To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Collins, Kellaway, Lion, Majeed, Pryer, Shelim, Stretton, Targowska and Walters.

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 13 December 2016.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2016 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor D. Evans declared a personal interest in the item ‘Land at Rear of Boulters Lock Car Park’ as he was a friend of one of the individuals involved in the Boulters Riverside CIC. He left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Sharma declared a prejudicial interest in the item ‘Land at Rear of Boulters Lock Car Park’ as a member of the Hindu Society of Maidenhead. He made representations, then left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Bullock declared an interest in the item ‘Land at Rear of Boulters Lock Car Park’. He remained in the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item, but abstained.

Alison Alexander declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Appointment of Statutory Officers’ as she was being considered for appointment. She left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

The Monitoring Officer advised Members that they were not required to declare an interest in the item ‘Land at Rear of Boulters Lock Car Park’. merely by virtue of the fact that they were a Member or Substitute Member of the Maidenhead Development Management Panel (MDMP). The property decision was distinct and different to any subsequent consideration of a planning application on the site by the MDMP.

To receive such communications as the Mayor may desire to place before the

Council

The Mayor submitted in writing details of engagements that she and the Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last meeting, which were noted by the Council. She highlighted the Lions Club lunch for senior citizens in particular.

a)    Stephen Smart of Maidenhead Riverside ward will ask the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property the following question:

The Council has said it will only consider offers for the land adjacent to Boulter's Lock Car Park only if the proposal is for a community use. Why did it impose that condition?

b)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the Lead Member for Planning the following question:

At the Windsor public meeting you stated that all land in the local plan had been checked for availability and deliverability. However two residents have contacted RBWM saying their land was included without their knowledge. Why does the council choose to check availability and deliverability with only speculative proposers of such sites rather than with the actual land owners themselves?

c)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the Leader of the Council the following question:

At the Windsor public meeting you announced that the Council was exploring using Community Land Trusts to give young and (provably) local people truly affordable housing with long-term price rise capping.  A great idea. Will you therefore support the placing of ALL Borough owned local plan sites into CLT's to permanently solve our town's housing crisis?

d)   Mick Jarvis of Maidenhead Riverside ward will ask the following question of the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property:

On September 7th Councillor Rankin wrote to Riverside residents advising his department had concluded that using the land adjacent to Boulters Lock car park for additional parking was uneconomic. On October 25th in an email to a resident Councillor Rankin admitted the existing economic analysis was inadequate:

“I accept that this is hardly a rigorous parking study.”

Can Councillor Rankin now confirm that the economic analysis on which Council is being asked to decide the use of the land in question for the next 125 years is fit for purpose, is capable of withstanding robust challenge and based on realistic assumptions providing Council with a sound basis for making a decision?

e)    Mick Jarvis of Maidenhead Riverside ward will ask the following question of the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property:

Boulters Riverside CIC submitted a bid for the land adjacent to the Boulters Lock car park on October 20th 2016 as required by Councillor Rankin’s department. On that date a competing bid from the Hindu Society of Maidenhead of £73,000 was in place but the Hindu Society had the right to increase their bid.

Was the Hindu Society bid increased, was any such increased bid made contemporaneously with and on the same terms and conditions as the bid from Boulters Riverside CIC and if not on what date was any bid in excess of £73,000 made by the Hindu Society?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)  ...  view the full agenda text for item 115.

a)    Stephen Smart of Maidenhead Riverside asked the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property the following question:

The Council has said it will only consider offers for the land adjacent to Boulter's Lock Car Park only if the proposal is for a community use. Why did it impose that condition?

Councillor Rankin responded that he welcomed the opportunity to discuss and debate the land at the rear of Boulters Lock Car Park. For some time the Royal Borough had been in discussion with the Hindu Society of Maidenhead to help identify a site where they could realise their ambition to build a community centre. The Borough was in discussion with the Hindu Society,_/ culminating last year for the site in question. When the potential lease started to move into the stage for Member input, it became clear in August 2016 that the lease did not have unanimous support amongst all residents.

The process had therefore been opened up in September 2016 so other interested community groups could have an opportunity to bid. The decision was taken to allow groups to bid on the same basis so the council would have comparable bids following the conclusion of the process. Residents wrote in who preferred that the land was not developed in any way or preferred expanding car park provision. As such and to aid transparency, today Members would consider all options that had been put to the council.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Smart asked, if the council had said it was not considering any other options, why it was intending to sell land that was adjacent to Boyn Grove Community Centre to three neighbouring home owners? Why was the option of the land adjoining, opposite the car park, on a conditional basis which would potentially offer the best return for the least effort and impact, not part of the debate this evening?

Councillor Rankin responded that he was not aware of the details of the site being referred to and would write to Mr Smart with an answer.

b)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the Lead Member for Planning the following question:

At the Windsor public meeting you stated that all land in the local plan had been checked for availability and deliverability. However two residents have contacted RBWM saying their land was included without their knowledge. Why does the council choose to check availability and deliverability with only speculative proposers of such sites rather than with the actual land owners themselves?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he could confirm that the sites allocated in the Regulation 18 Local Plan were based on evidence of availability collected through what was called a ‘call for sites’ process.  This was when the planning authority asked for landowners, developers and agents to put their sites forward if they were interested in making them available for development, it was done once a year. Between the call for sites and consultation it was not unusual for changes in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

To receive any petitions presented by Members on behalf of registered electors for the Borough under Rule C.10.

(Any Member submitting a petition has up to 2 minutes to summarise its contents)

The following petition was presented by Councillor C. Rayner:

‘We the residents of Horton and Wraysbury ask the RBWM council to carry on funding the 305 bus route until 31/8/17. To give time for both villages and the RBWM council to come up with transport solution to get our children to school and our residents to the doctors and to Staines. We thank the RBWM for funding the bus service 305 from the 31/8/2016 when Surrey CC without notice withdrew its funding over night to this bus route.’

Councillor Rayner addressed the meeting to summarise the content of the petition. He explained that the petition had come about when bus users were told by the bus driver that the bus was stopping on 31 March 2017 due to the subsidy being withdrawn. The Lead Member for Highways and Transport then confirmed to him that Surrey County Council had withdrawn the subsidy on 31 August 2016. The borough had stepped in to subsidise the service until 31 March 2017. The Lead Member promised he would seek a solution. The request was for the council to continue to subsidise the service until 31 August 2017 so that the council, parish council and local charities could come up with a solution to resolve the issue.

The Mayor ruled that the petition should be referred to the Lead Member/Head of Service for consideration, with the lead petitioner reserving the right to request a debate at Full Council, given the number of signatories was over 1000, if a resolution could not be found.

Councillor Werner joined the meeting at 8.03pm.

To consider the above report

Members considered the council budget for 2017/18. Councillor Saunders Lead Member for Finance, explained that the complex wheels of central government meant that he needed to amend the recommendations as presented in the agenda. The government was reasonably expected to have finalised the parliamentary process for confirming the Local Government Settlement. However, the final decisions had been made but not yet formally published. Therefore, he proposed adding the following additional recommendation:

‘The Head of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance be authorised to amend the budget to reflect the final local government settlement once announced and to notify the council in due course of any subsequent financial changes.’

The Lead Member highlighted that 94% of Councils expected to increase their council tax next year.  This figure had risen steadily over recent years, starting from relatively few councils.  Next year, for the first time, the borough was joining the overwhelming majority, with a 0.95% increase, or £8.62 for a Band D home or 17p per week. This was less than half the limit of 1.99% being added by a majority of councils.   It was worth noting that most of the very few who did not expect to increase Council Tax next year had much lower than average older residents and significantly less pressure on their Adult Care Services.  

All were keenly aware of the growing needs of older residents for health and adult care services and the likelihood these would continue to rise. After the coming year there was a clear need for the funding of these services to be addressed at national level from progressive taxation.  Meantime, councils had been asked to fund the services from local Adult Social Care Levies added onto council tax bills, 2% last year and 3% more this year, for a Band D home, £18.14 this year and £45.89 next year. 

Many residents would not resent paying the levy to fund £3m of additional adult social care services next year, while others, a total increase in Council Tax and Adult Social Care Levy of 3.95% was uncomfortable - £54.51 for a Band D household or £1.05 per week.  For some it would simply be too much, which was why the borough was continuing to only charge 10% of the normal bill to households that simply could not afford to pay, reducing their increase from £54.51 to £5.45 or 10.5p per week. Many Councils were increasing the 10% charge to vulnerable households, some to as high as 25%.  It could not be right for those in the greatest need to be taxed more, not less.

Other Councils were seeking to balance their books by increasing the fees and charges they received for everything from green waste collection to residential care, from marriage registrations to library charges, increasing them by substantially more than the reference inflation of 2%. The borough did not subscribe to such back door taxation, so fees and charges had either not increased, had increased by up to 2%, or, if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

To consider the above report

Councillor D. Evans left the meeting.

Members considered the options for a piece of council owned land, to the rear of Boulters Lock car park, Maidenhead.

Councillor Rankin  explained that whilst the decision sat within his delegated power, he  believed that due to the high level of interest and in the interests of transparency, it was undoubtedly in the public interest that it be debated, discussed and decided at Full Council. He would not be advocating any decision and had produced a paper which laid out only the facts and options that councillors may choose to make.

For sometime, the borough had been in discussion with the Hindu Society of Maidenhead to help them realise their ambition to build a community facility in the town of Maidenhead. From colleagues he understood many sites had been considered over time. By 17 March 2016, officers had negotiated, subject to contract and planning, a 125 year ground lease on a peppercorn rent for the sum of £73,000 for the Hindu Society of Maidenhead to build a community centre on the piece of land in question. This had yet to go to Members for approval.

Councillor Rankin explained that in August he had started to receive correspondence from some residents who objected to the proposal. Despite no decision having been made, it was clear that some residents believed that this was a 'done deal' and had been decided in secret. As such in September 2016 he chose to invite other interested residents groups to come forward with proposals. The Hindu Society transaction was put on hold and they were invited to bid on the same basis. One further proposal was received, by the Boulters Riverside CIC, who offered £101,000, with a plan to turn the site into allotments. The Hindu Society did not vary their proposal. The option to turn the site into a car park extension was also laid out in the report, for Members to consider,

Maidenhead Riverside was a cultural attraction in the borough so Council could determine that the car park should be developed to increase the amenity of the area. Or it could determine that the land should be held in the medium term, and developed later if utilisation rates did increase.

Councillor Rankin proposed that standing order C14.1 be suspended to enable Members to debate all four options without a motion being put forward and seconded. The Monitoring Officer explained to all present that the suspension of standing orders for the duration of the item was to allow all four options in the recommendation to be considered and debated, without the requirement for an individual motion to be proposed and seconded before the debate. A named vote would be taken at the end of the debate, with Members able to indicate they were voting for option i, ii, iii, iv or abstaining, to identify the preferred option from the Council as a whole.

It was proposed by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Councillor Smith, and:

RESOLVED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That, in accordance with rule Part 2 C25.1 of the Royal Borough constitution, the meeting should continue past 10.00pm.

Councillors Hunt and Bowden left the meeting at 10.15pm

To consider the above report

Members considered a number of amendments to the council constitution.

Councillor Coppinger introduced the report on behalf of Councillors Targowska. He advise Members that the amendment detailed in paragraph 2.6 had been withdrawn.

He outlined the proposals:

·         Any Member, not already a Member of a Development Management Panel, wishing to speak at a Panel will be permitted to speak in favour or against any agenda item after all public speakers have spoken and prior to the Panel debating the item. Non Panel Members will be restricted to three minutes in total

·         The current Visitor Management Forum has requested that their title be changed to Tourism Development Forum

·         The Employment Panel have requested that the current approval threshold (in excess of £5,000) be increased to a revised threshold of £25,000. This will enable timely decisions on approval of payments

·         Where the recruitment of Directors and Deputy Chief Officers of Servicesand appointments are on a like for like basis, the appointment will be delegated to the Managing Director and Head of HR in consultation with the relevant Service Director, the relevant Lead Member and the Chair of the Employment Panel.

·         The Windsor Rural Development Management Panel Membership be increased from six Members to nine Members to bring it in line with the membership number of the Windsor Urban Development Management Panel.

·         Updated terms of reference to give more clarity to the work and role of the Health and Wellbeing Board

·         Updated Terms of Reference for the Grants Panel following the end of the Cabinet Participatory Budget Sub Committee including specific delegations to the Head of Strategy and Communities in consultation with Members.

·         Updated terms of reference for the Berkshire Pension Fund Panel to clarify emergency powers

·         A correction to a delegation relating to functions relating to local government pensions

Councillor Werner left the meeting at 10.17pm.

Councillor Burbage highlighted that, despite the withdrawal, there was a mandatory requirement for the annual budget to be recorded as a named vote.

Councillor Saunders suggested additional wording to paragraph 1.7 on page 189 of the report to read:

‘No new documents should be circulated to the panel at the meeting, except the Panel Update. Messages should not be passed to individual Panel Members.’    

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Sharma, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council considers and approves:

i)           The amendments to the Constitution set out in paragraphs 2.5 to 2.15 and Appendix 1, subject to the removal of the proposal at 2.6.

ii)Additional wording to be added to paragraph 1.7 on page 189 of the report to read:

‘No new documents should be circulated to the panel at the meeting, except the Panel Update. Messages should not be passed to individual Panel Members.’

Councillor Werner re-joined the meeting at 10.25pm

To consider the above report

Members considered the programme of meetings for 2017/18.

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor Dr L Evans, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:That Council notes the report and:

i)      Approves the programme of meetings for the 2017/18 Municipal Year, attached as Appendix A.

To consider the above report

Alison Alexander left the meeting.

Members considered the statutory appointments of Monitoring Officer, Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer following the agreement by Employment Panel of a new management structure for the Corporate and Community Services Directorate.

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor Smith, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and appoints:

i)       Head of Law and Governance, Mary Kilner, as the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

ii)     Managing Director, Alison Alexander, as the Council’s Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer.

To consider the above report

Members considered approval of an updated Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18 as required by the Localism Act 2011.

Councillor Coppinger introduced the report on behalf of Councillor Targowska. He explained that the Localism Act 2011 required the council to review and publish a pay policy by 31 March each year. Councillor Coppinger highlighted the changes as detailed in paragraph 2.2 of the report.

Alison Alexander re-joined the meeting.

It was noted that a number of staff would be transferring out of the council in the coming months, therefore an updated statement would be presented to Council later in the year to reflect the changes.

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Dr L. Evans, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and:

          i) Approves the updated Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18.

          ii) Notes that further revisions will be required to the statement following the external transfer of some council services on 1 April 2017 and for the implementation of the Government’s reforms to public sector exit pay arrangements.

To consider the above report

Members considered a capital grant of £997,841 from NHS England that would allow the council to purchase a house for three residents with complex learning difficulties to gain a degree of independent living. The grant was time limited and the property needed to be purchased and adapted by the end of March. A ten year management lease would be arranged with a specialist housing association. All costs would be covered by rental income. A care provider would be selected separately.

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Diment, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSL:That Councilnotes the report and agrees:

i)     To enter into an NHS England Capital Grant Agreement.

ii)   To enter into a house purchase contract.

iii)  To delegate authority to the Managing Director/Strategic Director Adult, Children and Health Services and Lead Member of Adult, Health and Sustainability to negotiate and enter into a lease agreement and property development contract with a Housing Association following competitive selection.         

To consider the above report

The item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

a)    Question submitted by Councillor C Rayner to Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Can the Leader of the Council inform us what steps he is taking to try to reinstate the Saturday guard change in Windsor?

b)   Question submitted by Councillor C Rayner to Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Will the Lead Member for Highways and Transport provide an update on the 305 bus service, with particular reference to Horton and Wraysbury, following changes to the funding of the route?

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Government has accepted there is a housing crisis, but Government, MPs and the expand Heathrow lobby ignore that expansion would exacerbate the crisis.  Will your Administration please resource an urgent active campaign alerting other Councils and the public using Local Plan data on housing and the entire infrastructure as the overriding reasons to reject expansion in the current NPS consultation?

(The Member responding has up to 5 minutes to address Council. The Member asking the question has up to 1 minute to submit a supplementary question. The Member responding then has a further 2 minutes to respond.)

a)    Question submitted by Councillor C Rayner to Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Can the Leader of the Council inform us what steps he is taking to try to reinstate the Saturday guard change in Windsor?

Councillor Dudley responded that last year, the Headquarters Household Division reviewed the Queen’s Guard at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Guard frequency and agreed that from Monday 16 January 2017 the Windsor Guard will be on the same the day as Queen’s Guard.  The Guard Change days being Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, although the Guards did not march to Windsor Castle on Sundays.

The Headquarters Household Division had stressed that the changes were very much a trial and were currently being reviewed, with a decision expected by the end of March.  Councillor Dudley had written to the Brigade Major, who was carrying out that review, to convey to him the concerns that had been expressed locally about the loss of the Saturday guard change in Windsor.  He had informed the Brigade Major that what was considered suitable for London, in terms of guard change days, was not necessarily suitable for Windsor and had therefore suggested to him that the Saturday Guard Change in Windsor be reinstated.

The initial response from the Brigade Major to the arguments made to him had been positive and he was hopeful for a satisfactory review outcome and the reinstatement of the Saturday Guard Change in Windsor

Councillor C. Rayner confirmed he did not have a supplementary question.

b)   Question submitted by Councillor C Rayner to Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Will the Lead Member for Highways and Transport provide an update on the 305 bus service, with particular reference to Horton and Wraysbury, following changes to the funding of the route?

Councillor Bicknell responded that Service 305 was operated by ‘Bear Bus’ connecting Wraysbury, Horton and Hythe End with Poyle, Colnbrook and Staines. The service was financially supported by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Surrey County Council, the borough contributes approximately £30,000. In September 2016, Surrey County Council withdrew funding for the service. The Royal Borough agreed to fund the shortfall in the short-term to ensure that the service was maintained, whilst options were explored.

Councillor Bicknell explained that with officers and the Deputy Lead Member for Buses, he had considered options. Bids had now been invited to continue to provide the service in a cost-effective manner. Following receipt of bids, he would work with Ward Members and officers to agree the way forward, seeking to maintain bus services for local residents. No decision had been made and the way forward will be made in consultation with Ward Members.

By way of a supplementary, Councillor C. Rayner commented that it was a shame that ward councillors had not been told in August 2016 when Surrey County council withdrew their funding.

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Government has accepted there is a housing crisis,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

a)    By Councillor Quick:

That this Council:

(i)            Notes that Windsor is a Royal town with a long military history;

(ii)          Notes with concern the plans to relocate the Household Cavalry Regiment from Combermere Barracks, its permanent home since 1804, and;

(iii)             Requests that the Leader writes to the Secretary of State for Defence to call for the retention of the historic link between the Household Cavalry and Windsor

Councillor Quick introduced her motion. She explained the historic association of the Household Cavalry to Windsor, dating back to 1616. The Household Cavalry was one of the two most senior regiments and formed the monarch’s personal bodyguard. Since 1804 the Household Cavalry had been permanently stationed at Combermere barracks. Because of the long association with the town, many generations of families had ties, including soldiers who had settled in the area after they left the army. The Mayor had chosen the Household Cavalry Foundation as her charity this year, which supported soldiers, veterans, horses and the heritage.

Councillor E. Wilson commented that it had been a shock to many residents on Broome Farm because the Household Cavalry had been stationed at the barracks for nearly 200 years; it was part of the community. There was a useful and informative museum on site and he asked the Lead Member to make contact to see if this facility could be retained. The departure would mean a large number of children leaving Alexander First School in one go, which could be very destabilising to a small school. He asked the Lead Member to contact the school and offer support.

It was proposed by Councillor Quick, seconded by Councillor E. Wilson, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council:

(i)            Notes that Windsor is a Royal town with a long military history;

(ii)          Notes with concern the plans to relocate the Household Cavalry Regiment from Combermere Barracks, its permanent home since 1804, and;

(iii)         Requests that the Leader writes to the Secretary of State for Defence to call for the retention of the historic link between the Household Cavalry and Windsor