Category: Wokingham and West Berkshire Issues

I officially opened the modernised and improved Post Office and Village stores in Swallowfield today. I also was invited in to see one of the new and renovated  houses and one of the remodelled flats. They are delightful new homes finished to a good standard.

Swallowfield Parish Council has taken advantage of a government initiative to allow local communities to undertake projects for themselves that improve community amenities and environments. The Localism Act 2011 granted these additional powers. Swallowfield Parish owned land called Fieldfare in the middle of the village. Using the enhanced powers under the Act they have redeveloped the site to provide additional rental accommodation and an improved shop and Post Office.

I thanked all involved and agreed that the development and refurbishment has greatly improved the appearance and facilities of this central part of the village.  I  was pleased so many people turned out for the opening, and urged them to make good use of the shop. These popular local facilities do need regular custom to survive and flourish.

 

I will make sure the strength of feeling in Barkham against further large scale housing development is well understood at Wokingham Borough. I am trying to get the government to agree that Wokingham has more than enough planning permissions outstanding to take care of needs for considerably more than the next 5 years. I wish to see the current  local Plan upheld, with the Council sensitive to local opinion about the pace and location of additional develpment when considering a future local plan. I talked to representatives from Barkham recently about the issue.

I have had a couple of emails telling me I should support staying in the EU or so watering down Brexit that we might as well stay in the EU because a majority of people in Wokingham voted Remain. Let me explain again why I do not agree.

The first thing to understand is my constituency of Wokingham includes wards in West Berkshire, whilst many of  the wards in Wokingham Borough are in 3 neighbouring  constituencies. We only know the referendum vote for the Borough, not for my constituency. I accept from the canvassing I did in the referendum that around half  of my electors voted remain, and I have pledged to take up their worries and make sure their concerns are taken into account as we leave.

The referendum was the one time when an MP had just one voice and one vote like all his or her constituents. Clearly an MP could not  be on  both sides, and did not have to try to predict where the majority would  be and vote with them. Once the referendum was over an MP of course has to do his or her best to represent everyone in the constituency, which is bound to include people of both  views.

I support Leave as an MP on the basis of a double mandate to do so from the referendum and a General election. . The government and Parliament made it clear that the referendum gave the decision to UK voters over whether to leave or  stay. I feel bound by the  decision.

We held a General election in 2017. I made it very clear in my personal Manifesto that I would support and vote for Brexit in the Commons, both because it is the wish UK voters, and because I think it is a good decision. The Conservative party also promised to implement the referendum decision, and I campaigned as a Conservative candidate. Again I feel bound to seek to honour my promises about this important matter.

The results of the General Election in Wokingham were particularly interesting. Not only did I receive a majority of the votes cast,  but Labour leapt ahead of the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrat  candidate and his party made clear they did want to water down or overturn Brexit, whilst the Labour Manifesto like the Conservative one said they would implement Brexit. I conclude from the General Election that Wokingham voters either want Brexit or believe they should go along with it. They had every opportunity to signal they wanted to stop Brexit by voting Lib Dem, but the overwhelming majority decided not to do so.

I have received the following reply from the Secretary of State for Education in response to my intervention on his speech on 25 April and my subsequent private meeting with him in June:

Dear John

Following our meeting, I wanted to respond in writing with further information on the areas we discussed.

You raised some questions about how the minimum per pupil funding levels operate. The national funding formula (NFF) will provide a minimum funding level of £3,500 per pupil for primary schools and £4,800 for secondary schools, by 2019-20. As we transition to these levels, the formula provides £3,300 for primary schools and £4,600 to secondary schools in 2018-19. Of the 45 schools in Wokingham, 10 will attract more funding through the minimum per pupil funding levels by 2019-20.

However, whilst the NFF provides minimum per pupil funding levels, local authorities continue to be responsible for distributing school funding through a formula set locally, in consultation with their Schools Forum, in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Wokingham Borough Council has not included a minimum per pupil funding level in its 2018-19 local formula, so some schools in the area may not receive this level of per pupil funding. The council has set a minimum funding guarantee (MFG) of 0.5%, so no school in the local authority will have received less than a 0.5% per pupil increase in 2018-19.

Many local councils have chosen to replicate the NFF locally, and we support and encourage this. However, we recognise that some authorities may wish to move to the NFF gradually over more than one year. There are also some circumstances where a more tailored local formula is more appropriate as we transition to the NFF – for instance, where local changes in characteristics mean that a greater proportion of pupils than anticipated have additional needs, and it is therefore not affordable to use the funding values in the NFF. We believe some local flexibility should be retained whilst we bring in this historic reform, and it is up to Wokingham council to set the local formula that they think works best for their area. Wokingham council have used this flexibility to increase the basic per pupil funding factors in their formula and the primary low prior attainment factor, instead of implementing the minimum per pupil funding levels. Wokingham were required to consult their schools on the formula they set for 2018-19 and will be required to do so again for 2019-20.

We are currently considering what the system should look liked beyond 2019-20, and we will provide details on this in due course. With regards to the transitional protections within the formula, these are as much a core part of the formula as any other formula factor. This includes the funding floor, which prevents a reduction in the per pupil funding that schools attract through the NFF. You will understand that any spending plans beyond 2019-20 are subject to the next Spending Review, so I am not able to make commitments beyond that point.

We understand that it is difficult for schools to manage fluctuating pupil numbers. There are several ways that we help schools to cope with this:

• The lagged funding system gives schools certainty over their budgets, as they know in advance how many pupils they will be funded for. It also means that when pupil numbers fall, schools have time to respond before this starts to affect their budgets.
• The NFF provides a lump sum of £110,000 to every school. This is a contribution to the costs that do not vary with pupil numbers, and to give schools (especially small schools) certainty that they will attract a fixed amount each year in addition to their pupil-led funding.
• Local authorities are able to create a fund to support schools with temporary falling rolls, where they are judged good or outstanding by Ofsted. This funding can be used where local planning data show that the surplus places will be needed again within the next three financial years. We are considering improvements to falling rolls funding for 2019-20 and beyond.

You also asked more broadly about our approach to place planning and parental choices. Basic need funding is the money we give local authorities each year to help them fulfil their duty to make sure there are enough school places for children in their local area. This funding for school places is based on local authorities’ own data on school capacity and pupil forecasts. Local authorities can use their basic need funding to work with any school in their area and have the flexibility to make the best decisions for their local area.

As a matter of good practice, all local authorities should maintain a small surplus of places locally so that they are to respond quickly to in-year applications. We fund local authorities to provide a least a 2 per cent operating margin of places, to help support parental choice, churn in the pupil population, and the general manageability of the system. We also expect local areas to avoid carrying excessive levels of surplus capacity. As part of fulfilling their duty to provide sufficient places, we expect local authorities to manage the local school estate efficiently and reduce or find alternative uses for high levels of surplus, in order to avoid detriment to schools’ education offer or financial position.

When funding new free schools, we undertake a rigorous assessment of local factors to ensure that they provide choice, innovation and higher standards for parents. We take into account of existing capacity in the system, balancing the benefits of new places with the costs of surplus capacity and the impact on existing schools and local areas. Of the mainstream free schools approved since 2014, 86% have been in areas where there was a need for more school places.

We have recently launched the wave 13 application round, targeting areas with the lowest educational performance to put free schools in the places most in need of good new schools. In all cases, we will expect applications to show a demonstrable basic need for a high proportion of the additional school places that the free school will create.

Thank you again for raising these issues with me.

Yours ever

Damian Hinds
Secretary of State for Education

Following my recent blog on planning, I have now received the enclosed statement from Pauline Jorgensen, the Executive Member for Housing on Wokingham Borough Council:

“We recognise that there is continuing demand for housing in the South East, and particularly in Wokingham Borough.

“This is partly driven by the Borough being recognised as one of the best places in the country to live, work, and raise a family.

“But we believe that the Government’s targets for Wokingham Borough are too high, and other areas need to take their fair share of new homes.

“In order to get a true measure of available housing in an area, we would like national housing policies to take into account homes which have planning permission but which developers are holding back on building.

“We call on the Government to allow local authorities to decide where it is most suitable to build houses, rather than letting appeal inspectors in Bristol overturn planning refusals for applications that are in breach of local planning policies.

“Nonetheless, we believe in a property-owning democracy in which people have a high-quality place to live and the chance to buy their own home.

“We continue to build affordable homes in suitable locations, via our wholly owned local authority housing companies, to enable more people to rent or buy, and particularly for young people to get onto the housing ladder.

“Last year we delivered over 500 affordable homes and are ambitious to continue and grow this activity in future years.”

I visited the local Job Centre on Friday to see how they are getting on with Universal Credit.

I was impressed by the office. The staff were generally positive about Universal Credit, seeing it as an improvement on the previous system. They reported a generally smooth transfer so far. That would reflect the evidence of my postbag, where there has been very little concern or complications with the transfers.

The Job Centre reports good progress in helping people into work. Local job generation remains strong, making it a bit easier for people to find suitable work.

I thanks the staff for all their efforts to carry through the changes, and to help all those in need of income top up and assistance to find work.

I visited Kendrick School today to talk to the management team about possible school expansion.
The School is considering expanding from 3 form entry to 4 form entry. This would still leave it smaller than Reading Grammar for boys which has five form entry.
I would be happy to support such a move. We live in a fast growing area where we need more school places. The grammars should be free to expand as well as the other secondary schools. It seems unfair that a boy has a better chance of grammar entry than a girl in our area, and unfair if places do not expand as the potential number of pupils expands.
I look forward to seeing the results of their work to produce a bid for money for the necessary building works to allow expansion.
I wish the school continuing success.

Dear John,

Thank you for getting in touch regarding the vote on Heathrow expansion.

I am very aware of the problems caused to your constituents by changes NATS made to the way in which the Compton Gate was used. I was not made aware of these changes until after they had been implemented and asked for them to be reversed, which NATS did not do. Since then we have fundamentally changed the way we communicate with NATS and our local communities, including setting up the Community Noise Forum, which has been working to address some of the issues you have raised, and increased the level of transparency and consultation on changes in operating procedures.

With expansion your constituency will benefit from the abolition of the Compton Gate Route. In the mean time, we will carry out a public consultation on potential redesign of this Route later this year – I will ensure you are kept updated with the details of this.

Thank you for the suggestions you have made about reducing noise levels over your constituency – I have gone into a bit more detail about these in the note. However, in summary:

• Continuous Descent Approach – through our Fly Quiet and Green programme we incentivise aircraft to fly higher for longer over your constituency before making their final descent into Heathrow. We have 88% compliance with this operating procedure and continue to work with airlines on improving this.
• Steeper Ascent Trial – as you have pointed out, a steeper take off can get planes higher, quicker and could reduce noise in some areas, though it may also increase noise in others. We are undertaking a trial of this which is due to finish in December 2018, at which point we will assess the impacts and decide whether to make this a permanent change.
• Noise Action Plan Consultation – we are undertaking a consultation to review Heathrow’s Noise Action plan including on how we use charges to incentivise airlines to be quieter and more environmentally friendly.

I know that late running flights is also a concern for your constituents, I have agreed with our major airlines that we will aim to reduce late running flights by 50% over 5 years, and was very pleased that last year we were able to reduce the number by 30%, as a result of close working with airlines.

I know you have raised stacking as a particular concern for your constituents and unfortunately this is designed in to the current airspace management system. With a third runway, we could eliminate the need for routine aircraft stacking, and have started consulting on the airspace changes that will be necessary to achieve this.

I am grateful for your engagement on these issues, and I hope that you can see we are working hard to reduce noise in your constituency.

If you would like to follow up on any of the issues, I would be very happy to meet with you.

With best wishes

John

I left making up my mind on how to vote on Heathrow until the debate. I wanted to hear from constituents, and also wished to get better assurances from those involved in the project concerning aircraft noise.

I received fifteen times as many emails urging me to vote for the airport expansion as against. Most of these were the common format email drafted by the pro Heathrow campaign, which clearly spoke for a number of my constituents.

The main objections came from those who find the current noise levels unacceptable. I agree, and have been pressing the airport, the airlines and NATs to take more action to control noise. All this relates to noise at the current airport, with its current pattern of flights. One of the possible advantages of installing more runway capacity will be longer night time hours when no flights will be permitted, with more capacity to handle incoming flights at the end of the night time ban period each day.

There will be further opportunities to press the interested parties on noise as they move to the next stage of their project, seeking planning permission and making the necessary environmental filings. Both Heathrow itself and the government have said they are working on steeper descents and ascents to lessen noise further away from the airport, quieter planes, more enforcement against noisy planes and pilots, and a new examination of current routes. The Secretary of State confirmed that digital technology will allow the usual elimination of the stack, as I have urged.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): We have been invited by the Opposition to debate a general motion of no confidence in my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary. I have full confidence in my right hon. Friend. He inherited a difficult task from the last Labour Government and the coalition Government. I think that he fully understands the magnitude of that task and that he is coming up with a number of creative proposals to try to improve the position.

Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): It is a disaster.

John Redwood: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, for 13 years, Labour did not invest in our roads and railways to give us the capacity that we need. I fully accept that during its five years in government, the coalition was unable to invest on the necessary scale because of the financial disaster that it inherited from the outgoing Labour Government.

We have had almost 20 years of totally inadequate investment in road and rail capacity. We now have a growing economy. Many more people have jobs and need to get to work, many more children need to get to school, and many more people want to go to the shops or need to go to hospital, so we are simply running out of road and rail capacity. My right hon. Friend is trying to use every method he can legally lay his hands on to address that chronic lack of capacity.

In my constituency, another 12,000 new homes are being built quite rapidly, and the pressures on our infrastructure are enormous. I witnessed some of the difficulties due to rail delays on Thursday and Friday when I was trying to use services in and out of Reading and there were disruptions. My right hon. Friend has asked the extremely well-paid leaders of the railway industry to get a grip on their services and ensure they deliver on the infrastructure available. But he has gone further than that: he has said to the railways that they will need much more capacity in the years ahead to deal with fast-growing places such as Wokingham, and he has therefore said that digital technology will make a big difference.

I fully support his strong initiative. The very lengthy and expensive process of creating entirely new railway lines is not a feasible solution across the country, so the way to get more capacity out of our existing railways is to use digital signalling, meaning that instead of being able to run only 20 trains an hour on perfectly good track, we can run 25 or more trains an hour, giving a big boost to capacity for a relatively modest investment.

My right hon. Friend is also right to recognise that he will need private sector as well as public sector investment. I noted that the Scottish National party spokesperson, who clearly did not know the figures, was unable to respond to an intervention about how, in his party’s fully nationalised world, it would replace the large sums of capital and the considerable sums of revenue that the private sector tips into the railways as the partnership model develops.

The Labour party is with the SNP on this. It always denies that any fault rests with the nationalised section of the railway, yet in the latest set of problems, particularly in Northern rail, big errors were made by the heavily subsidised nationalised part of the industry. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend says there will be new leadership there, because new leadership is desperately needed to supervise the expenditure of the very substantial sums that this Parliament has voted for that industry and to make sure they are well spent.

Another reason why I have confidence in my right hon. Friend is because he recognises that we need road as well as rail capacity, because the overwhelming majority of all our constituents’ journeys are still undertaken by car or van or bus, and they require road capacity.

The most welcome thing he has done so far is to say we need not just to expand the strategic national highways network, which of course we do, but a strategic local network so that we can beef up the A roads. That would mean that we could have more through traffic, meaning that vehicles would be taken away from residential areas and town centres, where we do not want conflict between traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. It would also free some of the blocks on the existing highways and provide better journeys.

I hope that as my right hon. Friend goes about selecting that strategic local route network with councils, he will look favourably on the bids from West Berkshire and Wokingham in my area. We have put a lot of thought into them and wish to make progress, but we will need substantial investment to create better access routes to the main cities and centres of employment, because the existing network is already well over capacity in terms of congestion.

I hope my right hon. Friend will also consider the interface between the rail and road networks. One of the big issues in my area is that we cannot get over the railway line. We rely on level crossings, but their gates are down for a lot of the time at busy periods for the railways, meaning that we get massive onward congestion in the road system. We therefore need money for bridges.

I also hope that work on the strategic local road network will involve looking at junctions. A modest way in which we could get much more capacity out of the current road network would be to improve junctions. It is often a good idea to have roundabouts rather than traffic lights, and another good idea is the better phasing of traffic lights. Traffic lights can be fitted with sensors so that if there is no traffic on an approach road, that road does not get a green phase. Roads should get a green phase only when somebody needs that.

There are many things that can be done. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend wants to do them, so will he please get on with that, and will Parliament allow him to do so?