Agenda and minutes

Venue: Desborough Suite - Town Hall

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Items
No. Item

148.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bateson, Jones, Pryer, Quick, Rankin, Sharma and Walters.

149.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be amended.

 

Councillor Dudley congratulated Andy Jeffs on his permanent appointment as Executive Director – Communities.

 

Councillor Dudley informed Members that item 9, ‘Members Allowance Scheme – Proposed Amendments,’ had been withdrawn from the agenda as, due to a mathematical error the budget required had been overstated. The report would therefore be amended and deferred to the next meeting.

150.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 264 KB

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 21 February, 30 March and 23 May 2017.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meetings held on 21 February, 30 March and 23 May 2017 be approved.

151.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor Dudley explained that he had a non-pecuniary interest in relation to the item ‘Additional Capital for Lowbrook Academy’ but he had not come to the meeting with an open mind. He would express his view then take no further part in the debate or vote. He was founder and Chair of Governors at Holyport College, an Outstanding secondary Academy in the borough that also wished to expand.

 

Councillor Richards explained that he was leading on a proposal to establish a Free School in Windsor, He would therefore not debate and abstain from voting on the item Additional Capital for Lowbrook Academy’.

152.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 84 KB

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

Minutes:

The Mayor submitted in writing details of engagements that he and the Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last meeting, which were noted by the Council.

 

On behalf of all Members of the Council, the Mayor congratulated Councillor Leo Walters on achieving an impressive milestone in May 2017.   Councillor Walters had lived in Holyport since 1965 and had served the residents of Bray as a Councillor for 50 uninterrupted years.  He had been a Councillor of the Royal Borough for 43 years and prior to that he served for 7 years on Cookham Rural District Council, which was abolished when the Royal Borough was created in 1974. In that time, he had served on a range of council committees, panels and outside bodies.  However, his main interest had been in planning and in that time he had an almost uninterrupted membership of the various planning panels and working groups set up to deal with planning matters.  Councillor Walters had also served as Mayor of the Royal Borough on two occasions in 2002/2003 and in 2007/2008.  He was only one of three councillors that had been Mayor of the Royal Borough on more than one occasion.

153.

Public Questions pdf icon PDF 289 KB

None received

 

Minutes:

In accordance with Part 2C Paragraph 9.3 of the Royal Borough Constitution,  the Mayor had agreed to accept the following urgent public questions:

 

1)    Question submitted by David Rooney, Executive Principal of Lowbrook Academy to Councillor N.  Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services

 

Having preferred the option of speaking freely, I respect Council’s decision to allow questions only and therefore hope the answers to these questions bring clarification to parents and form part of the public record. Lowbrook is an outstanding school with a proud record of achievement. It puts children and community first and we implore the council to do the same.

 

The Governors and Parents are left wondering why the council believed that £1.6 million was enough to deliver the expansion scheme when the school clearly demonstrated through six current tenders from July 2016, QS estimations, executive architectural advice and national benchmarks that this figure was well below what was required?

 

Councillor N. Airey responded that last summer the Council and the Academy negotiated on the scope and scale of an expansion at Lowbrook Academy.  For the first time the negotiation was with an Academy that was seeking full control of the project instead of the local authority undertaking the detailed design work. The specification at this point was for some immediate internal modelling, four classrooms, 167 square meters of additional hall space and a staff room.  The school put forward estimates as described in the region of £1,925,000 while the Council’s team estimated a budget of £1,600,000 using the methodology which was regularly used for budget setting on Education projects and was calibrated with experience of tenders that come back.

On that basis the Council offered £1,600,000 to the Academy which was accepted following a discussion with the governing body.  Within that meeting the council officer noted the difference in estimates and indicated that that the difference would not prevent the project from completing.  The Council report of June 2017 which approved the £1,600,000 also noted a financial risk of £300,000 on the tendering prices; a risk that the Borough was willing to carry, and as such the school was encouraged to proceed with the existing budget.

It was expected that at the tender response stage, if it came back above the approved budget, there would be another decision for the Council.  This was similar to the process the Council uses for education capital schemes where it was in control and allows for market variation within an approved capital programme.

Mr Rooney confirmed that he did not have a supplementary question.

 

2)    Question submitted by David Rooney, Executive Principal of Lowbrook Academy to Councillor N.  Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services

 

The engineering difficulty regarding the hall extension was identified within the first month of the scheme’s development. The project proceeded with full support from all members of the steering group including a Borough Officer. The rationale was clear and based around financial and practical assumptions from our Executive Architect. The relocation of the hall subsequently became  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

154.

Additional Capital for Lowbrook Academy pdf icon PDF 2 MB

To consider the above report.

 

As per Part 2 C6.2 of the Council constitution, the Mayor has agreed the addition of this urgent item for the following reason:

 

Following a review of the expansion project at Lowbrook, an urgent Council item is required to consider the additional capital required for the project to progress.  By taking this item now it will be possible to complete the next stage in time to provide certainty of places for those applying for school places in September 2018

Minutes:

Members considered approval of additional capital for the delivery of an expansion scheme at Lowbrook Academy.

 

Councillor Dudley, who had declared an interest, made representations before withdrawing from the debate and vote on the matter. He stated that he had not come to the meeting with an open mind; it was clear to him that Lowbrook should be expanded and without conditionality on the budget because there was a need to ensure 30 pupils who wanted to go to the school in September 2017 could do so. Without certainty it would mean these pupils may never go to Lowbrook and in some cases siblings would be split. Lowbrook was an outstanding school; the best Primary academy in the country. The council could afford to agree the funding with everything the Borough Local Plan would bring and the enormous wealth holdings. Lowbrook was a jewel in the educational crown and a beacon of excellence.  As a Conservative he stood for beacons of excellence and giving parents the opportunity to send pupils to the school of their choice.

 

Councillor N. Airey introduced the report.  She thanked the school for their questions and recognised the commitment of the parents who had passionately campaigned on the cause.

In April 2016 the Council was facing an unprecedented position: no local children could access the Outstanding Lowbrook Academy, one of the best schools in the country, without relying on siblings already being in the school. The Office of the School Adjudicator upheld the complaint from catchment area families and a new admissions policy prioritising catchment children ahead of out-of-catchment siblings had come into effect.

At the time, in seeking to find a solution for those families, the council made a decision in agreement with the Academy to spend £1.8m of local capital, borrowing which was paid for out of council tax receipts, to expand the school to provide four more classes, additional hall space and a staff room.  Those pupils joined the school in September 2016 with the Academy making changes to accommodate them.  This figure included £200,000 allocated in Part II of the Council meeting to cover two unknown risks: the project contingency and the cost of the land held by Cox Green. £150,000 had been used to secure the land into RBWM control ready to support the expansion. £50,000 contingency was still available for the project.

In September 2016 the design of the school evolved as it became clear that the existing hall space would be challenging to extend to deliver a space large enough for all the pupils to meet together.  A new block with a 290 square meter hall in addition to the four classrooms came to the fore. It was identified that this design would cost more than the budget allocated for the project and other sources of funding were sought: the Academy bid to the DFE; the council looked into sports hall funding sources.

In January 2017, the administration indicated that the decision faced today needed to come  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

155.

Petitions

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)

Minutes:

No petitions were received.

156.

Electoral Review: Stage One - Council Size pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered the outcome of stage one of the electoral review process. Councillor McWilliams explained that in September 2016 a report was considered by Council to undertake a review based on a number of criteria, to make the council more efficient in light of the changing delivery model and the fact that some wards were over represented and others under represented. The first stage involved an internal review. The second stage involved submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGCE) to come up with new boundaries which would then be consulted upon. The cross-party working group had used a number of evidence bases including population numbers and predictions for the future. The group had considered the council’s position in the bottom quartile in terms of the ratio of councillors to electors. Members were surveyed on their views of a potential reduction in the number of councillors by 25%.

 

The Working Group was recommending to Full Council to propose to the LGBCE that, with effect from the Borough Elections in May 2019, the size of the council should become 43 elected Members, or 43 plus or minus one, subject to the outcome of Stage Two of the process.

 

Councillor Dudley thanked the working group and officers for their work on stage one. When the council was asking officers, suppliers and residents to come with the council on a journey of efficiency, councillors also needed to look at themselves. The right size and shape of the scrutiny function going forward would be important to ensure there was an acceptable burden for each councillor to deliver their democratic responsibilities. The different ways of interacting with residents including email and social media had been taken into account. The proposal would lead to a saving of over £200,000. If the council had not been proactive, the review would have been required anyway because of changing populations.

 

Councillor D. Wilson echoed the comments about the need for councillors to look a themselves in terms of overall efficiency. He had been on the council since 1991; the last boundary review had been triggered by rising populations in Oldfield. The current increase in the ward was not far off triggering another review anyway.

 

Councillor Smith highlighted that the council had the lowest council tax outside London therefore he asked what was broken that needed to be fixed? The council should not model itself on other less efficient local authorities. The saving of £150,000-£200,000 was a small amount, just a  third of  appoint on council tax. It was fantasy that the 25% reduction in councillors could be matched by a 25% reduction in meetings. It would also likely not translate into a 25% reduction in papers or time, particularly in light of the ambitious regeneration programme and a busy planning authority. Case work would also become less efficient. The executive would also likely shrink, thereby concentrating power in an even smaller body.

 

Councillor Da Costa commented that although the work the council did was going to change,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

157.

Continuation of Meeting

Minutes:

 

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the Council’s Constitution, the Mayor called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 10.00pm.

 

Upon being put to the vote, those present voted in favour of the meeting continuing.

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the meeting continue past 10.00pm.

158.

Political Balance and Allocation of Seats pdf icon PDF 75 KB

The political balance and allocation of seats on the Standing Panels/Forums has been reviewed following the resignation of Councillor Hollingsworth from the Conservative Group on 12 June 2017.

 

Members are asked to note that the change in political balance has resulted in no changes to the allocation of seats.

 

Members are also requested to note that, as a result, the following vacancies (Conservative seats) have arisen:

 

·        Licensing Panel

·        Adult Services and Health Overview & Scrutiny Panel

·        Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel

·        Maidenhead Town Forum

·        Access Advisory Forum

·         Corporate Parenting Forum

·         Grants Panel (substitute)

Minutes:

Members noted that the political balance and allocation of seats on the Standing Panels/Forums had been reviewed following the resignation of Councillor Hollingsworth from the Conservative Group on 12 June 2017, and Councillor Stretton from the Conservative Group on 19 June 2017.

 

Members noted that, as a result of the resignations, the following vacancies (Conservative seats) had arisen:

 

·         Licensing Panel

·         Adult Services and Health Overview & Scrutiny Panel

·         Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel (substitute)

·         Maidenhead Town Forum x 2

·         Access Advisory Forum

·         Corporate Parenting Forum

·         Grants Panel (substitute x 2)

 

The change in political balance had resulted in four seats being transferred from the allocation of seats currently held by the Group of Five to Councillor Stretton.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

 

i)             Councillor Claire Stretton be allocated seats on: Maidenhead Development Management Panel, Culture and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel, Licensing Panel and Grants Panel.

ii)            Councillor Luxton be appointed as Chairman of the Corporate Parenting Forum for the remainder of the municipal year.

iii)           Councillor Sharma be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Maidenhead Town Forum for the remainder of the municipal year.

159.

Members' Allowance Scheme - Proposed Amendments pdf icon PDF 485 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

The item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

160.

Members' Questions

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

 

Will the Leader of the Council write to Network Rail to request that they remove the litter on their land adjacent to the track at Windsor Central train station? Further there is graffiti in this area and would they also remove that as appropriate.

 

 

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

 

Will the Lead Member please write to Great Western Railways and request the frequency of trains from Windsor Central train station to Slough are increased in frequency? At peak times and seasons, the trains are very full and extra capacity and frequency would be appreciated by all residents and visitors alike and must make commercial sense.

 

c)    Question submitted by Councillor E . Wilson to Councillor Rankin, Lead Member for Economic Development, Property and Deputy Finance:

 

Will the Lead Member advise how the ‘investwindsorandmaidenhead’ website has helped businesses to relocate to Dedworth & Clewer?

 

 

(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.)

Minutes:

Question submitted by Councillor Shelim to Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

 

Will the Leader of the Council write to Network Rail to request that they remove the litter on their land adjacent to the track at Windsor Central train station? Further there is graffiti in this area and would they also remove that as appropriate.

 

Councillor Dudley responded that he used the station and was aware of the rubbish, he would be very happy to write to Network Rail and encourage them to create an improved ambience.

 

Councillor Shelim confirmed that he did not have a supplementary question.

 

Question submitted by Councillor Shelim to Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

 

Will the Lead Member please write to Great Western Railways and request the frequency of trains from Windsor Central train station to Slough are increased in frequency? At peak times and seasons, the trains are very full and extra capacity and frequency would be appreciated by all residents and visitors alike and must make commercial sense.

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that he would be very happy to write to Great Western Railways requesting an increased frequency of trains between Windsor Central Station and Slough. He fully appreciated the overcrowding issues at peak times and would work with Great Western Railways to identify opportunities to increase capacity and / or frequency. Whilst there were infrastructure constraints, for example platform lengths and single track, he had asked officers to continue to pursue a number of issues with Great Western Railways  and would also raise the issues in his capacity as a member of the Thames Valley Berkshire LEP – Transport Board.

 

Additionally, the Department for Transport hosted a meeting today to begin development of the specification for the next rail franchise, which included this line, which would commence in 2020. Officers attended and raised this issue. It was also worth noting that the council was in discussion with the rail operators to improve services from Windsor & Eton Riverside as part of the new franchise.

 

Councillor Shelim confirmed that he did not have a supplementary question

 

a)    Question submitted by Councillor E . Wilson to Councillor Rankin, Lead Member for Economic Development, Property and Deputy Finance:

 

Will the Lead Member advise how the ‘investwindsorandmaidenhead’ website has helped businesses to relocate to Dedworth & Clewer?

 

Councillor D Evans responded on behalf of Councillor Rankin. He explained that the website was principally established as an economic development and investment site to promote the opportunities earmarked for developed and regeneration within the borough. These were predominantly within Maidenhead, but with other opportunities in Windsor and Ascot areas of the Borough as well.

 

From January to June 2017, there had been 2000 hits on the website with the percentage split of these searches on the website reflecting the scale of these opportunity areas.  The website was monitored daily however there had not been any searches made on the website or queries raised on the generic business@rbwm.gov.uk inbox that specifically related to the Dedworth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

161.

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor McWilliams

 

This council notes the Help to Buy London programme with an up to 40% government house purchase loan compared with the national English scheme of up to 20%. Given the unaffordability of property to Royal Borough first time buyers, and our average house prices being greater than the majority of London boroughs, this council asks the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Chancellor and Prime Minister to please address this basic unfairness through extension of the 40% scheme to areas like the Royal Borough.

 

Minutes:

Councillor McWilliams introduced his motion. He explained that the motion requested the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Chancellor and Prime Minister to consider improving Help to Buy Loans to a level of 40%. A number of London boroughs received this level, yet 20 of them had lower house prices than in the borough.  The current government system misrepresented the south east in comparison to London.

 

Councillor Dudley commented that in the Midlands some estates were up to 60% Help to Buy properties. The scheme was very London centric. A £600,000 property in the borough with a mortgage of £330,000 would mean a family would still need to find £120,000 for a deposit. This would not be possible for most on a modest salary and they would end up being stuck in rental properties for life.  

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this council notes the Help to Buy London programme with an up to 40% government house purchase loan compared with the national English scheme of up to 20%. Given the unaffordability of property to Royal Borough first time buyers, and our average house prices being greater than the majority of London boroughs, this council asks the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Chancellor and Prime Minister to please address this basic unfairness through extension of the 40% scheme to areas like the Royal Borough.