To consider the proposed Capital and Revenue bids for the Communities, Insight & Change; Resources & Assets; and Place & Growth Directorates.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 31 to 168, which set out the revenue and capital bids for the Directorates encompassing Communities, Insight and Change, Place and Growth, and Resources and Assets.

 

Due to time constraints, the Committee only considered the proposed revenue and capital bids for the Place and Growth Directorate. The proposed bids for the remaining Directorates would be considered at a future meeting of the Committee.

 

Parry Batth (Executive Member for Environment and Leisure), Pauline Jorgensen (Executive Member for Highways and Transport), John Kaiser (Executive Member for Finance and Housing), Wayne Smith (Executive Member for Planning and Enforcement), Bill Soane (Executive Member for Neighbourhood and Communities), Graham Ebers (Deputy Chief Executive (Director of Resources and Assets), Steve Moore (Interim Director – Place and Growth), Mark Cupit (Assistant Director, Delivery & Infrastructure), Andy Glencross (Assistant Director – Highways), Richard Bisset (Senior Specialist – Place Clienting), Marcia Head (Service Manager – Place and Growth), and Francesca Hobson (Service Manager  – Community, Heritage, Green and Blue Infrastructure) attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

 

It was noted that many of the bids were returning bids from previous years’ Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) versions.

 

During the ensuing discussions, Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           In relation to PG R1, optimise parking income, a Member expressed disappointment that the proposed increase of parking charges and benchmarking from other Councils were not included within the agenda pack.

 

·           In relation to PG R1, optimise parking income, were there registered risks in case the budgeted income was not achieved? Executive Member and Interim Director response – Parking income was slowly recovering, with footfall back to normal levels within the town centres, however car parking was yet to reach pre-pandemic levels. The Denmark Street car park was now larger, and therefore there was potential for additional income from that car park. It was extremely difficult to forecast parking revenue, and supplementary estimates would be taken back to the Executive if required. The general fund balance included a comprehensive risk analysis, and would be available if necessary to cover any shortfall.

 

·           What was the timeframe for the parking revenue recovery plan, and would there be an opportunity to scrutinise this plan once it was ready? Officer response – This was part of a wider piece of work which was being prepared and was hoped to be completed by the middle of 2022, and there were currently no envisaged issues with the plan being reviewed by the Committee when appropriate.

 

·           In relation to PG R3, additional civil parking enforcement operatives, would the additional resource remain only on-street to tackle road safety issues, and how had the predicted additional income been calculated? Executive Member response – Civil parking enforcement was a cost neutral service of which income was ring-fenced. The additional resource would be used to target problem areas across the Borough. The predicted income was assessed on the current civil parking enforcement officers’ work.

 

·           In relation to PG R4, income from park and ride sites, did the predicted income include any predicted income from the Thames Valley Park and Ride? Executive Member response – The Thames Valley Park and Ride was going to be used to supplement the Winnersh Park and Ride during the extension of the Winnersh Park and Ride. Opportunities were being explored in relation to improve the park and ride usage and network via different usage of buses.

 

·           Where would additional civil parking enforcement operatives be deployed? Executive Member and Interim Director response – The additional operatives would be deployed in a variety of problem areas around the Borough including specific schools. Operatives were deployed in areas where the local community had asked for support, and these were mostly areas where there were safety issues.

 

·           In relation to PG R4, what was the predicted income of each park and ride site? Officer response – Robust estimates had been used including an element of expected recovery of the park and ride sites from the pandemic, and the current estimates predicted the park and ride sites to be cost neutral. A more detailed answer would be provided in writing.

 

·           When considering PG R1 and R4 together, car parking income and park and ride income, additional income was expected to be at the level of £1.1m over three years. Was this achievable? Interim Director response – Parking income had near enough recovered to pre-pandemic levels, and the town centre income had recovered very well. The proposed bids were working on the data available currently. In addition, three new park and ride sites were due to open which would provide part of this additional income.

 

·           Had the previously suggested idea of allowing monthly payment for the garden waste bin been considered, to encourage more residents to recycle? Executive Member and officer response – The demand for garden waste bins had increased across the Borough from residents with a wide variety of different backgrounds. Officers would look at the possibility of a monthly charge option, for example via direct debit.

 

·           In relation to PG R5 and R6, increase in cost of garden waste bins and increased recycling capture rate, had potential delays been factored into the predicted income? Executive Member response – Existing customers would see the increased charges from 1^st June 2022, whilst new customers would pay the increased price from April 2022.

 

·           Had a small discount to provision of a second bin for garden waste been considered? Interim Director and officer response – This option could be explored by officers, however the existing charge of £70 included collection and disposal of materials, and was benchmarked across the area.

 

·           Had benchmarking of garden waste collection been benchmarked across the Berkshire Authorities as well as Hart Council? Officer response – Local benchmarking had been carried out with neighbouring authorities. Bracknell and Reading charged slightly less than Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), however they had a smaller number of vehicles going out and less operating costs. The charges for Bracknell and Reading would be sought for Members.

 

·           In relation to PG R6, food waste diversion and increased recycling capture, what were the low performing areas, and was the £350k saving achievable? Interim Director and officer response – Some streets and neighbourhoods were not participating as fully as others, and uptake needed to be as high as possible. Those areas which were not participating as fully were being mapped and given extra support to encourage participation. There were potential savings of £1m per annum via encouraging residents to move food waste from blue bags to food caddies, and therefore the proposed saving of £350k per annum was very realistic.

 

·           Would communications relating to which items should be recycled and how be circulated in a number of different languages to include as many residents as possible? Officer response – This was an equalities and accessibility issue, and this was a key point which would be looked at via some of the funding that had been secured from an outside organisation.

 

·           Could a breakdown be provided for PG R10, meeting operating costs of park and ride sites? Executive Member response – This would be provided as a written answer.

 

·           Members commented that it was very positive to see additional posts being bid for within the traffic management team.

 

·           It was noted that PG R12, permanent staffing for Development Management and Enforcement Team, and PG R27, temporary staffing for Development Management and Enforcement Team, should be considered together. In future, bids such as this would have a note referencing their accompanying bid.

 

·           In relation to PG R13, re-grading of existing posts within Development Management and Enforcement, how close were WBC graduate salaries compared to competing Local Authorities such as Hillingdon? Officer response – Graduates started on Grade 6, approximately £25,000, and could move up to a maximum salary of £32,910 at the top of Grade 7. Other Local Authorities were being closely monitored, and it may be that next year a bid may be put in to increase the potential career grade to Grade 8, as a lot of time and effort was put in to training up staff and WBC did not want them to walk away once they hit their career grade ceiling.

 

·           In relation to PG R12, permanent staffing for Development Management and Enforcement Team, was demand for pre-planning advice and planning applications expected to continue to rise? Executive Member response – Pre planning, planning, and commercial planning applications had risen unexpectedly last year, and there had been a further upturn this year. The data was not suggesting that this trend would slow down or reverse for the time being.

 

·           In relation to bid PG R19, Community Safety, what was the additional funding going towards? Interim Director response – This would go towards 1.5 full time equivalent staffing to deliver the community safety action plan.

 

·           In relation to PG R20, temporary accommodation, was the £350k sufficient considering the red RAG status? Executive Member response – A commitment had been made to keep homeless off of the Borough’s streets. Should the proposed funding not be sufficient, officers could bring supplementary estimates for consideration.

 

·           In relation to PG R21, Local Transport Plan 4 and Delivery Plan, could the plan be adapted in future? Executive Member and Interim Director response – This plan was kept in line with the Local Plan Update, and the best practice was to review both plans every five years.

 

·           It was noted that the both PG R23 and PG R25, enforcement and planning appeals, should be read together.

 

·           It was noted that the supporting evidence for PG R26 should be updated in future as it was currently a hyperlink, and the briefing note would be provided to the Committee.

 

·           In relation to PG R23, development management appeals, what was WBC’s position regarding the five year land supply? Executive Member response – WBC was still at 5.23 years of land supply, however reserve sites would have to be considered should this level be reduced further. The consultation for the updated Local Plan had been launched, which would address the issue of land supply within the Borough once a new Local Plan had been agreed.

 

·           To help with comparison in relation to PG R23 and PG R25, appeals and enforcement, how many enforcement notices had been issued this year? Officer response – Nine notices had been served this year, and six more were likely before the end of the financial year. Most cases ended up at an appeal and a public enquiry.

 

·           With regards to the bid for an ecology officer (note: this bid was under the £50k limit for an associated bid sheet), could additional details be given regarding this proposed post? Officer response – This was a special item for an additional officer to support the existing team and to respond to the Environment Bill over the next few years. Grant funding was likely to arrive for this post in future, however this bid would provide the immediate funding required to pay for the proposed post.

 

·           In relation to PG R30, reintegration of the Public Protection Partnership, did this expenditure include any “divorce” settlement? Executive Member response – This bid did not include any such figures, which would hopefully be known in December. Currently, many staff had transferred over to WBC and the process was taking place smoothly. If an update on this figure materialised, this could be updated at the January meeting of the Committee.

 

·           In relation to the managing congestion bid (note: this bid was a carryover from the previously agreed MTFP), had the spending been reduced? Officer response – This was a re-profiling as the initial expected pace of expenditure had changed. The overall spend (£20m) had not changed, however it would now be spread out over a longer period of time.

 

·           In relation to PG C1, structural maintenance, with the expenditure remaining equal each year, would this result in less works being carried out due to rising costs? Executive Member and officer response – The budget for road repairs was split amongst several different areas. Additional funding, including Government funding, had been added to the overall budget, and there was no intention to reduce the overall maintenance budget.

 

·           In relation to the previous bid for the highways infrastructure flood alleviation schemes (note: this was an agreed bid from a previous year), was this in relation to a specific scheme or a number of schemes? Officer response – The main amount of this funding was going towards reducing flooding at the Showcase roundabout, and a scheme was being developed south of the M4 to reduce flood risk on Lower Earley Way and the Showcase roundabout.

 

·           In relation to PG C2, Earley station footbridge replacement, did this include an option for lifts at the footbridge and access to the London bound carriageway? Officer response – Currently the bid did not include a ramp to the London bound carriageway. Lifts had not been costed yet, and when the project reached that stage then this would be looked at.

 

·           In relation to PG C8, A327 cycleway, why was the project requiring an additional £400k funding up to a total project cost of £1m? Officer response – More detail would be provided in writing.

 

·           In relation to PG C6, local cycling and walking infrastructure plans (LCWIP), what would happen once the funding ceased? Executive Member and officer response – The funding from Central Government was uncertain, and this bid covered WBC for two years’ worth of delivery, and additional bids for year three could be expected in the future.

 

·           It was agreed that the list of capital projects that included cycling and walking infrastructure investment would be circulated to the Committee.

 

·           Did WBC make money from electric vehicle charging within the Borough? Executive Member and officer response – A commercial agreement was arranged with operators to achieve a cost neutral service, and possibly to generate income.

 

·           In relation to PG C7, electric vehicle charging points, how many additional charging points would this funding provide? Officer response – This was a very immature market, and a pilot project was underway to provide around 70 charging points for approximately £240k of funding. The market may change in future years which could reduce costs.

 

·           Were there different costs between “slow” and “fast” electric vehicle charging points? Officer response – The power supply used for on-street supplies usually came from lamp posts, and as a result these tended to be slower “trickle” charges. The infrastructure would require an overhaul to facilitate faster on-street charging.

 

·           Had Scottish and Southern Electric been approached to ensure the additional 70 electric vehicle charging points could be facilitated? Officer response – The National Grid had presented to officers a year ago, and they were confident that the network could cope with “trickle” charging, and it was adoption of “fast” charging that could present an issue.

 

·           What was SCAPE? Executive Member and officer response – This was the funding to deliver the major SDL roads.

 

·           In relation to PG C17, greenways, why was the programme changing significantly? Officer response – One of the main routes planned for this project had been required to change due to resident feedback, despite previous consultations not indicating any such issues. The scheme would be delayed until further conversations had taken place with residents and the residents’ association, and amended plans could be taken forward.

 

·           In relation to PG C19, feasibility case for developing new crematorium, what was the status of this? Executive Member response – A number of capital projects may be removed in future iterations of the bid process due to costings. Should this be the case, an explanation would be provided at the time.

 

·           In relation to PG C14, Civica system, could more detail be provided with regards to this? Interim Director response – This was the IT software required for the new WBC enforcement safety colleagues including tablets and remote access software.

 

·           In relation to PG C18, sports provision to serve North and South Wokingham SDLs, had thought been given to the types of facilities to be included? Officer response – Originally an outdoor only facility was considered, however indoor use was now also being considered. Much of the work of the newly recruited master planners would be to assess the requirements of the communities which would be served by these facilities.

 

·           Why was the public rights of way network seeing significant change (note: this was not included within this years’ bid sheets)? Officer response – This was funding for the Loddon long distance path, which would run from Swallowfield up to the north of the Borough parallel to the River Loddon. The issue was that some of the land required was privately owned, and therefore the permission of the landowners was required. Some serious issues in terms of landowner negotiations had been realised, and officers were working towards solutions and hoped to progress this within the coming year.

 

At this point in the meeting, a motion was proposed, seconded, and carried to extend the meeting to a maximum finish time of 11pm.

 

At this point of the meeting, it was agreed to defer the remaining directorates to the meeting of the Committee on 13 December 2021. It was suggested by a Member that points of clarification be sent to officers in advance to alleviate time constraints on the evening.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)     Parry Batth, Pauline Jorgensen, John Kaiser, Wayne Smith, Bill Soane, Graham Ebers, Steve Moore, Mark Cupit, Andy Glencross , Richard Bisset, Marcia Head, and Francesca Hobson be thanked for attending the meeting;

 

2)     The remaining two directorates capital and revenue bids be considered at the December meeting of the Committee, and Executive Members and officers associated with these directorates be thanked for their patience at this meeting;

 

3)     A written answer be provided with regards to the income projected for each park and ride site, and the associated operating costs of each site;

 

4)     Officers explore the option of offering green waste bins on a monthly payment model, splitting costs over a calendar year;

 

5)     The Committee be provided with the charges for green waste collection services from both Bracknell Forest Council and Reading Borough Council;

 

6)     The briefing note relating to PG R26, increase in planning application fee income, be circulated to the Committee;

 

7)     Information be sought with regards to the project cost increase for the A327 cycleway;

 

8)     The list of capital projects within the proposed capital programme relating to walking and cycling infrastructure be provided to the Committee.