Agenda item - Public Questions

Public Questions

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 26 February 2019 7.30 pm (Item 94.)

a) Gavin Weeks of Castle Without ward, will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Regarding “no deal” Brexit preparation, Councillor Dudley was quoted in the Slough Express as saying: “The Government is going to release something in the region of 70 impact assessments. We will look for the commentary in those impact assessments.” These assessments were published in early Autumn 2018. What preparations have been made by the council?

b) Simon George of Clewer South ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Brexit and no-deal Brexit will affect businesses and residents, and consequently service demand on the council. Organisations reliant on EU workers or funding will be particularly exposed. What risks and service areas have you identified as being vulnerable to Brexit and to no-deal, and when will a report be available for scrutiny by Members and the public?

c) Lisette Stux of Bray ward will ask the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

Local government update: Written statement - HCWS1279 notes that each Unitary Authority will be given £210K for Brexit preparations by central government; £105K in current year and £105K in 2019/20. What have you spent this money on in 2018/19, and what will it be spent on in 2019/20, and where in the council budget is this noted?

d) Karen Davies of Park ward will ask the following question of Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Given that the government has forecast a downturn in the economy post Brexit, local businesses will be affected. How will you support small businesses in the borough through this difficult period?

e) Lisette Stux of Bray ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health:

Bristol CC are preparing for impacts of “No Deal” on Social Care, including that: “Pressures on workforce and supply chain could lead to disruption to services. Including Impact on the timeliness /quality of care delivered and, increased wage demands putting contractors at risk.” What mitigation is the council planning for EU27 residents who perform vital jobs, but are leaving?

f) Gavin Weeks of Castle Without ward, will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Bristol CC and LB Enfield have identified risks “to achieve its housing delivery targets, and to manage/maintain our council stock.” Given the potential negative effect on property prices post Brexit, and the issues of availability of skilled labour, is it possible that some or all of the RBWM property ventures will become less lucrative?

g) Simon George of Clewer South ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Pilot schemes demonstrate that some EU27 residents will struggle with the Settled Status application process, for varied reasons (including technology difficulties, age, disability). Councils such as Southwark are offering support to these persons, while Southampton CC is offering passport scanning and verification. What support will be made available in RBWM, and when, for residents who require assistance to apply?

h) Karen Davies of Park ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health:

Given the Council’s public health priorities for 2018-19 of Enabling and Empowering Resilient Communities, Promoting and Supporting Good Mental Health, Social Isolation & Loneliness and Healthy Ageing, what will the council do to support residents, including EU27 citizens, mentally through this time of uncertainty?

i) Clare Quarman of Clewer South ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

What is the council doing to pressurise the government to fix the settled status process and mobile phone app issues?

j) Question removed as per Part 2C paragraph 9.5 of the council constitution as it relates to a current planning application

k) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

RBWM was awarded £1.31m under the government’s “Flexible Homelessness Support Grant” for 2019/20. This is on top of £1.05m/£1.21m from 2017&2018. This ringfenced grant gives RBWM flexibility to actively prevent people becoming homeless in the first place. How much of the FHSG money has been spent to prevent people needing any temporary accommodation under your s.4(2) HRA2017 duty?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

a) Gavin Weeks of Castle Without ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Councillor Dudley responded that the council had:

· designated a lead officer within the council to co-ordinate communication and provide oversight;

· ensured Brexit had been the focus of specific corporate leadership team meetings and formed part of strategic planning for the year;

· issued specific guidance for local government to relevant service leads and members of the council leadership team (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-government-brexit-preparedness) for awareness and, where appropriate, response;

· co-ordinated closely with the council’s Joint Emergency Planning team and was responding and participating in the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum regional response;

· and continued to focus on the issue at the CLT level with regular briefings scheduled on the issue to regularly review what remained a rapidly changing situation.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Weeks asked who was heading up the Brexit preparations task force at Member and officer level.

Councillor Dudley responded that ultimately he as Leader of the Council, along with the Managing Director, were responsible.

b) Simon George of Clewer South ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Councillor Dudley responded that the co-ordinated work with the Joint Emergency Planning Team and the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum, which formed the substantive part of the council’s preparations, were classified as Official Sensitive and therefore could not be made public.

Cabinet would be briefed on the updated position after the next Council Leadership Team meeting on 6 March 2019.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr George commented that for example, Bristol City Council had identified eight areas: finance and funding, civil contingencies, workforce, legal and regulatory, supply chain, housing, key operations and city economy. Will the council now look into these areas?

Councillor Dudley responded that the council was looking into the necessary areas in preparation for leaving the EU, and the Cabinet would be updated by the Corporate Leadership team and the Managing Director of any necessary actions.

c) Lisette Stux of Bray ward asked the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

Councillor Dudley responded to this question on behalf of Councillor Saunders.

Councillor Dudley commented that people probably did not realise the government was providing funding to all local authorities. The funding had not yet been received by the council and therefore did not yet appear in the budget. An update to the budget through the monthly Finance Update to Cabinet would be taken at the appropriate time.

Funding to support additional services offered through the Registrars (detailed in response to question g) were being resourced with this money. Otherwise it would be held in reserves to assist with any issues in the event they arose.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Stux commented that Slough Borough Council had set aside £220,000 in addition to the funding from the government. How much additional money and officer time had been set aside by the borough, above government funding?

Councillor Dudley responded that the council’s reserves exceeded the statutory minimum therefore there was no need to set aside any further funding.

d) Karen Davies of Park ward asked the following question of Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Given that the government has forecast a downturn in the economy post Brexit, local businesses will be affected. How will you support small businesses in the borough through this difficult period?

Councillor Dudley responded to this question on behalf of Councillor S Rayner.

Councillor Dudley responded that the Department for Exiting the EU had had released economic projections in case of a no deal which predicated the economy would be 6.35-9% lower than if there were a managed Brexit. The council had a longstanding track record of supporting businesses locally and this would continue. Some of the existing support available included:

· Charitable and Discretionary Rate Relief

· Hardship Relief

· Newspaper Relief

· Partly Occupied Property Rate Relief

· Retail Re-occupation rate Relief

· Rural Rate Relief

· Small Business Rate Relief

· Transitional Relief

· Unoccupied Property Business Rate Relief

The government had resources available for businesses through the website https://euexit.campaign.gov.uk/ to support their preparations which the council encouraged any small businesses to access.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Davies asked, with regard to rate reliefs, what effect is it anticipated that this will have on business rate income retained by RBWM?

Councillor Dudley responded that as this was a technical question he would respond in writing.

e) Lisette Stux of Bray ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health:

Councillor Dudley responded to this question on behalf of Councillor Carroll.

Councillor Dudley responded that there was no evidence yet that EU27 residents were leaving the Royal Borough; in March 2018 there were 5927 EU electors in the Royal Borough compared to 6081 on the electoral register in February 2019. Therefore the number in Windsor and Maidenhead had increased over the year. This represented 5.59% of the borough’s electorate in February 2019. The council would continue to monitor the figures. Slough had 16,000 EU citizens.

As part of wider preparations, relevant heads of service have had dialogue with contracted services to ensure they were updating their business continuity plans and close communications would be ongoing.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Stux asked if EU residents were not yet leaving and there was a cliff-edge Brexit, could he assure her that the quality and timeliness of social care services would continue and increasing costs would not put services at risk?

Councillor Dudley responded that the protection of the vulnerable was paramount. The council had extremely healthy reserves. If there were any pressure on services the council would allocate all necessary resources to protect the vulnerable.

f) Gavin Weeks of Castle Without ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Councillor Dudley responded that the council had no housing stock itself; this had been transferred to Housing Associations some years previously. The council’s arrangements with development partners had mitigated as far as possible against this; for instance it was the development partners not the council that would bear the sales risk. For example on the York Road site, a minimum land value and overage clause had already been conditionally agreed. A paper would come to Cabinet on this in March 2019.

There were a number of things which insulated the London and South East property markets, given the buoyancy of the local economies more generally, something which was being monitored by Homes England of which he was a non-executive Director and received weekly briefings. Locally, there were also a number of things which would insulate property prices to a degree such as the arrival of Crossrail scheduled for December 2020.

There was an affordability crisis in the local housing market, though, with property prices in excess of 12.5 times the median salary which was why the council continued to focus on using its resources and expertise to build affordable homes for its residents including 88 new affordable homes on the York Road site, starting any day now.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Weeks asked what was the risk of range of possible effects and did he consider the council’s property ventures to be at risk?

Councillor Dudley responded that ventures such as the golf club were not anticipated to start for some years and may be subject to any macro-economic affects on the UK property market over the next ten years. In respect of the local market, there was significant housing demand and a very buoyant economy. As a developer one was able to accelerate or slow down development to match market absorption rates. All borough development sites guaranteed 30% affordable housing which would go to housing providers. For the York Road development, this would be Housing Solutions.

g) Simon George of Clewer South ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Councillor Dudley responded that as part of the application process applicants proved their identity using the EU Exit: ID Document Check app, which would be available on Android devices. The council had signed up to provide an in-person identity verification service, providing access to a device for those who did not have one.

The council had ordered and received the devices from the Local Registration Service Association (LRSA) and was awaiting a software update from them. Once this was in place, and training had been received from the LRSA, the council would be providing this service. The cost per applicant would be set by the LRSA and therefore uniform across local authorities. The registrar’s team were aiming to run this service on an appointment basis, providing specialist staff to carry it out. The service would be open to everyone, not just RBWM residents.

Once the training from the LRSA was complete and the services was running, the council would be automatically added to the www.gov.uk website as a provider. It would also be advertised on the rbwm.gov.uk website and via the council’s Communications Department.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr George asked what the council was doing to ensure EU27 residents were informed of the need to apply for Settled Status including vulnerable persons and those in care?

Councillor Dudley responded that a while ago the council had created a section on the website for this; he would ensure it was regularly updated and could easily be accessed from the main webpage. The council would do everything to assist all EU27 residents, in particular those with specific needs.

h) Karen Davies of Park ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health:

Councillor Dudley responded to this question on behalf of Councillor Carroll.

Councillor Dudley responded that he was proud two cabinet members had indicated they had mental health challenges and did a wonderful job in their Lead Member roles. Although there were no specific plans to support people in relation to Brexit, the Royal Borough had a strong commitment to enabling resilient communities and promoting and supporting mental health. There were a wide range of services available to support the communities of the borough across all age ranges in order to maintain and improve their mental and emotional wellbeing. This included all library staff who were in the process of being trained in Making Every Contact Count, which would enable them to have healthy conversations with residents. If they identified that a resident needed support with their wellbeing then they could signpost them to self-help books or wider services for support.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Davies asked how much funding would be made available to fulfill the objectives?

Councillor Dudley responded that in respect of residents’ mental health in connection with exiting the EU, whatever financial resources were necessary would be put in should issues arise.

i) The Mayor asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council, on behalf of the absent Clare Quarman of Clewer South ward:

What is the council doing to pressurise the government to fix the settled status process and mobile phone app issues?

Councillor Dudley responded that the answer to question g above was relevant, and also noted that there had been no formal complaints made to the council’s complaints department about this as yet.

The council had a dedicated page on its website for EU citizens with links to useful government sites and the CAB to support EU residents on issues affecting them. The deadline to apply would be 31 December 2020 if the UK left the EU without a deal which was still sometime away. The government was focused on achieving a deal in which case the deadline for applying was extended to 30 June 2021.

j) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Can you please clarify the appropriate weight to be afforded to Policies ED1 and ED2 of the Borough Local Plan Submission Version in reaching a planning decision?

Councillor Coppinger responded that to provide context he wished to explain that planning decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The development plan had primacy. The Borough Local Plan submission version was not part of the development plan, it was a relevant material consideration and the policies within it could be afforded weight as such, the weight would differ according to the policy.

Policies ED1 and ED2 related to economic development and employment sites respectively. There were significant unresolved objections to these policies and he was advised, at this time, they carried limited weight as material planning considerations.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that in February the planning department had said that councillors should accord relevant policies and allocations significant weight in the determination of applications, taking into account the extent to which there were unresolved objections to policies. At the moment the Borough Local Plan was neither sound nor unsound but officers appeared to be saying policies could be split between those with resolved objectives carrying significant weight and those with unresolved objections carrying limited weight. Applicants and objectors alike needed certainty therefore he asked if the Lead Member would publish a complete list of emerging policies that officers currently believed had had their objections resolved and would thus be given significant weight at this time?

Councillor Coppinger responded that he would respond in writing as the issue related to specific planning applications.

k) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

RBWM was awarded £1.31m under the government’s “Flexible Homelessness Support Grant” for 2019/20. This is on top of £1.05m/£1.21m from 2017&2018. This ring-fenced grant gives RBWM flexibility to actively prevent people becoming homeless in the first place. How much of the FHSG money has been spent to prevent people needing any temporary accommodation under your s.4(2) HRA2017 duty?

Councillor M Airey responded that the council had spent £87,680 of the grant on Interest Free Loans to prevent homelessness, which was the main spend on prevention. Loans were given at 0% to customers to enable them to secure private rented accommodation by funding a deposit (approximately 6 weeks equivalent rent) and one month’s rent in advance. The scheme was discretionary and applicants were assessed against the criteria to ensure those in the greatest need were assisted.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that Councillors McWilliams and Carroll had been actively reaching out to protect homeless people however the public had also seen some extraordinary tweets from Conservative councillors, for example that Slough only had temporary SWEP but the borough had permanent SWEP. The officers of Slough Council had felt moved to say this was not a competition. The government also appeared to say this was not a competition and had issued guidance. In Chapter 2 of the guidance it said that local authorities should work with neighboring authorities. He asked when was the last time the council had talked with local homeless charities and opposite partners at Slough to discuss the idea of collaboration on a joint homelessness strategy?

Councillor M. Airey responded that under Councillor McWilliams there had been regular meetings with borough partners and homelessness charities. He had not been in post that long but planned to do so in the coming months. SWEP had been in place since 22 November 2018 and would be in place until 22 March 2019, regardless of temperature. He did not control the RBWM Conservative Twitter account.

Supporting documents:

190226_council_question j, item 94. PDF 82 KB