Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from Councillors Laura Blumenthal and Chris Johnson.

Councillors Anne Chadwick and Adrian Mather attended the meeting as substitutes.

Councillor Gregor Murray attended the meeting via Microsoft Teams, meaning that he could participate in discussions but not vote.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To answer any public questions on items relating to this agenda.

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice.

The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of this committee.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Committee or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.  For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

There were no public questions.

To answer any member questions relating to items on this agenda.

There were no Member questions.

To consider the Borough’s initial and planned response to the cost of living crisis, including partnership working with the Hardship Alliance.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 5 to 22, which outlined Wokingham Borough Council’s initial and ongoing response alongside the Hardship Alliance to address the cost-of-living crisis.

Stephen Conway, Executive Member for Housing, and Rachel Bishop Firth, Executive Member for Equalities, Inclusion and Fighting Poverty, provided a brief overview of the partnership working being undertaken to help tackle this crisis. This was a very difficult time for a lot of residents in the Borough, and a considerable amount of hard work was being undertaken to help support individuals and families. Practical advice and help were being provided in relation to issues such as food, keeping warm and managing impacts on mental health. The support being provided in conjunction with the Hardship Alliance was critical, and there was a real desire to strengthen and improve this type of collaborative working where possible.

Jake Morrison, Chief Executive – Citizens Advice Wokingham, provided the Committee with a background to the increased service demand being seen within the Borough. The same number of individuals had been referred for help in the first two-months of 2019 than had been referred this morning. There had been a forty-percent increase in the number of individuals being referred for benefit issues, and a twenty-percent increase in the number of individuals being referred with debt issues. Whilst it was good that people felt confident to reach out for help, demand had increased markedly with a thirty-five percent increase in calls received in October. The typical service request had also shifted, as previously people were contacting the service when bailiffs were at there door, whilst it was now more common for people to be contacting the service regarding not having access to essentials such as food, clothes or energy. More and more individuals were now considering or carrying out self-harm, whilst staff on phones regularly spoke to suicidal individuals. A survey had been sent regarding the cost-of-living crisis, with 680 responses received to date. Seventy-five percent of respondents had yet to reach out to services for support, whilst nineteen percent had borrowed money from either a friend, bank, payday loan company or a loan shark to pay for essentials.

Emma Cantrell, Chief Executive – First Days, provided the Committee with a background to the increased service demand being seen within the Borough. The issues being dealt with now were ordinarily seen in more deprived areas in places such as London. Demand management was introduced a few years ago to allow staff to work more closely with fewer families, however staff now dealt with far more cases than ever before.

Stephen Conway (Executive Member for Housing), Rachel Bishop Firth (Executive Member for Equalities Inclusion and Fighting Poverty), Mark Gwynne (Strategic Lead – Chief Executive’s Office), Emily Higson (Head of Insight Strategy and Inclusion), Jake Morrison (Chief Executive – Citizens Advice Wokingham), and Emma Cantrell (Chief Executive – First Days) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To receive a presentation on Fraud and Unfair Trading practices within the Borough, measures to tackle such offences, and case studies.

The Committee considered a presentation, set out in agenda pages 22 to 30, which provided an update on fraud and unfair trading practices within the Borough and measures to tackle such offences.

The presentation noted that this was an underreported area of crime, and forty percent of victims were aged between the 70 and 84.

Ian Shenton (Executive Member for Environment, Sport and Leisure), Sean Murphy (Public Protection Manager) and Narinder Brar (Community Safety Manager) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

·         What could Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) do to help communicate information on fraudulent practices and reporting methods, and what could WBC do to help small businesses on a proactive basis who think they may have been the victims of fraud? Officer response – It was crucial that this entire area was dealt with understanding and awareness. WBC worked with other support organisations to help communicate key messages, whilst there was a key focus on preventative action. For businesses, intellectual property was key as without it there may not be a core business and room for innovation;

·         It was noted that there was a tendency for people to become repeat victims, which effected their mental health and went beyond the offence itself;

·         Could data be provided with regards to the types of fraud being committed, how many cases were being resolved, whether KPIs were being achieved, and feedback from victims who had been supported? Officer response – There was no doubt that things were changing in this area, and specialised staff were required to deal with many cases including computer forensic consultants. A further session could be delivered for members to explore the trends behind the figures;

·         With regards to Action Fraud, it was noted that they dealt with the reporting of instances of fraud. There was a huge amount of fraud and only a limited resource available to deal with it. The Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley had recognised fraud as a high priority crime which was interlinked within the complicated web of organised crime. Stating this as a specific priority would hopefully allow further inroads to be made in combatting fraud locally;

·         Who could be contacted to help solve fraud locally? Officer response – If it was within the Borough and trading related, trading standards could be contacted. Other issues should be reported to the police;

·         Was social media being used to inform residents of potential scams in their area, and did scammers take notice of ‘no cold calling zones’? Officer response – Information regarding the use of social media to inform residents could be shared with the Committee. With regards to ‘no cold calling zones’, there was a legal point that traders were required to leave a person’s property when asked to do so. Provision of notices outlining this meant that traders were already served with this notice prior to knocking on doors;

·         How were elderly residents proactively contacted to make them more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

To consider a progress update on the development of the Local Plan Update.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 31 to 40, which set out a progress report on the development of the Local Plan Update (LPU).

Lindsay Ferris (Executive Member for Planning and the Local Plan) Stephen Conway (Executive Member for Housing) and Ian Bellinger (Service Manager for Growth and Delivery) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

·         What timeline was being worked towards and was it possible to speed it up, and if the Government changed the housing number requirement after publication of the LPU could the LPU be updated? Executive Member and officer response – The team had not been asked to adhere to a strict schedule of key milestones as of yet as it was still to be decided which direction Wokingham Borough Council would prefer to go. The two options available were to progress to a regulation 19 order, meaning that WBC would predominantly progress with the previously consulted plan, or go out for a further regulation 18 order, which would present a number of different options via consultation. The direction of progress would be discussed by the cross-party working group, whilst officers would produce a technical recommendation and if members wished to move in a different direction, then a regulation 18 consultation would be required. Progress had already been slow due to the necessity of two regulation 18 consultations. The Local Plan was required to be reviewed every 5 years, however it could be reviewed more frequently as and when required;

·         Was there a requirement to provide an additional twenty-percent of housing in case under delivery, and was it possible to omit this as WBC had a history of over delivery? Officer response – The twenty-percent figure was for Local Authorities with a history of under delivery. WBC had a five-percent figure applied to allow for market changes;

·         What were the implications of not meeting the December 2023 deadline for a completed LPU? Officer response – There was generally no intervention by Government so long as progress was evidenced to be made. The December 2023 deadline would already be a push to achieve, and the risk of intervention was a matter of debate;

·         It was noted that WBC could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The argument proposed by WBC that over delivery of housing in prior years should be taken into account should temper the balance of the lack of five-year housing land supply with inspectors, however this issue would persist from now until a new Local Plan was adopted. It was expected that WBC would lose more appeals due to the tiled balance process;

·         Was it possible to plan infrastructure such as telephone masts at the outline stage of development, were there powers to enforce community spaces and building to be delivered at new developments, and was the Borough Design Guide planned to be updated alongside the LPU? Executive Member and officer response – Policies could be updated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

The Committee considered their work programme, set out in agenda pages 41 to 46.

The Committee noted that time management of upcoming meetings was crucial, to give proper consideration to items scheduled prior to the Medium Term Financial Plan, and the Medium Term Financial Plan itself.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Callum Wernham be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      The Committee’s work programme be noted.