Agenda item

Public Questions

a)    Jane Stone of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

How many organisations tendered for the contract which was currently with Ways into Work and has now been awarded to Optalis?

 

b)   Janet Hayes-Brown of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

How many clients can the new Optalis supported employment service work with for the £74,000 budget, and what targets, including job outcomes, will be set with the new provider?

 

c)    Susan Edwards of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

My son has benefitted greatly from funding provided by RBWM to Ways into Work and works for the Council. He has multiple and complex issues including severe learning disability, hearing impairment and, difficulties with communication. Whoever supports him needs to know him well. By changing service provider to Optalis, how can you guarantee that he will not be disadvantaged?

 

d)     Lisa Hughes of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Many residents with disabilities will be greatly affected by cuts of £166k to supported employment and £330k to the council tax reduction scheme plus increases to adult health and commissioning charges. Can RBWM provide evidence that due regard was given to its equality obligations in relation to residents with disabilities?

 

e)    Angela Clark of Cox Green ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Ways into Work provides personalised employment support that enables residents with disabilities to be a part of the workforce, with commensurate benefits to their finances, health and well-being. Will the £166k of savings next year be realised by reducing the number of people supported or reducing the scope of the services provided?

 

f)     Paul Stretton of Clewer East ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

 

During the Council meeting (Sept 2018), concerns of asbestos hazards, during demolition (surface and airborne) in the Dedworth area were raised. Authority to proceed with demolition was given by RBWM, without ensuring all planning conditions had been met. What actions and recommendations have been implemented to protect and reassure the community from this and any such future suspected contaminations?

 

g)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

On 26th March Simon Dudley announced at the St Mary's Church Areli/Tikehau meeting, that he had “... already entered into” an agreement to sell Central House, and our 50% freehold of the Nicholson centre to Areli. On what date did he enter into that agreement, and had any officer or Cabinet approved this massive agreement beforehand?

h)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Why is the Local Planning Authority putting residents’ health and safety at risk, and rewarding developers who significantly breach allegedly "strict" prior planning conditions, by retrospectively approving demolition management plans for sites where there had already been breaches of several statutes including the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012?

 

i)     Ray Hayes-Brown of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Currently 168 vulnerable adults are working in the borough, supported by WIW. You propose to continue this with Optalis on a third of the current budget. Have the council made proper assessment of the complex needs they all have, and risks they will be exposed too if their needs are not supported adequately? With impunity can you guarantee their safety?

j)     Valerie Pike of Sunningdale and Cheapside ward will ask the following question of CouncillorCannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking:

 

The council “…has now explicitly confirmed to the [Information] Commissioner” that it holds no information, such as a business case, for the £240k capital scheme (Chobham Road, Sunningdale New Parking Scheme) bid for in February 2018. Why did RBWM approve this spending without a submitted business case as to what benefits this scheme would deliver to residents and how?

 

k)    Valerie Pike of Sunningdale and Cheapside ward will ask the following question of CouncillorHilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

 

When a Parish Council or the Police & Crime Commissioner submit their precept demands, what governance and scrutiny is undertaken by RBWM itself to ensure their demands are reasonable, fair and value for public money, and in keeping with relative size of that parish, or in proportion to the scale of the public services offered?

 

l) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of CouncillorCannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking:

 

With the proposed savings in funding for our community wardens meaning the administration will not be able to fulfil its manifesto pledge to retain a 25 warden-strong unit, will the Lead Member commit to holding a public consultation before finalising the adjusted tasking of the remaining team?

 

m) Louis Wright of Hurley & Walthams ward will ask the following question of CouncillorStimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Since declaring a "climate emergency" and proposing a cross-party developed strategy to achieve carbon neutrality, how has the Royal Borough identified the minimum competencies and skills, within its own staff, to understand, develop and implement the aforementioned strategy?

n) Louis Wright of Hurley & Walthams ward will ask the following question of CouncillorStimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

What plans does the Royal Borough have to engage with young people (children and teenage demographics) on the topic of climate change?

 

(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 one minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

a)    Jane Stone of Belmont ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

How many organisations tendered for the contract which was currently with Ways into Work and has now been awarded to Optalis?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question on this important issue.  Rather than go out to tender, the council has asked its own delivery company, Optalis, to provide the service. As you might be aware, from April 2017, the council started delivering all statutory and discretionary adult services through Optalis, which is a Local Authority Trading Company; jointly owned by Wokingham Borough Council and the Royal Borough. 

 

As Optalis is a jointly owned Local Authority Trading Company, the Council is not required to formally tender any contracts for statutory or discretionary services, if they can be fulfilled by Optalis.

 

In the case of the existing contract with Ways into Work, the Royal Borough was not, therefore, required to re-tender the contract when it expires on 30th April 2020, as Optalis already has a successful and established Supported Employment service in operation, in Wokingham, which has been running for more than 18 years.  Delivering through Optalis is our long term strategy and all part of our overall plan to deliver better adult social care through enablement, prevention and independence.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Stone expressed concern that Ways Into Work had provided this service for five years as a community interest company and prior to that as part of RBWM. This continuity had allowed them to build up contracts and relationships with local employers and the candidates who had complex needs. She asked how this wealth of knowledge and experience would be maintained and candidates supported?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that the council’s adult social care strategy had been to invest in Optalis Holding Company, which was part of the proposal. The government ranked each local authority on the percentage of people with learning difficulties supported into employment. The Optalis service currently in Wokingham was ranked number two in the country. Optalis already had expertise in the field. The council was working with the current provider to ensure transitional arrangements were fully optimised.

 

b)   Janet Hayes-Brown of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

How many clients can the new Optalis supported employment service work with for the £74,000 budget, and what targets, including job outcomes, will be set with the new provider?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question on this important issue.  It is important to understand that there is a fully operational Supported Employment Service already operating within our Local Authority Trading Company, Optalis.  This has been in operation for more than 18 years and supports around 300 residents in Wokingham.  There is an existing staff team comprising a Head of Employment Services, as well as Team Leads, Coaches and other support staff, who operate to the high standards required to be accredited to the British Association of Supported Employment.  Delivering through Optalis is our long term strategy and all part of our overall plan to deliver better adult social care through enablement, prevention and independence.

 

We are, therefore, not setting up a service from scratch, but rather, are adding additional investment into the existing infrastructure that is successfully operating.  This means that more staff can be recruited (or transferred from the existing provider, Ways into Work), to support the cohort of people likely to transfer across when the existing contract comes to an end on 30th April 2020. 

 

Detailed discussions are still ongoing between the outgoing provider, Ways into Work, and commissioners, regarding the number of customers who are likely to transfer across to Optalis.  The Royal Borough understands that the existing provider is intending to continue to support and maintain a significant number of their existing clients. 

 

Clients for whom the existing provider has not yet managed to find employment, around 79 people, or who are still on their waiting list, around 78 people, are likely to be offered the opportunity to come across to the Optalis Supported employment service.

 

Regarding job outcomes, you may be aware that each year the Government ranks each Local Authority on the percentage of people with a learning disability who are supported into employment (the indicator is called ASCOF 1E (proportion of people with learning disabilities in employment)) and the Optalis service at Wokingham, ranked number 2 in the country this year behind London Borough of Hounslow. We will ensure that the contract with Optalis includes all relevant employment targets to meet the national ASCOF standards.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Hayes-Brown asked whether it would be an option for Ways into Work to be funded for those that they already had in work, giving Optalis the opportunity to build relationships and reputation in the borough? Also, in the written answer it stated ‘Clients for whom the existing provider has not yet managed to find employment, around 79 people, or who are still on their waiting list, around 78 people, are likely to be offered the opportunity to come across to the Optalis Supported employment service’. What did ‘likely’ mean?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that the council would continue to work with Ways Into Work as much as it could; some of the existing people would be retained. Given the high performance at Optalis in Wokingham he was confident that the transition would be successful. The 78 people referred to would be offered the opportunity; what was needed as part of the plan was to see how they could very quickly be offered employment opportunities. The Health and Wellbeing Board had written to all local employers to highlight the issue. An offer would be available but the issue was whether placements would be available.

 

c)    Susan Edwards of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

My son has benefitted greatly from funding provided by RBWM to Ways into Work and works for the Council. He has multiple and complex issues including severe learning disability, hearing impairment and, difficulties with communication. Whoever supports him needs to know him well. By changing service provider to Optalis, how can you guarantee that he will not be disadvantaged?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question on this important issue.  The Royal Borough is aware of the group of people to whom you refer, who work for the Council.  They are currently supported 8 hours a week through the coaches employed by Ways into Work.  The council has asked Ways into Work for costings to continue to support these people which is £12,000 per annum.  The council is seeking alternative funding to ensure this support continues, including employment benefits, and has committed to pay any shortfall.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Edwards asked for clarification if the council was going to continue funding for the Ways Into Work parks team and how long for?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that the commissioning team was in discussion with Ways Into Work on this particular issue. He hoed those discussions would be concluded in the next few weeks. He had asked for costings to be supplied for these individuals. The council would be seeking alternative funding and had committed to pay any shortfall.

 

d)   Lisa Hughes of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Many residents with disabilities will be greatly affected by cuts of £166k to supported employment and £330k to the council tax reduction scheme plus increases to adult health and commissioning charges. Can RBWM provide evidence that due regard was given to its equality obligations in relation to residents with disabilities?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question. I can confirm that the Royal Borough has given due regard to all its equality obligations in respect of the proposals it is making for the 2020-2021 budget.  Equality Impact Assessments have been completed where applicable and these are available on the website at this link.

 

Turning to the three specific points that you mention, in relation to the supported employment service, we will be commissioning this from our jointly owned Local Authority Trading Company, Optalis.  Optalis has been successfully operating a high-quality supported employment service for more than 18 years and therefore we are building on the existing structures and staffing that are already successfully in place.  We are confident that by investing into the existing service, there will be greater efficiencies and economies of scale through shared use of staff and resources so that we will be able to build and strengthen the support across the two boroughs, whilst providing value for money.

 

In relation to the proposed changes to the council tax reduction scheme, there is no evidence that residents with disabilities will be any more affected than any other working age customer with a protected characteristic.  The authority will continue to disregard income received from disability related benefits, e.g. Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payments.  However, there is no proposal to exempt individuals, en masse, as a result of disability.  They, like anyone else, will be able to apply to consider remitting the costs on the basis of financial hardship in accordance with the authority’s existing S13A(1)(c) Policy.

 

In line with the council’s overall approach to fees and charges, adult social care fees and charges have been increased by inflation on all but domiciliary care.  For domiciliary care, we are proposing full cost recovery for self-funders only, on the basis that they will have been assessed as able to pay the full amount.  Removing the Advantage Card discounts for parking is being applied across the board and there is no evidence that residents with disabilities will be any more affected than anyone else using the car parks.  Blue badge provision for residents with disabilities is unaffected by this proposal.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Hughes commented that the council could have, but did not, identify council tax reduction recipients with a disability therefore how could the council be sure that they would not be more adversely affected by the proposal? The EQIA showed that the simplicity of the council’s administration took precedence over the risk of financial hardship for people with disabilities. People with some types of disabilities really struggled with applying for the S13A discretionary reduction but this was not considered. A reasonable adjustment would be to provide help for people with disabilities to apply for discretionary reductions. Would the council do so?

 

Councillor Johnson responded that the council would be offering help to people through the full process of applying and would review each situation on a case by case basis.  He was confident that the EQIA process had been robust in terms of meeting the council’s duties. He would however come back with detail on the issues raised.

 

Written response provided after the meeting: The policy only specifies that requests must be made in writing setting out the circumstances on which the application is based and any hardship or personal circumstances relating to the application.  The application should include a full income and expenditure breakdown of the applicant together with that of any other household members.  The Council may request evidence in support of the application.

 

We have not prescribed a specific form which would need to be completed and will accept applications via e-mail or post. However, we can provide a pro-forma for the customer to complete with details of income and expenditure if that assists them.

Customers can request face to face assistance, via the dedicated Revenues and Benefits Assistants situated in both Maidenhead and Windsor library. No appointment is necessary for this service. Telephony support is also available via the customer services contact centre.

Any further information can be supplied again, either face to face, or via e-mail to the Revenues and Benefits team.

 

e)    Angela Clark of Cox Green ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Ways into Work provides personalised employment support that enables residents with disabilities to be a part of the workforce, with commensurate benefits to their finances, health and well-being. Will the £166k of savings next year be realised by reducing the number of people supported or reducing the scope of the services provided?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question on this important issue.  We recognise the importance that a Supported Employment Service holds for people with additional needs and the benefit and sense of self-esteem that comes with finding paid employment.

 

I would like to reassure you that the service that we will be commissioning from our jointly owned Local Authority Trading Company, Optalis, has been successfully operating providing a high quality Supported Employment service for Wokingham Council for more than 18 years.  It is important to recognise that we are therefore not setting up this enterprise from scratch, but are building on the existing structures and staffing that are already successfully in place within Optalis, so that when the council commissions this service it can also operate for our Windsor and Maidenhead residents.  As a long-established service, Optalis Supported Employment works with many local and national companies and has many contacts and links into employment, maintaining the high standards required from the British Association of Supported Employment.

  

As our Local Authority Trading Company, Optalis already operates in offices and day centres across the Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead providing statutory adult social care (social work, Occupational Therapy, reablement services, residential care homes and day centres) and other support for vulnerable adults on behalf of the Local Authority.  We are confident that by investing into the existing Supported Employment service already running, there will be greater efficiencies and economies of scale through shared use of staff and resources and we will be able to build and strengthen the support across the two Boroughs, whilst providing value for money and that important employment support that you refer to in your question.  Delivering through Optalis is our long term strategy and all part of our overall plan to deliver better adult social care through enablement, prevention and independence.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Clark asked would the council continue to fund Ways Into Work for the 169 clients they already had?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that essentially the answer was yes because Ways Into Work had multiple funding streams. In agreement with the council they had committed to that number of people. This would be reviewed on a periodic basis.

 

 

f)     Paul Stretton of Clewer East ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

 

During the Council meeting (Sept 2018), concerns of asbestos hazards, during demolition (surface and airborne) in the Dedworth area were raised. Authority to proceed with demolition was given by RBWM, without ensuring all planning conditions had been met. What actions and recommendations have been implemented to protect and reassure the community from this and any such future suspected contaminations?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question, however the question states points that are factually incorrect.  The Council did not authorise the demolition of the building ahead of the discharge of conditions, the developer took this course of action without informing the Council or applying to discharge relevant pre-commencement conditions. The planning department cannot prevent such a course of action being taken.  It can only seek to rectify allegations of a breach of planning control through the planning enforcement process.

 

Concerns over alleged nuisance during construction works should be raised with the Council’s Environmental Protection team, however, concerns over asbestos are a matter for the Health and Safety Executive where this is alleged to relate to unsafe building practices.  This is no different to the position as advised by the Council at the time.

                                

Mr Stretton was not present therefore no supplementary question was asked.

 

g)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

On 26th March Simon Dudley announced at the St Mary's Church Areli/Tikehau meeting, that he had “... already entered into” an agreement to sell Central House, and our 50% freehold of the Nicholson centre to Areli. On what date did he enter into that agreement, and had any officer or Cabinet approved this massive agreement beforehand?

A written response was provided:


Thank you for your question. Following discussions between officers of the Council and its wholly owned property company with the new owner of the shopping centre heads of terms were agreed with them on the 1 March 2019. These were non-binding and were there to form the basis for a contract to include the Council’s ownerships within a future redevelopment. A report was taken to Cabinet on the 25 April to gain formal approval to negotiate and agree a contract on this basis. Cabinet agreed delegated authority subject to a report being brought to Council.  On the 23 July Council approved the sale of the Council’s freehold interests in Nicholson’s and Central House for £6million and delegated authority to enter into contracts for these.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that on 23 July the council had approved for the sale of freehold land for basically half of the town centre a few minutes from the Crossrail station for nearly £1m pounds. At that meeting Simon Dudley noted that the real value lay in the regeneration value which could be in the region of £100m. The valuation process clearly did not factor that in and the council had not held an open market contested bidding process. The report claimed that ‘the only interest was likely to come from parties who would be seeking to interfere with the regeneration plans for Maidenhead.’ Mr Hill asked who was the council referring to when it suggested parties would interfere?

 

Councillor Hilton responded that as he did not have the detailed knowledge, a written answer would be provided after the meeting.

Written response provided after the meeting: The Council owns the freehold interest of approximately 50% of the shopping centre with an unexpired lease interest of 117 years in favour of Denhead Sarl. Denhead Sarl, also own the freehold and leasehold interest in the remainder of the shopping centre, giving them a substantial property interest in the existing shopping centre. Denhead Sarl purchased their interest from Vixcroft through an administration process.  The developer Denhead bought from the administrator the lease and remaining freehold of the site.

Due to the length of the unexpired lease  (117 years) the new owners approached the council with a view to purchasing the council freehold interest, to enable an extensive redevelopment of the town centre.  The Council freehold interest at this point had a deminimus value due to the poor performance of the retail sector over the last 3-5 years, and the declining retail markets. Had the Council decided at this point to put the freehold interest to the open market for sale, a) its value would have been deminimus b) it would have frustrated the potential redevelopment of the town centre.  Instead it agreed in principle to sell the freehold interest to Denhead Sarl, who already held the substantial leasehold interest, subject to a s.123 report (an external valuation) demonstrating value for money, and best consideration.  Had the Council decided to sell this freehold interest on the open market it would have attracted substantially less in value that has actually been agreed with the existing leaseholder.  The reference in the report to if the Council sold its part of freehold to someone else relates to fact that because the developer had already bought the remaining freehold and 117 year lease, any organisation who would be likely to buy it, if there were to be any, would do so to try and interfere with and frustrate the plans of the developer to redevelop the site as they could not redevelop it themselves etc. Clearly, the Council wishes to see the town centre regenerated effectively for the good of residents and the local economy and for this not to be frustrated or delayed unnecessarily. Exactly who such organisations could be would only be known if we tried to sell our part of the freehold in that way which for the reasons outlined is not the course of action.

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

Why is the Local Planning Authority putting residents’ health and safety at risk, and rewarding developers who significantly breach allegedly "strict" prior planning conditions, by retrospectively approving demolition management plans for sites where there had already been breaches of several statutes including the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for the question however I do not agree that considering a planning application has put residents’ health and safety at risk.  The planning authority is duty bound to consider all planning applications received.  This includes where retrospective applications are made.  Applications are considered against the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and are assessed against relevant planning policy, and legislation.  The planning system does not regulate the control of asbestos.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that the final sentence of the written response stated that the planning system did not regulate the control of asbestos.  Officers had made comments to the HSE on asbestos; Councillors Carroll and Bhangra had been superb in raising the safety issues; on the planning portal there were asbestos surveys and consultees included environmental health on dust. It appeared to be saying in the final sentence that the council would approve retrospectively a construction management plan in circumstances when it was concerned about asbestos safety because it was implying it had no right to reject an application on that basis. Was that a correct understanding?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that as this was a technical question he would reply in writing.

 

Written response provided after the meeting:Land contamination can be a planning matter, however its regulation in terms of safe disposal is not within the control of the Planning Department. (N.B. Subsequent to the meeting Cllr Coppinger has also sought to arrange for Mr Hill to meet with the Interim Head of Planning to discuss any further concerns in person).

 

i)     Ray Hayes-Brown of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Currently 168 vulnerable adults are working in the borough, supported by WIW. You propose to continue this with Optalis on a third of the current budget. Have the council made proper assessment of the complex needs they all have, and risks they will be exposed too if their needs are not supported adequately? With impunity can you guarantee their safety?

A written response was provided:


Thank you for your question on this important issue.  Discussions are continuing between Commissioners and Ways into Work but we have been told by Ways into Work that they intend to continue their employment support for the group of 168 people who are currently employed.  There are around 78 people who are currently on a waiting list that Ways into Work are not yet supporting and a further 79 people who Ways into Work are working with but not yet found employment for.  We understand the intention is that this group of people will be offered the opportunity to transfer into the commissioned service provided through Optalis.

 

Each individual who is referred into the Supported Employment service provided through Optalis, will have an assessment of their needs, their aspirations and outcomes that they would wish to achieve and a tailored support plan will be drawn up between the Supported Employment coach and the individual.  Optalis work to the same high standards required by the British Association of Supported Employment as we have required from our existing provider and will apply all of the principles of risk assessment for the safety of individuals and staff when assessing and working with individuals and employers.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hayes-Brown commented that the response said discussions were continuing and they intended to continue their support, but that this was not guaranteed. He asked if this was correct? He also asked what would happen if the goodwill from Ways Into Work stopped and how could the council ensure the continued safety of those vulnerable adults?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that in the discussions Ways Into Work had made it clear that that was their explicit intention. Along with the Director of Adult Social Care, he had received a pledge for that number of people to be retained by Ways Into Work. In the eventuality that it did not happen for any reason the council would review and look to ensure alternative provision; however at this point there was no indication that would be required as a result of the explicit undertaking Ways Into Work had provided.

 

j)     Valerie Pike of Sunningdale and Cheapside ward asked the following question of CouncillorCannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking:

 

The council “…has now explicitly confirmed to the [Information] Commissioner” that it holds no information, such as a business case, for the £240k capital scheme (Chobham Road, Sunningdale New Parking Scheme) bid for in February 2018. Why did RBWM approve this spending without a submitted business case as to what benefits this scheme would deliver to residents and how?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question. Funding for this project formed part of the budget (capital programme) for 2018/19 which was approved by Council on 20th February 2018. Formal approval was preceded by consideration at Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Panels and was, therefore, subject to opportunities to scrutinize and challenge in public prior to approval. I understand this information has been provided on previous occasions which included input from the Head of Finance.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Pike commented in that in the last few hours since she had received the written response she had gone through the minutes of Cabinet on 8 February but she could not find anything related to the project; likewise the Communities and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Panels. She asked whether a business case was prepared or not? If one had been produced it would have identified what the scheme would deliver and how it would be managed.

 

Councillor Clark responded that he would look into the issues raised and send a written response. Business cases were generally in relation to investments that would yield a return. When there were pressures from residents and ward members, the business case could merely be for an identified public safety risk. 

 

Written response provided after the meeting: The scheme to create new parking bays in Chobham Road was the subject of public consultation which resulted in 88% support for the scheme. In addition, the proposal to introduce a raised pedestrian crossing was consulted upon at the same time and resulted in 65% against this element. (For background: Details of the scheme are available at https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200213/parking/664/parking_consultations/15). Issues were raised during the design and construction phase raised by concerned residents with respect to improving conditions for pedestrians - no formal pedestrian crossing was installed as part of the parking scheme which reflects the outcome of the public consultation. However, in order to positively respond to the resident concerns around vehicles speeds and pedestrian crossing points a ‘flat-top’ road hump at the southern end of the scheme together with other modifications to reduce vehicle speeds and increase awareness of the nature of the area was installed. A further commitment was made to review vehicle speeds and pedestrian movements following completion of the project. This has been completed and I can advise that works have been commissioned to upgrade the ‘flat top’ hump to a pedestrian (zebra) crossing.A budget of £240,000 was approved to develop, consult and deliver this project. I am pleased to advise that the scheme was delivered within budget and funding is available to extend the scope of the scheme to provide a pedestrian crossing.

There was no scheme specific business case for this project as the proposal and budget required, was considered and subsequently approved by Cabinet as part of the overall capital programme development.  In addition, consideration by Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny formed part of the review of the overall recommended programme, of which this scheme formed one part.

k)    Valerie Pike of Sunningdale and Cheapside ward asked the following question of CouncillorHilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

 

When a Parish Council or the Police & Crime Commissioner submit their precept demands, what governance and scrutiny is undertaken by RBWM itself to ensure their demands are reasonable, fair and value for public money, and in keeping with relative size of that parish, or in proportion to the scale of the public services offered?

 

A written response was provided:

Thank you for your question. The council has no responsibility for the precepts raised by Parish Councils or the Police and Crime Commissioner, it is simply responsible for collecting the amounts precepted.   In 2020/21 the increase in the precept for the Police and Crime Commissioner was subject to a limit of a £10 increase.  Anything above this level would have required a referendum of all constituents in the Thames Valley.

Members of Parish Councils are elected and they are responsible for setting the Parish precept. Unlike Borough Councils the Parish Council precept increase is not capped. Any questions around value for money or the level of increase for either the Police of Parish Councils need to be directed to these bodies directly.

Ms Pike confirmed that she did not have a supplementary question.

 

l) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of CouncillorCannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking:

 

With the proposed savings in funding for our community wardens meaning the administration will not be able to fulfil its manifesto pledge to retain a 25 warden-strong unit, will the Lead Member commit to holding a public consultation before finalising the adjusted tasking of the remaining team?

 

A written response was provided:

 

Thank you for your question. Community Wardens currently respond to the needs within all RBWM wards. This is not proposed to change. The proposed savings will see a reduction in 6 wardens (25 to 19FTE) and as such, coverage by the team as a whole will be diluted in terms of the total area patrolled by an individual warden and the manner in which they are deployed.

In order to mitigate any potential impacts and ensure wardens have the ability to meet ongoing need, a smarter working pattern for wardens is being implemented by service managers. This will see the wardens move away from ad-hoc patrols within a ward, towards a more targeted patrol pattern that is much more dependent on risk and informed by local intelligence. A public consultation is not proposed to shape this, due to the manner in which wardens are tasked, needing to be a dynamic process so that any emerging issues can be addressed as required.

To ensure that the intelligence used for tasking is fit for purpose, the warden team are committed to expanding the number of mechanisms in which engagement with stakeholders (including resident groups and elected members) can occur. Residents will retain a named warden for their area, acting as a single point of contact; and be able to build relationships and a profile of the issues being encountered in each ward.

Wardens will continue to provide all current work streams including: antisocial behaviour enforcement, engagement with the local community, dog fouling, littering, school patrols and support to rough sleepers – albeit in a much more focussed manner.

The Community Warden team will continue to provide a visible presence to all wards; albeit the degree of time spent in a particular ward will be more dependent on intelligence and identified need.

Assurance should be provided in the core aims of the warden team remaining unchanged, namely to build community cohesion and to a provide visible deterrent to crime

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Bermange commented that Community Wardens did a fantastic job. It had been great news in March 2018 that Cabinet had agreed to increase the number from 18 to 25. That report had stated it was not realistic to tackle the increasing antisocial behaviour issues and sustain the effective working of the Community Warden team within the current resources. He therefore asked if the Lead Member would concede that dropping the numbers back down now to 19 would be at least become more challenging to tackle the rising antisocial behaviour problem?

 

Councillor Cannon responded that he agreed Community Wardens did a wonderful job. The model they were working to at the time required the resources to be increased. The council was now reworking the model based on intelligence-led tasking therefore the resources in place, combined with the increase in policing resources in the Thames Valley meant additional resources would be available.

 

m) Louis Wright of Hurley & Walthams ward asked the following question of CouncillorStimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Since declaring a "climate emergency" and proposing a cross-party developed strategy to achieve carbon neutrality, how has the Royal Borough identified the minimum competencies and skills, within its own staff, to understand, develop and implement the aforementioned strategy?

A written response was provided:

Thank you for your question. Since declaring the climate emergency, officers and Members have been working together to develop the strategy.  This has been done in consultation with the community and special interest groups.  The nature of the climate emergency is that the strategy will need to be delivered across all services of the Council.  Therefore the cross-party group has utilised knowledge of specialist officers across many parts of the council such as waste, transport, biodiversity and energy.  We have utilised best practice from other councils and also engaged with experts in different fields to generate a wide range of ideas for the strategy.

Given the importance of this issue, the Council has also recruited two new posts to lead the development of the strategy.  A new Head of Infrastructure, Sustainability and Economic Growth is now in post.  We have also recruited a new Service Lead for Sustainability and Climate Change who will be responsible for finalising and delivering the strategy.  They will work with our existing Energy Reduction Manager to co-ordinate delivery of the strategy working with other services across the council.

Mr Wright was not present therefore no supplementary question was asked.


n) Louis Wright of Hurley & Walthams ward asked the following question of CouncillorStimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

What plans does the Royal Borough have to engage with young people (children and teenage demographics) on the topic of climate change?

A written response was provided:

Thank you for your question. The council has been undertaking a series of public engagement meetings to help to generate ideas for the climate strategy.  These have been open to all members of the public and have attracted interest from some young members of our community.  We also recently held an event specifically for 6-19 year olds on Thursday 20th February 2pm-4pm in Maidenhead Library – with around 20 young people attending the event.  We have also presented at a number of schools to raise awareness of climate change and the development of our strategy. 

We will continue to engage on this important matter with the wider community and there will continue to be an important role for young people in the process.

Mr Wright was not present therefore no supplementary question was asked.

 

o)  Terence Pike of Sunningdale and Cheapside ward asked the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

Noting its statement introducing the October 2017 consultation on increasing parking availability in Sunningdale by a net 5 bays that “Pedestrians are having difficulty crossing Chobham Road”, how does the council plan to create a safe crossing?

A written response was provided:


Thank you for your question. The scheme to create new parking bays in Chobham Road was the subject of public consultation which resulted in 88% support for the scheme. In addition, the proposal to introduce a raised pedestrian crossing was consulted upon at the same time and resulted in 65% against this element.

 

(For background: Details of the scheme are available at https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200213/parking/664/parking_consultations/15)

 

Issues were raised during the design and construction phase raised by concerned residents with respect to improving conditions for pedestrians - no formal pedestrian crossing was installed as part of the parking scheme which reflects the outcome of the public consultation.

 

However, in order to positively respond to the resident concerns around vehicles speeds and pedestrian crossing points a ‘flat-top’ road hump at the southern end of the scheme together with other modifications to reduce vehicle speeds and increase awareness of the nature of the area was installed.

 

A further commitment was made to review vehicle speeds and pedestrian movements following completion of the project. This has been completed and I can advise that works have been commissioned to upgrade the ‘flat top’ hump to a pedestrian (zebra) crossing.

 

A budget of £240,000 was approved to develop, consult and deliver this project. I am pleased to advise that the scheme was delivered within budget and funding is available to extend the scope of the scheme to provide a pedestrian crossing.

 

Mr Pike was not present therefore no supplementary question was asked.

 

 

 

 

At the conclusion of the item, Councillor Hill requested that the order of business be amended as there were two individuals in the public gallery who wished to hear the debate on his motion on notice, which was the last item on the agenda. The Mayor responded she did not feel this was appropriate given the budget debate.

Supporting documents: