ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
PARISH CONFERENCE
20 APRIL 2006
PRESENT:
RBWM Councillors: Werner (Chairman), Beer, Mrs Brar, Mrs Cubley, Mrs Hawkes, and Dr
Hyde.
RBWM Officers: Linda Chandler, Darren Firth, Ian Hunt, Therese Lawlor, Carol-Anne Matic,
David Oram, Helen Preedy, and David Scott
Dr Pedro Gaspar, Conservation Officer, War Memorials Trust
Parish and Town Councils:
Bisham Parish Council: Councillors Cooper and Robson Brown, Mr Wardle (Clerk)
Bray Parish Council: Ms Woodley (Clerk)
Cookham Parish Council: Councillor Prichard
DALC: Councillor Penfold
Datchet Parish Council: Councillors Tim and Linda O’Flynn
Horton Parish Council: Councillor Davies
Hurley Parish Council: Councillors Baker and Hill
Old Windsor Parish Council: Councillors Dingley, Peach, and Troughton
Shottesbrooke: Councillor Warren
Sunninghill & Ascot Parish Council: Councillor Hunter
White Waltham Parish Council: Councillors Brayne, McDonald, Mr Stuart (Clerk)
Wraysbury Parish Council: Councillor Hughes, Lord
WELCOME
The Chairman of the Conference, Councillor Werner, welcomed everyone to the meeting.
APOLOGIES
were received from Councillors Adams, Mrs Howes, and Rayner, David Lunn (Chief Executive),
and Sunningdale Parish Council.
MINUTES
of the last meeting held on 19 January 2006 were approved.
1
LEISURE AND CULTURAL SERVICES
i) War Memorials Trust (WMT) – Presentation on Work of Trust – The Conference welcomed Dr
Pedro Gaspar from the War Memorials Trust to the meeting, who gave a brief presentation on the
work of the Trust.
It was noted that the WMT’s vision was to protect and conserve all war memorials within the
United Kingdom. The meeting was also provided with the WMT’s ‘mission’ which comprised:



Working for the protection and conservation of War Memorials in the United Kingdom to
ensure these monuments remain part of our communities forever. War Memorials
commemorate our shared past, an important part of our national culture.
WMT seeks to cooperate with other organisations, at both national and local level, to
better safeguard the future of War Memorials in both their social and historical context.
WMT is an independent Registered Charity and as such is entirely dependant on
voluntary income.
The objectives of the WMT were also outlined and these included:




To monitor the condition of War Memorials, and to encourage protection and
conservation when appropriate.
To provide expert advice to those involved in War Memorial projects, and to facilitate
conservation through grants schemes for War Memorial projects.
To work with relevant organisations to encourage their accepting responsibility for War
Memorials and recognising the need to undertake repair and conservation work to these
monuments as required.
To build a greater understanding of War Memorial heritage and raise awareness of the
issues surrounding War Memorial conservation.
The Conference was also informed that the WMT operated two grant schemes, which were
designed to support the care and preservation of War Memorials to a high standard. The ‘Grants
for War Memorials Scheme’ was administered by the WMT for English Heritage and the
Wolfson Foundation, and assisted with the repairs and conservation of freestanding War
Memorials in England. The ‘Small Grants Scheme’ provided financial support to conservation
projects, and issued grants of up to 50%, up to a maximum of £1,500. All types of War
Memorials, in the United Kingdom, qualified for assistance under this programme.
The meeting was also provided with a leaflet on the WMT. Brief discussion took place, following
which the Chairman placed on record his thanks and appreciation to Dr Gaspar for attending the
Conference, and also for his interesting presentation.
(Copies of Dr Gaspar’s presentation, together with the WMT leaflets, are available from the
Clerk)
ii) Health and Safety Gravestones – Report of Local Government Ombudsman - David Scott, the
Assistant to the Director of Leisure, Cultural and Property Services, addressed the meeting in
2
relation to a special report that had recently been published by the Local Government
Ombudsman in relation to some general guidance on memorial safety in local authority
cemeteries.
The Conference noted that the report commented that Councils had an overriding duty to take, as
far as reasonably practicable, measures to prevent injury or death from unstable memorials, and
that Councils needed to balance the risk of injury on the one hand and the certainty of distress
and outrage if memorials were laid down, on the other.
Members also noted the following points arising from the Local Government Ombudsman’s
report:

















Councils should give public notice in advance of carrying out a general testing
programme.
Councils should notify individual owners of rights of burial that testing is to be carried
out, unless records are out of date, or urgent action is required in the interests of health
and safety.
Councils should notify the owner of the right of burial, if known, if a memorial fails the
test.
A Council should display, in the cemetery itself and on the Council’s website, lists of
memorials which failed the test. Individual notices should be placed on or near a
memorial, which fails the test, giving the Council’s contact details and the period for
making contact.
Councils may offer demonstrations of their safety testing procedure to owners and
interested members of the public.
Personnel carrying out testing must be properly trained.
Councils should have a system for assessing the risk posed by individual unstable
memorials. Simply to lay down all memorials that move is inappropriate.
The maximum period between inspections should be five years.
More frequent inspection may be required for individual memorials whose condition
requires it, or generally where other factors dictate shorter periods.
Councils should have a testing policy.
Councils should have regard to alternatives to laying down if a memorial fails the test.
A temporary support and warning notice is likely to cause less public outrage than laying
large numbers of memorials flat.
Laying down may be necessary but only to prevent a genuine hazard to health and safety
that cannot be remedied by a temporary support.
Temporary stabilisation for a reasonable period affords owners the opportunity to repair
the memorials.
The principal responsibility for maintaining a memorial in a safe condition is that of the
owner.
In the absence of maladministration in the testing process, there is no obligation on a
council to meet the cost of remedial work.
Re-fixing, where necessary, should be carried out to an approved standard.
3

The Ombudsman commend the practice of councils that establish hardship funds to assist
owners who cannot meet some or all of the repair costs, and councils that pay for all
repairs themselves in the interests of preserving the amenity of their cemeteries or where
no responsible person can be found.
iii) Consultation On The ‘Planning For Play’ Strategy – Linda Chandler, the Council’s Head of
Community and Youth Services, gave a brief presentation on the work being undertaken to
develop a Play Strategy for the Royal Borough.
It was noted that the principles of the Strategy centred on all children and young people having
the right to play freely and free of charge in their own neighbourhoods. The vision and rationale
of the Strategy comprised:




Play helps children to explore – through the freedom to explore their senses and the world
about them, respond to challenges and take risks
Play helps children to share – through taking turns, sharing insights, develop trust and
respect
Play helps children to grow – through developing physical skills, exercising imagination
Play helps children to learn – through discovering their own abilities, and interact with
others
The development of a Strategy for the Royal Borough was also being co-ordinated within the
confines of the National Policy Context, and also the local context. The Conference also noted
that play was an essential part of every child’s life and vital to their development, and details
were provided in relation to the key characteristics of play in the context of the strategy that
National Government were seeking. An action plan for the development of the Royal Borough’s
strategy had been compiled and it was noted that the first steps of the plan included undertaking
consultation with the key stakeholders, developing individual services priorities around play, an
audit of hard play facilities and play provision, together with an audit of play worker skills.
The meeting noted that the next steps would include compiling an action plan based upon
consultation and audit results for approval, and drawing together the proposals for priority action.
It would also be necessary to identify resources to deliver the strategy.
Discussion took place, during which it was noted that the development of the Play Strategy
would enable the Council to obtain funds from BIG Lottery Fund for the period April 2006March 2009. It was reported that this was a one-off payment, to be drawn during this three-year
period. A questionnaire would shortly be circulated to all parishes, inviting submissions in
relation to identifying priorities to be considered as part of the overall Strategy.
iv) “Get Active” Programme – The Conference welcomed Helen Preedy, the Council’s ‘Get
Active’ Sports Programme Co-ordinator, to the meeting, who gave a presentation on the
Programme.
The Conference noted that the ‘Get Active Phase 1’ commenced in July 2004, followed by
‘Phase 2’ in April 2005. The aims and objectives of the Programme were to encourage children’s
4
aspirations and engagement in a wide range of out of school provision, particularly targeting
vulnerable children and young people, and also to develop a wide range of physical activity and
sport programmes that included building self-esteem, personal and emotional well-being and
healthy living to assist children, young people and their families to have more control.
The programme was for children with low self-esteem or lack of self-confidence, an unstable
home environment, a lack of positive role models, and at risk of social exclusion. The current
delivery areas for the programme comprised Old Windsor, Datchet, Eton Wick and Dedworth,
and would be extended to other areas as it progressed. It was noted that the project operated on
weekends, evenings and holidays, including residential activities, and the benefits to young
people of the programme included:








Role models
Safe/fun environment
Personal and emotional wellbeing
Captivate, stimulate, be good at something
Educate, encourage understanding
Social/communication skills
Opportunities to try a range of activities
Vision/goal setting – hope for the future
Members were also informed that the programme provided benefits to the community and these
included improved health, young people positively involved in activities and diverted away from
anti-social behaviour, safe environment, development of life skills, and joining or understanding
of community groups. The nest steps for the programme included expanding it to Ascot and
Maidenhead, continuing the regular attendance at youth clubs, continuing to support referrals,
increasing two-way communication, ands developing intergenerational work.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the Conference viewed a short DVD of young children
participating in the ‘Get Active’ programme.
The Conference welcomed the presentation, together with all the work that was being undertaken.
Some Members commented that this initiative highlighted the co-operation between the Council
and the Parishes in working together.
CRIME AND DISORDER
Anti-Social Behaviour – Sunninghill and Ascot Parish Council had submitted the following
question to the meeting: ““What are the other Parishes thoughts/approach to use of the Mosquito
device that stops anti-social behaviour gatherings by youths at recreational site pavilions, outside
late night shops and other areas, etc, that cause public concern? This is achieved by the small
device that emits high frequency, being heard only by 12 to 20 year olds. This Council has
requested Thames Valley Police to try out the device at one of its sites with one of the two
devices locally held, to access what it can achieve with a view to purchase. The costs is
understood to be £600 each approximately and that the Police can obtain for £480
approximately”.
5
Parish Councillor Hunter from Sunninghill and Ascot explained that the parish would be trialing
one of these devices during the summer, and if this proved to be a success, would be purchasing
one. Brief discussion took place, during which it was noted that the devices should be used
sensibly and appropriately, as they could affect other people in addition to those who were
targeted. The meeting were also informed that the Council’s Community Safety Partnership
would be purchasing the devices, and would use them appropriately.
The Conference was also introduced to Carol-Anne Matic, the Council’s new Anti-Social
Behaviour Co-Ordinator.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
Emergency Planning – The Conference welcomed Darren Firth, the Council’s Emergency
Planning Officer to the meeting, who gave a presentation on Emergency Planning within the
Royal Borough.
The Conference noted the introduction of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and noted that Local
Authorities had to maintain services and respond to an incident. A lot of work had resulted from
the 2004 Act and also the London bombings of 7 July 2005. The Royal Borough was currently
developing a Business Continuity Plan, and the importance of multi agency planning was
emphasised. It was noted that the Royal Borough had good working relationships with the other
Berkshire Unitary Authorities.
In relation to what the Council currently had in place, the Conference was informed of the
following:






An Emergency Plan (under review)
A 24 hour cover through a control room at Tinkers Lane (01753 853517)
An Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) at Tinkers Lane (secondary site – CSC,
Maidenhead)
Six Pack – A dedicated team of 6 senior ops dept – staff available to deal with any
emergency, with 45 key plan holders
Ongoing training both locally and Berkshire wide
GIS facilities/Text Messaging Facilities/developing internet
Members also noted the various stages of emergency management, as follows:






Anticipation – pre warning from agencies
Assessment – how does it effect RBWM or neighbours
Prevention – what can we reasonably do now to stop it
Preparation – prepare plans
Response – Call out to deal with situation
Recovery – Getting back to normal
6
The meeting was also provided with details in relation to the various risks in the Royal Borough,
and these included accidents, weather, terrorism, public health, animal health, major events, risk
sights, loss of utilities, and other aspects such as industrial action, fuel shortages, and
evacuations. A brief update was also provided in relation to Avian flu, and the meeting noted that
DEFRA were the lead organisation on this with the State Veterinary Service and Trading
Standards. The Royal Borough may be asked to provide support in any such emergency in the
Borough, but good plans were in place and commercial poultry sites had been registered.
Personal Protective Equipment was held. Members also noted brief details in relation to the
handling of a Pandemic – this would be led by the Health Protection Agency and National Health
Service, and alert levels were currently 0 (0-4 alert levels in place). Various plans were in place
to deal with such a situation, including the National Strategic Plan, Thames Valley Strategic PCT
Plan, and an East Berkshire PCT Plan and LA Plan.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr Firth confirmed that he would be undertaking an annual
presentation to all parish councils in relation to emergency planning, and encouraged any parish
with any particular questions or queries to contact him direct.
During discussion and in response to questions, Mr Firth confirmed that regular monthly
meetings were held with BAA in relation to emergency planning, and he also outlined the
effective working relationships in operation with both other Berkshire Unitaries and
neighbouring bordering local authorities. A brief update was also given in relation to the recent
flooding in Datchet, and it was noted that Thames Water were the lead authority.
The Chairman placed on record his appreciation to Mr Firth for an interesting and informative
presentation.
SOCIAL SERVICES
Accommodation – Elderly Residents – Old Windsor Parish Council had submitted the following
question: “What action will the Borough Council be taking to ensure that elderly residents can be
found accommodation in the area of their birth or long standing residence?
Parish Councillor Dingley addressed the meeting, and questioned what plans the Royal Borough
had in place for older people. She outlined concerns in relation to elderly residents in Old
Windsor, with particular reference to the future of Randall Court. Councillor Mrs Proctor, the
Royal Borough’s Cabinet Member for Social Services and Housing, responded, and outlined the
development of plans for elderly residents implemented by the Royal Borough in the last three
years. In addition, she referred to correspondence that the Council had received from the Chief
Executive of Windsor Housing Association, which commented that the Housing Association
were currently considering accommodation provision for elderly residents, and that no decisions
had been taken. The Housing Association would be undertaking consultation with all parties once
options had been formulated.
It was recommended that the best course of action would be for the Housing Association and
Chris Thomas, the Council’s Head of Housing Policy, together with Councillor Mrs Proctor, to
7
be invited to a meeting of Old Windsor Parish Council, to enable clear communication and
discussion on this issue to be undertaken. In addition,
DATE OF FUTURE CONFERENCES
Thursday 14 September 2006 commencing at 7.00pm in the Guildhall, Windsor.
Thursday 1 February 2007 commencing at 7.00pm in the Town Hall, Maidenhead.
8