and David Saunders (sub) as the Parish Councillors representing the Southern Parishes.

To review the ongoing work programme.

The Panel are asked for any additional comments to the scoping document attached on S106/Community Infrastructure Levy.

Mark Beeley highlighted the CIL/S106 scoping document which was for approval by the Panel in advance of an item being added to the work programme.

Councillor Carpenter said that she had submitted a scoping document on the Tivoli contract.

Mark Beeley confirmed that this was being discussed with officers, there was a plan to have a review of Tivoli performance in the spring in advance of the summer period. The Panel could then consider what actions Tivoli had put in place to ensure that some of the problems which had been seen last summer would not be repeated.

Councillor G Singh felt that the council had lost a lot of money on S106 over the years and this was an important area to bring to scrutiny.

Councillor Blundell put forward a scoping document on a selective licensing scheme.

Andrew Durrant said that it was an area that had been discussed in the team.

Councillor G Singh felt it was a good proposal and a scheme could bring in a significant amount of extra funding.