Agenda and minutes

Venue: Guildhall, Windsor - Guildhall

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Items
No. Item

128.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bowden, Cox, Dudley, Diment, Gilmore, Hill, Hollingsworth, Hunt, Love, Majeed, McWilliams, Pryer, Shelim, Stretton, Walters and Werner.

129.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 218 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

The Mayor explained that the War Horse Statue was a major part of her work for her charity, the Household Cavalry Foundation.  Although she believed that she had an open mind in relation to planning application 17/00188/FULL, for the sake of good decision making she declared pre-determination and would make representations, but then not take part in the discussion or vote on the item.

 

Councillor Hilton declared a personal interest in planning application 17/00188/FULL as he was a member of the Sunninghill and Ascot Parish Council and had attended the meeting when the application had been discussed. His wife was also chairman of the Parish Council Planning Committee and would be speaking on the item. He had an open mind but had decided neither to speak nor vote on the application.

 

Councillor D. Wilson declared a personal interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Development Partnership – Joint Venture Development Partner Procurement’ as a council representative on the Maidenhead Town Partnership and the Partnership for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead.

 

Councillor Kellaway declared a personal interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Development Partnership – Joint Venture Development Partner Procurement’ as a council representative on the Maidenhead Town Partnership and the Partnership for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead.

 

Councillor D. Evans declared a personal interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Development Partnership – Joint Venture Development Partner Procurement’ as a council representative on the Partnership for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead.

 

Councillor Saunders declared a personal interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Development Partnership – Joint Venture Development Partner Procurement’ as a council representative on the Partnership for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead.

 

Councillor C Rayner commented that when he was Lead Member for Transport and Highways he had been involved in initial discussions in relation to planning application 17/00188/FULL but had no interest to declare.

 

The Managing Director declared a prejudicial interest in the item ‘Appointment of Managing Director and Head of Paid Service’ as the individual considered for appointment. She left the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item. She also declared a personal interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Development Partnership – Joint Venture Development Partner Procurement’ as she had recently purchased a property from one of the bidders. She remained in the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

 

 

 

130.

Petition for Debate

An e-petition containing 1,287 signatories was submitted to the Council on 20 February 2017. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be reported to, and debated at, a full Council meeting.

 

The petition reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to say “no” to 350 new houses on (mainly) green belt in the centre of Ascot.  Landowners in Ascot want to build 350 new houses on either side of Ascot High Street - land that is either Green Belt or open space. This will also mean losing many of the mature trees which frame the Ascot views. How will the already gridlocked High Street and surrounding roads cope with the increase in traffic? Where will workers & shoppers be able to park, when all the car parks are built over? What will happen on Race Days? We see no answers to any of these questions. We believe this development will have a massive and unacceptable impact on our local communities - both in Ascot and the surrounding area. We call on the Royal Borough to NOT remove this land out of the Green Belt and to NOT include this site for housing in the Borough Local Plan”.

The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate such petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

 

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

 

 

a)        The Mayor may invite the relevant officer to set out the background to the petition issue.

b)        The Lead Petitioner to address the meeting on the petition (5 minutes maximum)

c)         The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors present to address the meeting. (Maximum time of 3 minutes each for this purpose)

d)        The Mayor to invite the relevant officer to provide any further comment.

e)        The Mayor will invite all Members to debate the matter (Rules of Debate as per the Constitution apply) 

 

 

Minutes:

An e-petition containing 1,287 signatories was submitted to the Council on 20

February 2017. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be reported to, and debated at, a full Council meeting.

 

The petition read as follows:

 

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to say “no” to 350 new houses on (mainly) green belt in the centre of Ascot. Landowners in Ascot want to build 350 new houses on either side of Ascot High Street - land that is either Green Belt or open space. This will also mean losing many of the mature trees which frame the Ascot views. How will the already gridlocked High Street and surrounding roads cope with the increase in traffic? Where will workers & shoppers be able to park, when all the car parks are built over? What will happen on Race Days? We see no answers to any of these questions. We believe this development will have a massive and unacceptable impact on our local communities - both in Ascot and the surrounding area. We call on the Royal Borough to NOT remove this land out of the Green Belt and to NOT include this site for housing in the Borough Local Plan”.

 

The Head of Planning introduced the petition. She explained that the proposals for land fronting and around Ascot High Street came forward through the made Ascot and Sunnings Neighbourhood Plan. Chapter 9, which was about projects not policies, talked about the vision for how Ascot centre could be rejuvenated. It explained that it was not within the remit of a Neighbourhood Plan to redraw Green Belt boundaries; only the Borough Local Plan could do this which is why the area was not included in the Neighbourhood Plan as a policy. Development of the land, which was supported by the majority of the community in consultation, was important in delivering the overall vision for Ascot. The plan went on to set out what the site might bring forward, including open space and community facilities. As the local planning authority, the council had been speaking to a consortium of land owners including Ascot Racecourse, Ascot Car Parks Ltd and the Crown Estate who were working to bring forward a development brief as required by the Neighbourhood Plan. The group launched an Ascot Centre consultation webpage. At a consultation open day on 1 December 2016 the consortium set out updated proposals for up to 350 new homes with a new community facility for Ascot. The other two key areas identified were the High Street and highways. In parallel, the council was at first stage consultation on a draft Borough Local Plan. The Regulation 18 draft included a strategic housing allocation for the landowners consortium site together with land known locally as the Shorts site. the draft borough Local Plan suggested around 300 homes together with a community facility, retail facilities and open space. It also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

131.

Planning Application 17/00188/FULL pdf icon PDF 121 KB

To determine the planning application

Additional documents:

Minutes:

As the Mayor and Deputy Mayor had both indicated they would not chair the meeting, a Chairman was appointed for the duration of the item.

 

It was proposed by Councillor, S Rayner, seconded by Councillor Burbage  and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor Burbage be appointed as Chairman for the duration of the item.

 

The Chairman proposed that standing orders C3.1 and C14.1 be suspended for the duration of the item to allow Members to consider the planning application in the manner that would normally occur at a Development Management Panel, including public speaking and debate on the report and officer recommendation without a motion being on the table.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Burbage, seconded by Councillor D. Wilson, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That standing orders C3.1 and C14.1 be suspended for the duration of the item to allow Members to consider the planning application in the manner that would normally occur at a Development Management Panel, including public speaking and debate on the report and officer recommendation without a motion being on the table.

 

The Panel considered the Borough Planning Manager’s report on planning application 17/00188.

 

NB: *Updates were received in relation to planning applications marked with an asterisk.

 

*17/00188/FULL  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead:  Installation of Bronze War Horse statue and stone plinth with associated landscape surrounds (Application under Regulation 3- Borough Own) at Roundabout Adjacent to Heatherwood Hospital, London Road, Ascot.

 

The Panel was addressed by Dr. Bayliss in objection, Margaret Morgan on behalf of the Ascot, Sunninghill and South Ascot Neighbourhood Plan Delivery Group, Patrick Griffin on behalf of SPAE, Parish Councillor Barbara Hilton and Mr Carr and Ms Seagrove in support of the application)

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That the application be permitted with the conditions listed in Section 9 of the main report, and an additional condition to give delegated authority to the Head of Planning in relation to up-lighting.

 

(31 councillors voted for the motion: Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bullock, Burbage, Carroll,  Clark, Coppinger, D. Evans, Grey, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Mills, Muir, Quick, Rankin, C. Rayner, S. Rayner, Saunders, Sharma, Sharpe, Smith, Story, Targowska, D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong. 1 Councillor voted against the motion: Councillor Beer. Four Councillors abstained: Councillors Brimacombe, Jones, Richards and Sharp. Councillors Hilton and Luxton did not take part in the debate orvote on the item.)

 

The Mayor resumed the Chair.

 

 

132.

New Audit Arrangements pdf icon PDF 188 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered opting in to the appointing person scheme allowing PSAA to manage auditor appointments for the audit of the 2018/19 accounts.

 

Councillor Saunders explained that this was a government- co-ordinated arrangement and the majority of councils had already decided to do so.

 

Councillor E Wilson commented that the council had very little option than to join the scheme. He requested reassurance that the quality of audits would not diminish, particularly as the borough was becoming a more complex organisation. He also asked for confirmation that there was no intention to reduce the audit fee the council paid.

 

Councillor Brimacombe highlighted to Members that the Audit and Performance Review Panel had met twice to discuss the issue as what at first appeared to be a choice, turned out not to be. The Council had the option to go with the PSAA or plough its own furrow. There was a third option of rolling over the present options, but this would cause as much pain therefore the Panel had decided it was not worth it.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that the council had been most fortunate to be audited by KPMG, one of the two leading companies. Regrettably none of the options gave the council any degree of certainty that the council would continue to be audited by one of the top two firms. The PSAA would allocate auditors to councils. The Royal Borough was not particularly big so there was no particular reason to believe it would necessarily benefit from one of the top two firms. If the council decided to go its own way, it would incur costs and the complexity of setting up an audit panel, and could not be confident this would ensure an audit by one of the top firms either, who would likely be focussed on pursuing tender options through the PSAA. It was his personal intent as Lead Member to seek to ensure the quality of the audit would be fully maintained. He confirmed that the council would continue to invest at appropriate market rates to match the council’s complexity.

 

Councillor E. Wilson commented that the clarification in regards of fees was important to note as the organisation became more complex.

 

Councillor Brimacombe highlighted that he had agreed as Chairman to send a letter to the PSAA informing them that the council expected to be appointed auditors of the same standard and quality as the incumbent auditors, with a preference to retain KPMG. He had yet to receive the draft letter from officers.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council note the report and:

 

       i.       Approves RBWM opting in to the appointing person scheme allowing PSAA to manage auditor appointments for the audit of the 2018/19 accounts.        

 

Alison Alexander left the meeting at 9.18pm.

133.

Appointment of Managing Director and Head of Paid Service pdf icon PDF 184 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered approval to appoint Alison Alexander as the Council’s permanent Managing Director and Head of Paid Service.

 

Councillor Bicknell, on behalf of Councillor Dudley, commented that it gave him great pleasure to present the report. Alison Alexander had been at the council since June 2013 when she had joined as Director of Children’s Services. She had become Deputy Managing Director in June 2015 and was now proposed for appointment as the permanent Managing Director, on recommendation from the Employment Panel.  As stated in the report the salary was proposed to be £137,000. This was comparable with other councils in the area. The council was an increasingly complex organisation that required strong leadership.

 

Councillor Targowska, as Chairman of the Employment Panel, placed on record her thanks to Alison Alexander, who was a huge asset to the council. The council had undergone a significant change programme in 2016/17, driven by her work ethic and leadership skills.

 

Councillor Jones stated that she fully supported the proposal; she was a member of the Employment Panel that made the recommendation. She commented on Alison Alexander’s commitment to the council, which was a very complex organisation.

 

Councillor Brimacombe commented that when assessing a salary level it was important to take into account what the role entailed, whether it retained the individual in the organisation, and the ability to attract an recruit an individual of similar quality. The ratio of earnings compared to an average employee was also a key measure; he believed in the borough this was at an acceptable ratio. He therefore supported the proposal.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that he found it extraordinary that people who assumed high office in the public sector were prepared to do so at relatively modest rates compared to those in the private sector.

 

Councillor Coppinger commented on the need for a Managing Director who could work across silos in a large organisation to achieve results. Alison Alexander had proved to him that she could do this. He highlighted that the agreement with Optalis had been signed earlier that day. The project had required unbelievable levels of leadership in a very short time. He commented that the council’s former Managing Director (Ian Trenholm) now earned £175,000 working for the NHS. The Chief Executive of the LGA earned £199,000. He hoped Alison Alexander stayed with the council to see the transformation programme through, and beyond.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and appoints:

 

i)       Alison Alexander as the Council’s permanent Managing Director and Head of Paid Service.

 

Alison Alexander re-joined the meeting at 9.31pm.

134.

Local Government Act 1972 - Exclusion of Public

To consider passing the following resolution:-

 

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 8 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 8 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

 

135.

Maidenhead Development Partnership - Joint Venture Development Partner Procurement

To consider the above report