The deadline for public questions (which must be directly related to the budget) is midday on Tuesday 16 February 2021. A supplement listing valid questions received will be added to the agenda after the deadline.

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with public questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

 

If RBWM want to increase their reserves beyond those required to deal with its residual risks could this not be achieved through deferring loan repayments to HM Treasury et al rather than reducing services to residents?

 

Written response: Any deferral of loan payments would have to be by agreement with HM Treasury which we do not believe is possible according to their terms and conditions of loans.  Even if we were to secure agreement, according to the lending terms of the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) any late payments are potentially liable for interest payments from the date they are due and therefore this would add to our revenue costs overall.  This would therefore not be prudent and in fact achieves the converse impact to the one that is trying to be achieved.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson asked if the Lead Member could advise which schemes he had considered that would increase the reserves of the borough without reducing discretionary services?

 

Councillor Hilton responded that every issue, discretionary or otherwise, had been considered in detail and there was nothing in the budget that he would choose to change. The approach to arrive at sustainable finances would continue to tackle the issues head on.

 

b)   Sharon Bunce of St Mary’s ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Budget Saving #49 will cut £200k from supported living packages. How many adult residents with Learning Disabilities are in supported living within the Borough vs outside the Borough and how many are waiting for a supported living place?

 

Written response: The savings proposed in adult social care are aligned with the already published adult social care transformation strategy, which was unanimously agreed through the cross-functional Health and Well-being Board and with NHS colleagues, and which is being implemented within the context of the Care Act and the core purpose of adult care and support is to help people to achieve the outcomes that matter to them in their life.  The saving proposed is based on a full analysis of those packages to determine the appropriate level of need and funding required.  They are not cuts but savings as part of transformation.  The council will continue to meet its statutory responsibilities to meet people’s assessed and eligible care needs, whilst embracing best practice and emerging evidence on how best to deliver services.  Overall, the council is spending more on adult social care in future so whilst there are some savings from existing packages, there is also funding to pay for increased packages if that is what the assessed need is.  There are 85 residents with learning disabilities in supported living accommodation, 68 in the Royal Borough and 17 outside of the borough.  At the current time, there is no one in immediate need of a placement.

 

Ms Bunce was not present at the meeting but had submitted a supplementary question in advance, which was read out by the clerk:

 

Just 85 Adults with Learning Disabilities in the borough are in Supported Living and will be affected by the budget saving of £200,000.  Your response to my written question states “The saving proposed is based on a full analysis of those packages to determine the appropriate level of need and funding required.”  Has this analysis been completed and how many of the 85 are budgeted to have a cheaper package of support?

Councillor Carroll responded that the analysis had been fully completed. He would need to defer on the specific question to the Director of Adult Social Care. He would ensure that the detail would be duly followed up and he would write to Ms Bunce with the additional clarity.

 

Written response provided after the meeting: The council currently spends £7m on residential placements for people with learning disabilities.  The saving of £200,000 is, therefore, less than 3% of the total spend.  The average cost of a placement is £1,300 per week, with the maximum being around £4,000 per week.

 

Evidence shows that a key characteristic of this cohort is that there will be a number of people who have high levels of need at certain times but that these needs can then be reduced either through targeted support or the appropriate balance of health and social care intervention. We also want to take a wider public health approach to vulnerable people.  

 

Detailed analysis of all the placements for this cohort has been undertaken and this has been discussed in detail with senior officers and Cllr Carroll.  All placements continue to be under regular review.  This has identified several people whose care packages can be reduced safely as their challenging behaviour has been sustainably managed and enhanced due to the targeted support provided and in turn delivering better outcomes.  In addition, there are several people who have required a higher level of social care support during the pandemic when they were unable to access the required health support; this support is now coming back on stream.  There will not be a blanket reduction in people’s care packages; rather an appropriate “right sizing” of all packages and this will always put the person first and their assessed needs.  

 

c)    Sharon Bunce of St Mary’s ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Budget Saving #50 will cut £200k from community / home care packages. How many adult residents with Learning Disabilities currently have a community / home care package and how many are waiting to be assessed for such a package?

 

Written response: The savings proposed in adult social care are aligned with the already published adult social care transformation strategy, which was unanimously agreed through the cross-functional Health and Well-being Board and with NHS colleagues, and which is being implemented within the context of the Care Act and the core purpose of adult care and support is to help people to achieve the outcomes that matter to them in their life.  The saving proposed is based on a full analysis of those packages to determine the appropriate level of need and funding required. They are not cuts but savings as part of transformation. The council will continue to meet its statutory responsibilities to meet people’s assessed and eligible care needs, whilst embracing best practice and emerging evidence on how best to deliver services.  Overall, the council is spending more on adult social care in future so whilst there are some savings from existing packages, there is also funding to pay for increased packages if that is what the assessed need is.  There are 68 residents with learning disabilities with community/homecare packages, 54 in the Royal Borough and 14 outside of the borough.  At the current time, there is no one in immediate need of a placement.

 

 

Ms Bunce was not present at the meeting but had submitted a supplementary question in advance, which was read out by the clerk:

 

There are 68 Adults with Learning Disabilities in the borough who have care packages enabling them to live at home or in the community. Saving £200,000 from this budget works out at just under £3,000 per person. What reassurances can you give these adults and their families that a reduction in the care offer will not reduce their safety or wellbeing? 

Councillor Carroll responded that the important initial point to make was that no care order was being reduced; this was about transformation and hence why there was a saving to pull through from the transformation. The other vital consideration was that the council had a duty of care that was not just an ethical consideration but a legal requirement under the Care Act to ensure that service user’s needs were duly met. On all those levels a very firm and clear assurance could be provided. He would be happy to speak with any individual with concerns to provide additional reassurance.

 

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

 

Budget Saving #47 halves the spend on Day Services for Adults with Learning Disabilities: Only one English council ranks lower than RBWM in the NHS Digital Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework measure for the percentage of adult social care users who have the amount of social contact they would like. How will RBWM ensure this doesn’t worsen?

 

Written response: The council currently spends £2.3m on day and other care for people with learning disabilities so the saving represents just over 10% of the total spend.  We will continue to meet the needs of all clients who have been assessed as requiring day service support; however, the proposal in relation to the day centres is part of a wider programme to transform the day opportunities offer in the borough.  Our aim is to ensure that there are things on offer that appeal to everyone and meet their individual needs, not a one size fits all approach. This is an imperative emerging evidence and independent best practice is encouraging.  The only choice that people currently have is to go to a day centre or not go – we want people to have more choices than that. Feedback from clients over the last 12 months has shown that many users of our day services are interested in accessing a wider range of activities, including the opportunity to learn new skills and have new experiences.  The new Community Lives day service programme incorporates a blend of traditional services and alternative offers, including an Out and About service which will offer customers a wide range of stimulating new activities as soon as it is safe to do so.  We will match the service offer for each customer to their particular needs.  We absolutely recognise that there will be a need for some people to have building based services and where needed, that will be provided but on a smaller scale as many of the people currently using the day centres do not need to be building based.  What is recognised nationally is that a blend of building-based services, community opportunities including volunteering and leisure, along with direct payments for people who want them, is considered best practice and through our transformed offer, we expect to significantly improve the percentage of adult social care users who have the amount of social contact they would like.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Hughes stated that people with the most profound and complex learning difficulties any changes to routine such as the closure of Oakbridge day centre would be extremely traumatic. How would each such person’s transition to another location be managed to minimise any distress?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that as part of the proposal there would be a full open 12 week public consultation. Under the ethical and legal framework the council followed on these matters, it would speak with each individual and their family and carers. He would also be happy to speak with any individual or their family should they wish to have additional assurance about that process and next steps.

 

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

 

Budget Saving #48 will cut £200k from residential care for adults with Learning Disabilities: How many Adults with Learning Disabilities have a residential care place in the Borough vs outside the Borough and how many are waiting for a place?

 

Written response: The savings proposed in adult social care are aligned with the already published adult social care transformation strategy, which was unanimously agreed through the cross-functional Health and Well-being Board and with NHS colleagues, and which is being implemented within the context of the Care Act and the core purpose of adult care and support is to help people to achieve the outcomes that matter to them in their life.  The saving proposed is based on a full analysis of those packages to determine the appropriate level of need and funding required.  They are not cuts but savings as part of transformation. The council will continue to meet its statutory responsibilities to meet people’s assessed and eligible care needs, whilst embracing best practice and emerging evidence on how best to deliver services.  Overall, the council is spending more on adult social care in future so whilst there are some savings from existing packages, there is also funding to pay for increased packages if that is what the assessed need is.  There are 58 residents with learning disabilities in residential placements, 11 in the Royal Borough and 47 outside of the borough.  At the current time, there is no one in immediate need of a placement.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Hughes stated that £200,000 was a lot of money to save from the 58 residents with learning disabilities who lived in residential care. 8 of them were already accommodated outside of the borough. As the aim of the budget saving was to deliver value for money, how likely was it that some people would be moved further away from Windsor and Maidenhead if cheaper residential care places were identified elsewhere?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that the short answer was that they would not be moved further away. There would be a commitment under the framework outlined earlier to ensure that their package of care remained within the borough. The council would work through that with individuals and their carers to ensure the best package of care was provided. This would be subject to consultation and discussion and based on the needs of the individuals.

 

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

Given the admission by RBWM that the CTRS consultation was unlawful (CO/1251/2020), why wasn’t a public paper brought to Cabinet or Council under paragraph 7.2(b) of the Part 5 Scheme of Delegation to Officers, before the reconsultation, informing Members and the public of this unlawful act, in order to scrutinise and inform the reconsultation process? 

Written response: There was no requirement for the Monitoring Officer to prepare a report because the decision of Full Council made on 25 February 2020 had already been implemented (Council Tax Bills were issued 11 – 13 March 2020) and the Council was subsequently bound by the Consent Order dated 9 July 2020.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that in the written Councillor Hilton appeared to claim that councillors need not expect a formal scrutiny meeting in such circumstances. This did not come from scrutiny, and perhaps that had contributed to the hurried paper that was reissued just a few hours ago. He asked Councillor Hilton to explain in his own words what he understood to be the fundamental things that went wrong when conducting last year’s CTRS consultation?

 

Councillor Hilton responded that he personally did not think anything went wrong. When the council was invited to take it to Judicial Review, at the time, rather than fight the case and spend more council money than was necessary it decided to concede and accept the view that the consultation was unlawful. That did not change the fact that the council was proceeding with the process of the decision made in council to change the discount level.

 

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

 

Why has RBWM continued to take the elevated sum (20%) from CTRS recipients, after admitting that the necessary statutory precondition for changing the taxation rate - namely, a lawful mandatory consultation by March 11th 2020 - was in fact unmet? 

 

Written response: The decision of Full Council made on 25 February 2020 had already been implemented and Council Tax Bills had already been issued. The Consent Order did not quash the decision of Full Council and it did not require the fresh consultation and subsequent re-making of the decision to be carried out within a particular timescale.

 

The cost of a re-billing exercise in year would be in excess of £50k.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill asked Councillor Hilton to state whether the council tax reduction scheme consultation last year was, in his view, lawful or unlawful? If unlawful could he explain why RBWM considered it fair to continue to collect the elevated tax from those residents with least when he knew the council had not complied with all the statutory preconditions? Was it lawful and was it fair?

 

Councillor Hilton responded that the question of whether it was lawful or unlawful was irrelevant because it was accepted by officers at the time that it was unlawful. However that did not change the consent order which did not require the council to change the decision. The consent order required the council to reconsult, produce a new Equalities Impact Assessment and remake the decision, with no set time period in which to do that.

 

h)   Alan Gass of Eton and Castle ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

How many people:

a) in receipt of CTRS benefit and

b) not in receipt of CTRS benefits

were posted a full paper copy of the consultation including the questions and associated explanatory information?

 

Written response: One copy was requested; the person requesting the full paper copy declined to confirm whether they were or were not in receipt of CTRS benefits.

 

Mr Gass was not present in the meeting to ask a supplementary question.

 

i)     Alan Gass of Eton and Castle ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Why did RBWM not post a complete paper copy of the consultation including the questions and associated explanatory information to all recipients of CTRS benefits?

 

Written response: There was no legal requirement to post a complete paper copy of the consultation. Please see Paragraph 8 of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme report for further details of the various methods used in promotion of the consultation.

 

Mr Gass was not present in the meeting to ask a supplementary question.

 

j)     Craig McDermott of Riverside ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

 

In what way do the budget proposals meet the demands of the council’s Environment and Climate Strategy and will they change to reflect the fact that, to avoid climate and environmental catastrophe, the borough will need to reach zero carbon emissions by 2030, as recognised by Slough Council, Wokingham Council and numerous other administrations around the globe?

 

Written response: When the Environment and Climate Strategy was approved by Cabinet in December 2020 it was made clear that it would be delivered across the council and could only be achieved if everyone worked together from individual residents, to businesses, community groups, as well as external organisations and central government. 

 

Therefore, delivery of the strategy is spread across both our revenue and capital budgets.  Some examples include changing the way that waste is collected to help increase recycling rates and supporting investment in digital and transport infrastructure to reduce emissions from transport.  We have secured external funding to reduce carbon emissions and energy use from our own estate, investigating alternative approaches to providing heat and will be showing leadership in reducing single use plastics from the council’s own activities. 

 

We are committed to the borough being net zero by 2050 at the latest with a credible plan to reduce emissions.  The advice prepared by the Climate Change Committee to Government in May 2019 indicated that whilst some sectors could be net zero before 2050, for most sectors the earliest credible date would be 2050.  We will continue to review the science and technical advice to make sure that our targets are ambitious and credible.

 

Our strategy adopts a trajectory of carbon emissions reductions developed by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.  The approach is derived from the commitments within the Paris Agreement, informed by the latest science on climate change.  This will accelerate reductions in carbon emissions with a 50% reduction by 2025 and 75% by 2030 and 94% reduction by 2040.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr McDermott asked how much money had been allocated in the budget to tackle climate change?

 

Councillor Hilton responded that £570,000 had been included in the budget.

 

k)    Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Under the proposed budget proposals, will the overall number of Tree officers be maintained, and will the overall number of Planning officers be maintained? This is important to clarify in light of the increasing number of tree-related applications coming forward and the nature of consents required combined with the Council's stated policy to sustain the tree cover.

Written response: The proposal is to reshape the service to deliver efficiency savings and focus on high priority work. As set out within appendix 1 of the budget report on the agenda, delivery of the saving would involve a reduction in posts.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Copland explained that he was speaking on behalf of the seven ‘Wild’ Groups. There appeared to be an increasing number of applications involving trees and no let-up in the cases of trees being cut down in contravention with planning conditions. Given the intention to focus on high priority work which must risk inadequate oversight in less priority situations, could the Lead Member say what new steps would be taken to ensure those who undertook unapproved ‘act first, pay later’ destruction of trees were punished to the maximum.

 

Councillor Stimson responded that work was currently taking place on the tree function. It would move across from planning so ecology, sustainability and planning would all be working together to make the most efficient model and ensure best practice.  She therefore did not have the answer immediately as the team had not yet been created. She would therefore ask the Head of Planning to come back to Mr Copland at a later date.

 

l) Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

What steps are being taken, in line with the Council's Environment and Climate Strategy, to accelerate specific arboricultural as well as ecology training of Planning officers who, following these cuts, would be responsible for caring for our trees?

Written response: The responsibility for trees within the borough is currently shared by a number of services, teams and officers, including planning officers, who work collaboratively to deliver outcomes and the proposals would not alter these existing responsibilities. A significant number of planning officers have already attended training courses and webinars in relation to the habitat regulations, ecological issues and biodiversity net gain in the autumn of 2020. Planning officers currently work collaboratively with the trees team to deliver the right outcomes and the proposal would not change this, however if a need for additional training is identified it will be provided.

 

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Copland suggested that the council should ring fence payments made in relation to tree protection order conditions so that they could be devoted to maintenance of trees. This would give further reassurance that the council was genuinely concerned about the issue.

 

Councillor Stimson responded that she thought it was an excellent suggestion and she would put it forward to the tree team, Head of Sustainability and Head of Planning as they planned their new function.