To consider the report.

Councillor Hilton introduced the Budget report to the Panel.

 

There were two public speakers registered to speak for this item, Mr Andrew Hill and Mr Richard Endacott. Mr Hill made comments on the savings, item 5, Deliver the waste incentivisation scheme through the Climate Change Strategy, item 7, Reduction in Arts Grants and item 13, Remove funding from SMILE and stop service. Mr Endicott commented that he understood the situation, but many cuts were being made to areas with the highest level of deprivation such as in Dedworth. The area of Dedworth in Windsor comprised mainly of the elderly and young families and they would be affected the most. The points he wanted to raise included reduction of community wardens; this would be detrimental to the Deadwood area. the reduction of the library needed to be reconsidered and the gardens in bloom. It seemed that residents were paying more for less. Mr Endacott expressed concern about the planned savings for the next 3 years and the lack of consultation that had taken place with community groups.

 

The discussion for the budget item began with each Lead Member talking little bit about their areas.

 

Councillor Samantha Rayner, leisure, libraries, art funding and museums and tourism. With leisure, the budget had been affected by Covid and as a result there had been a change of operator in summer last year. It was expected that these losses could be recovered to pre-Covid levels of income in the future but not in the next year. Libraries, had to find budgets savings in this area as part of achieving a balanced budget for the council but to do this, the team had to look very carefully at historical information, experience of Covid and where we wanted to be in the future for this service. This would mean another public consultation, as any changes in this statutory service would need to have one. The library strategy which was being presented to Cabinet informed them of the consultation with a transforming and agile service with a professional team, not only looking at the core books but also mental health and wellbeing, the environment and the economy as part of the offer. Arts funding, enormous value of our art partners who achieved fantastic opportunities and culture in the borough. As part of the budget savings that had to be made in this non-statutory area was sought by talking to partners and working together to minimise the impact by working with them on the strategies to become sustainable. Museums and tourism, in order to achieve savings and protect these services, a plan was put together to bring both these areas together in one location, allowing these to be successful and utilising their specialist areas to be able to continue face-to-face and strengthening the fantastic work already achieved in digital during in Covid times.

 

Councillor Coppinger reported that there were two items that fell under him. Neither of these were cost savings for the council but both would increase the earnings for the council. Firstly, the adjustment for the green bins in which the volumes had maintained, hence the council would be able to earn more money than thought. Secondly, the change in bin collections was not about saving money but more for saving the planet. Councillor Coppinger gave more detail to the Panel on the recycling and food waste and the need for the borough to do more in both areas.

 

Councillor Stimson gave a background on the removal of the flower planters in the borough. This was a difficult decision especially for Windsor but the council had to consider the statutory commitments. The planters would be stored and brought back when possible. The borough in bloom competition did take place last year, which had been funded by the council. It would now take place online and be funded by a garden centre.

 

Councillor Cannon had two items relating to licensing administration and one for joint emergency planning, that had been crucial during these Covid times. Councillor Cannon would answer questions when asked. The main area was the proposal for the reduction of community wardens, this was being proposed for residents and councillors to discuss.

 

Councillor McWilliams had one item relating to the implementation of the renewal of the advantage card. The team had been looking at how the council could work with third-party providers and embrace technology to ensure that a similar scheme to what was in place now could be delivered.

 

The Panel then discussed each appendix, line by line and took comments from the Panel Members and other members present and allowed officers and Lead Members to respond to any concerns and questions.

 

APPENDIX A

RBWM GROWTH BIDS 2021/22

 

Item 2 - Library Cleaning Costs – Councillor Price asked that if the transformation work went ahead and some libraries closed, and others had reduced hours then surely there would be an impact on this as there would be less libraries to clean. Adele Taylor informed the Panel that the costs were historic costs and therefore all cleaning costs for the current cleaning regime had been budgeted for. If the transformation went ahead then these costs would be revisited. No future savings were being discussed now.

 

Item 3 - Increased Burial Capacity - Councillor Price asked what did this project involve? David Scott informed the Panel that as Braywick Cemetery came to the end of its capacity, which was very nearly there, the need to maintain as many of the road paths that had been placed throughout the life of it could be reduced as the access to many of these areas was no longer required. So, the plan was to modify the footpaths and the road paths access network to give additional space. Since it was a minimisation project below the capitalisation value, it was in the report as a growth item to provide the council to do that for the increased capacity that would be provided. This was estimated to be another 2 to 3 years’ worth of capacity in the cemetery overall. The net effect was increased capacity for a modest cos. Councillor Price asked why this was a revenue item and not a capital item and told that this was because it was the value of the task.

 

Item 4 - Joint Arrangements – Councillor Price wanted to understand what was involved in the emergency planning and the nature of the costs. David Scott informed the Panel that it was aligning the base budget to what the joint costs were. In previous years, he was able to make up the difference of the base budget that was previously budgeted for and the actual costs. The joint arrangement started in April 2018 and started approximately with £16,000 behind the costs or the budget available but were used as underspend in other areas to make up the difference but now there was no capacity to carry on with that and so this was an adjustment to the base to allow us to meet our commitment to that joint service.

 

Item 5 - Support Funding the Arts Organisations – Councillor Price asked if this had been discussed with the Art organisations and was the aim to use their revenue to move them to being self-sufficient. How was this going to help and which organisations were being considered? Councillor Rayner informed the Panel that it was a £50,000 growth bid and the two main organisations were Norden Farm in Maidenhead and The Old Court in Windsor. The plan was to give them some funding, not a straight cut, and then to explore match funding from the Arts Council and other grant funders to match the council’s contribution. The aim was to get as much funding as possible for the organisations to allow them to become self-sufficient. The officers were exploring all ideas with two organisations and were currently in discussions with them. Councillor Price asked if the organisations had indicated that they would be able to operate under the proposed suggestions? Councillor Rayner informed the Panel that negotiations were still taking place. The council would give them the first quarter funding that would get them through the six month notice period and that time would be used to generate match funding to match what the council were giving. The aim was to generate more than £50,000 match funding so they would be around £87,000 short and if more match funding was sought, it would be less short-fall for the organisations. Councillor Price was concerned that one or both organisations may have to close if the funding was not sought. Adele Taylor informed the Panel that negotiations and discussions were currently ongoing.

 

Item 6 - Saving from Increased Recycling - Councillor Del Campo asked what was meant by “The saving for increased recycling as reported in February 2020 can no longer be achieved as this is a duplication.” Simon Dale informed the Panel that this was because of the adjustments made to the base budget, the wording was misleading. Councillor Del campo confirmed that nothing had actually changed. Councillor Davey asked a question on this item too. Could Members be provided with a list of items that were recycled and the value of them and which items maximized the revenue streams. Councillor Coppinger commented that if it was too complicated people would find it difficult to follow and therefore would not recycle. Simon Dale commented that he did have a list of costs per commodity and was happy to share this with all Panel Members. Simon Dale confirmed that this was much better to recycle per tonne than sending for incineration.

 

ACTION: Simon Dale to share the list of cost per commodity with the Panel Members

 

Councillor Coppinger commented that it was a dynamic market and the individual areas changed in price depending on the volume coming through and the cost of the transport.

 

APPENDIX B

COVID-19 RELATED GROWTH PROPOSALS 2021/22

 

Councillor Davey asked since these were Covid related, would some of these be recovered from government? Adele Taylor responded that it was the gross costs of Covid that were in the tables but in the Medium Term Financial Plan, it had been indicated that it would be likely that there would be government funding coming forward and the levels at which this was one-off government funding that was coming forward.

 

In terms of the leisure contract this year some of that had been compensated for because these had been costs this year they would be costs next year and for the third year. These were being covered partly by the sales fees and charges compensation scheme. There was also money around the honouring fence Covid Grant. In total, there was about 9 million pounds worth of Covid group proposals and the way that was funded in month 6 budget monitoring. It had been indicated that underspend for this year would set aside for the recovery for some of the underspends as Covid grant monies that were coming forward would be used for next year when government grants would not be available. Councillor Price was very conscious that the budget could not be looked at in isolation for one year but the future years had to be considered too as there were 8 million-pound cuts this year and services that were going to be really painful but for the next 4 years there was going to be a further 14 million pounds of cuts in future years. Councillor Price asked if the council would be able to sustain its statutory services in the future and what would be the implications if we didn't have the leisure facilities. Could this be considered? This was unthinkable but it seemed that the unthinkable had to be thought of. The Chairman commented that no one was aware of what the future would be like. Adele Taylor responded that it had been recognised this year that it was a particularly challenging year to try and demonstrate both the ongoing growth, what was suspected in to be Covid growth and this would be continued but at this point, the figures in the report were the best estimates particularly around Covid growth measures. There were gaps in future years in the Medium Term Financial Strategy but the budget had been balanced for 2021/ 2022. The biggest issue for local government was the Covid growth was assumed to be a one-off but clearly there would be some ongoing impacts but it was very difficult to predict them. This would be needed to kept under very clear and close review during 2021/2022. Also to note was that we had only received one year settlement from government around our funding. Local government funding was also due to be changed and we knew that this was still under discussion. Councillor Rayner commented that the leisure service was great income generator for the council. Last year before Covid, with income was 3 million pounds, this year it would not generate that income and as a result of Covid, it was not anticipated that this would be recovered for a few years.

 

APPENDIX C

RBWM SAVING PROPOSALS 2021/22

 

Item 1 - Stop moving the Container Library saving towage costs

Councillor Price wanted to understand more about the mitigation in the EQIA. Councillor Price commented that the EQIAs done by the library services were much better in quality than any other service. Adele Taylor commented that instead of using the container library the mobile library would be used. The cost was for the towage of the container library. It was more cost effective to use the mobile library. Councillor Rayner informed the Panel that a consultation would take place on the new and best locations for the mobile library to visit and also the best place for the container library to be static. Louise Freeth explained that the library held a wealth of data including the categories but also the most frequent users so the best mitigation would be put into place.

 

Councillor Lynne Jones asked for reassurance that the libraries in the communities would remain open. It seemed that communities had been hit the worse in the savings. Councillor Rayner reassured everyone that the libraries were the heart of the community and offered a lot more than just books and a lot had been done to make library survive and thrive.

 

Item 3 - Additional income from green waste subscriptions

Councillor Del Campo asked whether the discussion at a previous panel about compensation being given to residents would be an extension of the contract instead of a refund had been agreed and taken into account for future loss ? Councillor Coppinger responded that the scheme had been agreed on a case-by-case basis and the actual members were not enough to affect these figures.

 

Item 4 - Introduce fortnightly residual waste collections whilst retaining weekly food waste and recycling collections.

Councillor Price asked if there was any information on how the elderly had been hit with the price increase of the green bins? Councillor Coppinger advised that the price had already gone up and even though a drop had been expected they hadn't been one. Councillor Price asked if there was anything that could be done to help people who couldn't afford the green bin and councillor Coppinger suggested that if a resident was in that situation to discuss with him directly. Councillor Price also asked about people with incontinence or people with children using nappies, a fortnightly service seemed a long wait for a bin to be emptied. Councillor Coppinger responded that the adults with stoma type issues would  have been covered by a clinical waste contract and for normal nappies, these were sealable and the lids on the bins were tight enough, so there were no real concerns of this. If individuals had concerns they could contact the council. Councillor Price commented that she was surprised not to have seen these points in the EQIA with the mitigation measures as discussed. Duncan Sharkey commented that officers had not found these to be issues hence they had not been identified in the EQIA and therefore no mitigation measures had been required to be identified.

 

Item 6 - Implement a revised Advantage Card

Councillor Davey asked if the advantage card was being removed and if so what about residents wanting to visit in the castle and elderly residents who still wanted to use the physical card. Councillor McWilliams informed the Panel that the team were in discussions with Windsor Castle to maintain the current offer in whatever the new scheme was. It wasn't about removing the scheme but just about delivering it in a different way. The costs related to a member of in-house staff and whether this was done via a third-party or in another way. There was a solution available and the team were working with partners. A digital option was being considered.

 

Item 8 - Reshape museum and tourism information centre service

Councillor Price asked that with the relocation of the tourist information centre away from the centre of Windsor shopping, would there be a reduction of usage? What discussions had taken place with the shopping centre? Councillor Rayner informed the Panel that officers had been in regular contact with the shopping centre owners and the management company and discussion had taken place. Councillor Bowden commented that as the Chairman of the Windsor and Eton Town Partnership, most of the visitors to the information centre were mainly from the coach park or from the railway station going forward to the castle. Councillor Bowden felt that there would be no impact to the royal shopping centre as it would be leased out and an income received. Councillor Bowden would discuss this item at their next meeting and get back to Councillor Price.

 

Item 10 - Remodel and reshape the Community Safety functions including the Community Safety Partnership and Community Wardens.

Councillor Davey had written to the lead member and was awaiting a response. The main question posed was would members stand in for the role of community wardens in times of Covid and if not could the numbers of community warden be maintained as they currently were. Could the district enforcement officers role be taken in-house? Councillor Cannon commented that the proposal from councillor Davey was being looked at by officers and member. This was a proposal and not a decision and all comments received would be considered before a decision was made. The proposal was a reduction in the number of community wardens, not the removal of the service. Councillor Price asked what Thames Valley Police had to say about the proposals. David Scott reported that the proposals had been shared with TVP and no feedback had been received. Councillor Price asked what services that were currently there for residents would be cut if the proposal went ahead? Councillor Cannon commented that the proposals would be that more mobile and intelligence-led community wardens would be covering the borough rather than a blanket coverage. Whilst this was not a statutory service it was a service valued by the community and by the police and others so this is why this had been put forward as a proposal of a reduced service. The wardens would still be out and about, still be engaging with the community but would be intelligence-led and would work smarter. Thames valley police were aware that we had to work within a budget and their views would be also taking on-board. Councillor Price asked what the future of the community wardens was in light of the future cuts? Councillor Cannon commented that all non-statutory services were in the same position and it was important to remember that this was a proposal. Councillor Price asked how residents were able to get their views across and was advised that they could do via the budget consultation. Councillor McWilliams commented that this was the first consultation for the budget and all views would be taken on board and learnt from. Residents could comment via a councillor, via the council or via a free text box on the front page of the consultation. Councillor Lynne Jones commented that with respect to the community wardens, the effect would be on communities again. She felt that it was premature to consider this now and it would be worth looking into a one-off revenue cost to keep the set up as it was currently, especially during Covid. Councillor Cannon agreed with Councillor Jones that the outer areas of the borough would be at risk most but if the proposal was agreed then he would introduce a caveat for the rural wards. Councillor Haseler commented that the public safety would not be at risk as the Thames Valley Police dealt with this.

 

Item 11 - Revise the management of the leisure contract

Councillor Del Campo asked for clarification on what the actual saving was. Councillor Rayner commented that due to making the cuts, the roles had to be cut. David Scott commented that these would be a loss of posts that were linked to the client function. Councillor Price wanted to know what the reference to Dedworth School was and what would the impact be of the vacant posts not being replaced, would there be an impact on the community or on the clubs. David Scott reported that there had been no specific feedback from the clubs on the proposals. The vacant posts had been vacant since the beginning of December 2020 so there was no direct impact on the clubs. The reference to Dedworth School was that it was being considered if this could be included in the leisure contract. The council already had many dual-use facilities. Councillor Rayner added that when the pitch was built at Dedworth School, part of the planning application was that it be used by the community. Now there was also a new hall added and it would be added to the leisure focus portfolio to become an independent unit.

 

Item 12 - Remove funding from Borough in bloom and community participation project

Councillor Davey commented that the Borough in Bloom event was cherished by the elderly in the borough. It then became digital and now seemed like it was going to continue in that way. This was very saddening for many residents. Councillor Del Campo commented that would we allow community groups to take over the planters instead of putting them into storage such as wild groups? Councillor Del Campo was pleased that the Borough in Bloom was continuing. Could we get extra sponsoring for that event? Councillor Stimson responded saying that she was happy to work with anyone who would want to assist or sponsor this cause. Councillor Stimson reminded the Panel that these had been very hard decisions to take.

 

Item 13 - Remove funding from SMILE and stop service

Councillor Price commented that would elderly residents using this service still be able to access the service at leisure centres? Would they be charged? Councillor Price commented that his was moving away from the community aspect. Councillor Rayner said this was a fantastic service for our elderly. The activities would continue in the leisure centres but would cease in the local village halls or settings. The  borough would look to see if alternative funding could be found through the community groups. David Scott clarified that this service consisted of three areas, one was the activities in the local village halls, these would cease. The second was going to be continued to be offered through the major centres and the third was the element that charity itself did directly. It was only the community-based element that would cease, and they had not been running since March 2020. It was not expected to be restarted in a Covid safe way.

 

Item 14 - Remove vacant community sports development post and projects

David Scott reported that this was a vacant post and would not be replaced.

 

Item 15 - Library Stock fund

Councillor Price asked if a reduction of library book fund would have a significant impact on the facility that it offered? Councillor Rayner informed the Panel that the total stock budget was £288,000, the proposal was to reduce it by £20,000. She hoped that this would not affect the digital resources. Adele Taylor commented that Angela Huisman and her team did a fantastic job of maximizing the book fund by working with other libraries across the country. This was a modest saving in this area.

 

Councillor Price asked if all the discussion taken place should be summed up now or at the end of the full item.

 

Adele Taylor informed the Panel that a consultation and engagement company who had been used for the budget consultation would also be doing a piece where they would be summarising the discussion so the cabinet would not just be relying on the minutes of the meeting. This company would be doing a short summary of the points that were raised at the meeting and that would be part of the cabinet report and it would be shared with the Panel before it went through to cabinet. Duncan Sharkey commented that many comments had been made and heard by the relevant Cabinet Member. There were no points that had been agreed by the Panel to put as their formal response to Cabinet. A set of comments needed to be proposed and seconded and agreed by Panel Members and put forward to Cabinet. The best way was to highlight the few points the were most important to the Panel.

 

 

APPENDIX D

CAPITAL

 

Page 79 – WASTE – SPECIAL COLLECTION SERVICE

Councillor Price asked if the changes proposed were comparable to a private contractor prices. Simon Dale commented that the prices were a comparison, benchmarked against other local authorities and our charges were itemised per item. Councillor Price asked if it was an option to raise the borough’s prices and therefore earn more money. Simon Dale said if you raised the prices too much then more fly-tipping would probably take place.

Page 80 – OUTDOOR FACILITIES - ALLOTMENTS

Councillor Price commented that the Windsor allotments structure was different to the Maidenhead allotment structure, would there be any cost changes if Maidenhead changed there structure to be the same as Windsor? David Scott responded that there would be no change to the costs.

 

Page 80 – OUTDOOR FACILITIES - CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

Councillor Price commented that with land being in short supply, should there not be a greater price differential between cremation, which she assume took up much less land, than burial plots, she asked if it was a statutory service.”

Also was there a difference between Oakley Green and Braywick cemeteries. Councillor Price asked why there was a difference, Was it because of availability of plots. David Scott confirmed this was correct. Councillor Price suggested that could the burial prices be increased to discourage people to bury as there was a shortage of space to match the cremation costs. David Scott commented that the costs were set by the council so could be increased. Councillor Stimson commented that there were certain faith groups that preferred burials to cremations so this would need to be very careful discussed before any changes were made. It could be considered as discriminative

 

Page 81 – PARKS AND OPEN SPACES - FOOTBALL

Councillor Price commented that letting out spaces such as football pitches needed to be considered as change in one area didn't affect another area. Councillor Cannon highlighted that these were only proposals and not done deals yet.

 

Page 81 – PARKS AND OPEN SPACES - MISCELLANEOUS

Councillor Price asked if the Royal Windsor dog show could be charged more? David Scott informed the Panel that the dog show was a local organisation event which attracted charges. The council could consider an increase but the restrictions on increases would need to be checked.

 

Page 85 - TRACKS

Councillor Price asked if there were no increases here, was this because the costs were dictated centrally? David Scott responded that this was correct.

 

Page 86 - LIBRARY SCHOOL OFFERS

Councillor Price asked if the increase to schools would be affordable to the schools? Adele Taylor commented that there had been some revisions to this post and the structure had slightly changed.

 

Page 87 – FAX

Councillor Price asked if faxes were really needed anymore? Angela Huisman commented that there was an option to remove this service all together now.

 

Page 91 – LIBRARY AND RESIDENT SERVICES – MARRIAGE AND CIVIL PARTNERSHIP CEREMONIES

Councillor Del Campo asked about the marriage and civil partnerships and if anyone that had had to postpone their wedding due to Covid, were they able to rebook at the original price? Louise Freeth responded advising that the rebooking fee had been waivered. The citizenship ceremony was still carrying on online and other charges had been waivered, but Louise Freeth would have to check as this had changed many times since March 2020.

 

ACTION: Louise Freeth to check and get back to Councillors Del Campo and Price.

 

APPENDIX E

NEW CAPITAL SCHEMES FOR 2021/22

 

This was the new additions to the scheme or changes to the existing budgets. Councillor Price asked about capital item new amounts and why the council was spending more money on car parks? Adele Taylor informed the Panel that these included assumptions that may come forward so that we had clarity on the revenue costs. The timing was awkward as the Cabinet report may bring forward more costs but if not that would be reviewed. This was the same the Maidenhead development. Councillor Price asked about the Maidenhead golf course and the Chairman asked for guidance if Councillor Price could ask the questions, as she had declared an interest for the golf course. Duncan Sharkey advised that it was up to an individual member to declare an interest and also that no contractual information would be discussed. Duncan Sharkey suggested a separate discussion and Councillor Price was happy with the suggestion. Councillor Price asked about the affordable housing (cx43) and how many units were going to be supplied. Duncan Sharkey responded that officers would provide Councillor Price with this information.

 

ACTION: Officers to inform Councillor Price of how many units were in the scheme.

 

Councillor price asked about the disabled facilities Grant and why was it was at zero? David Scott commented that they had received a grant for this amount full amount. Councillor Price asked about the Clewer Memorial Pavilion work and thought this work had finished, however the table still showed £40,000. Adele Taylor commented that this would be in terms retention payment. David Scott commented that the work at the Clewer Memorial Pavilion had been delayed as a result of Covid and work was therefore still ongoing. Councillor Price asked about quality monitoring (ce06) and David Scott commented that this was for the fixed monitoring systems ongoing operation and the upkeep of these systems. Councillor Price asked about tree planting and maintenance. David Scott commented that the trees were planted by a third party contractor and the cost of the tree included the planting of that tree. Councillor Price asked about the allotments and David Scott responded that this was for the infrastructure. Upkeep, water mains and fencing.

 

The main comments of the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel were that there were lots of things that they didn’t want to cut.

1.     Finding alternate sources needed to be started now especially if the agreed budget proposals would be in place from April 2021 and with all the additional priorities that Officers currently had with the Covid pressures.

2.     Community Groups such as One Borough and WAM were consulted on the budget proposals and given the opportunity to comment

3.     To actively engage with these organisations to get feedback on the proposed budget

 

4.     The big three issues were

a.     Community Wardens

b.     Arts Funding and

c.     Libraries

It was still not totally understood and needed more detail from Cabinet about the impact assessments risk analysis and mitigations especially for the library in Datchet.

 

 

 

CONTINUATION OF MEETING

 

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the council’s constitution, the Chairman called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 9.30pm.

 

Upon being put to the vote, those present voted against the meeting continuing.