To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cox, D. Evans and Targowska. Councillor Jones also sent her apologies as she was unable to attend the meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Sharma declared a Personal Interest in the item ‘Public Bus Services in the Royal Borough’ as he worked for the First Group. He was not a voting Member of the Cabinet and remained in the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

Councillor Hill declared a Personal Interest in the item ‘Contract Award – Operation of 4 Marlow Road, Maidenhead’ as he was treasurer of the 4 Marlow Road Youth and Community Centre. He remained in the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

Councillor Dudley declared a Personal Interest in the public question as a founder and former Governor of Forest Bridge School. He also knew many of the founders and governors.

Councillor D. Wilson declared a Personal Interest in the item ‘Contract Award – Operation of 4 Marlow Road, Maidenhead’ as a council representative on Maidenhead Citizens Advice Bureau, one of the tenants at 4 Marlow Road’. He remained in the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

To consider the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2017

To note the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee held on 21 March 2017

To note the Part I minutes of the Cabinet Local Authority Governors Appointments Sub Committee held on 23 March 2017

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             The Part I minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2017 be approved, subject to the insertion of the word ‘nationally’ in the following section on page 15:

‘Paragraph 2.21 demonstrated the increase in permanent exclusions in the borough; nationally 7 out of 10 had special educational needs.’

ii)            The Part I minutes of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee held on 21 March 2017 be noted.

iii)           The Part I minutes of the Cabinet Local Authority Governors Appointments Sub Committee held on 23 March 2017 be noted.

Andrew Hill asked the following question:

In the 2015 funding agreement the EFA set aside 4 acres of land for Forest Bridge at the BCA site, presumably in the full knowledge of the historic home on the greenbelt site. Why is RBWM of the opinion that part of this educational site (with its stated beneficial links with BCA) is no longer suitable for development as the schools permanent site, given that it has recently approved a large development of care homes against advice from the Head of Planning?

The Lead Member for Children’s Services apologised to Mr Hill that the question had not been answered at the Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Panel the week before as had been promised by the Chairman of the Culture and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel. She explained that the Education Funding Agency purchased land at BCA as a potential site in stage one of their three stage process for free school delivery.  In the second stage they commenced detailed assessment on the deliverability of the project and based on advice from their planning consultants considered that the option at BCA presented too high a risk at the current time due to heritage concerns.  Should they reconsider then any planning application would be considered by RBWM under the normal procedure; so far no application had been received. The Chairman commented that as the Local Planning Authority all the borough could do was determine a planning application if submitted. The council was therefore not in a position to comment on whether the site was the best site for the school; this was not a policy decision for the Cabinet.

Cabinet had received two written questions from pupils at Forest Bridge School:

From Oliver - Why did you choose to become a councillor?

From Douglas - Why do you do it and what do you do?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he had become a councillor because he had wanted to get involved in local issues, be a part of the community and make a difference in the decision making. He had been a local councillor since 1991. He enjoyed being involved in politics and had done so since 1978. He had a keen interest in local politics and liked to be able to make a difference. In particular Planning gave him the opportunity to do this.

Councillor S Rayner explained that she had been a parish councillor in Horton and Wraysbury, which had given her the appetite for local government. She had then decided to stand as a local councillor. She enjoyed helping the vulnerable; her portfolio allowed her to be involved in sports centres and parks in the borough.

Councillor N. Airey explained that she had been elected at age 21; she had got involved to represent young people in politics. As the Lead Member she was able to represent young people. She had to attend lots of meetings but also got to meet lots of people in the community and could see that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

None

To consider the Forward Plan for the period May to August 2017

Cabinet considered the contents of the Forward Plan for the next four months and noted the changes that had been made to the plan since the last meeting. In addition it was noted that:

·         The item ‘Delivering Differently in Operations and Customer Services – Civil Enforcement Officer’ would be deferred from May to June 2017.

·         The item ‘Update on Pool Cars and Electric Vehicle Charging Points’ would be presented to Cabinet in September 2017.

·         The item ‘Parking Provision’ would deferred for further work

·         The item ‘Public House Article 4 Directions’ would be deferred for further work.

·         The item ‘Pension Fund Review’ would be presented to Cabinet in July 2017.

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

Members considered the latest financial update.

The Lead Member explained that the council was in a positive financial position across all areas, as it neared the end of the financial year. The Adult, Children’s and Health directorate projected an underspend of £25,000 on a budget of over £57m. The Corporate and Community Services directorate projected an underspend of £64,000. The Operations and Customer Services projected an underspend of £337,000. As a consequence, this left the overall reserves at several hundred thousand pounds above the target budgeted to achieve by 31 March 2017. The Lead Member reported that the delegation to allow short term borrowing had been largely unneeded other than a short term borrowing between 20 March and 20 April 2017, which had now been repaid. The bad debt provision at year end needed to be topped up by £37,000. Members noted the requirement for a top-up payment under the MMI arrangements inherited from the former Berkshire County Council. Members also noted the increase in Registrar’s fees. People booking weddings for the next two years had been informed of the increases, but these had not formally been included in the budget papers.

The Lead Member explained that £20m of capital projects would slip into 2017/18 but it had already been known that the vast majority of these projects, when first added to the budget, were going to occur after 2016/17.

The Chairman stated that he would write to all Members of the Finance team to thank them for their work throughout the year.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet:

i)             Notes the Council’s projected outturn position

ii)            Notes the transfers to provisions for bad debt and MMI details of which are contained in paragraphs 4.14 to 4.17

iii)           Approves the change to the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Registrar’s fees details of which are contained in paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19. 

ITEM WITHDRAWN 26/4/17 – due to central government timescales

The item had been withdrawn from the agenda for further work.

Members considered approval of £153,000 in additional annual expenditure for five years from 2017-18 to enable the continuation of the existing bus network.

The Chairman of the of Highways, Transport & Environment O&S Panel had agreed to the urgent report being added to the agenda as a number of routes would have services withdrawn at the end of April 2017 if a decision was not made by Cabinet on bus services  before that date.

The Deputy Lead Member explained that there had been a national decline in bus usage of 2% per annum, but this was 3% in the borough. The report asked for Cabinet support of local bus services despite the decline, as it supported the objectives of the borough local plan to provide travel options for schools, town centres, leisure and other services. A competitive tendering exercise had been undertaken for a number of routes; the outcome was due in early May. The message was that, through investment, the borough would keep its residents on the move for years to come. The borough would work with operators to ensure long term sustainable services. There would be no temporary stop to any service. Transport networks would be at the centre of the council’s planning for the future. It would be important that public transport was at the heart of infrastructure planning. Where other local authorities were turning their back, the borough was stepping in. When Surrey County council had withdrawn their 80% subsidy for the 305 service, the borough had stepped in to increase its subsidy from 20% to 100%.

The Deputy Lead Member for Ascot Regeneration commented that it was in no doubt that some of the services for vulnerable or elderly people were a lifeline. Older people in Ascot and the Sunnings used the White Bus to travel to Windsor and across the Ascot area. It was to the council’s credit that it was willing to accept the social responsibility and provide a substantial subsidy. He asked what the council was doing to encourage increased patronage.

The Deputy Lead Member highlighted that, unlike neighbouring local authorities, older residents in the borough could use bus passes before 9.30am. The council had spent £179,000 in the previous year on real time bus information. Bus stops were kept clear and a number of raised kerbs had been installed for easier access. A new bus stop had been installed in Oakley green. 90% of buses in the borough were under 5 years old and all had CCTV. The Transport Assistance Payment Scheme (TAPs) allowed individuals to apply for up to £100 of funding to use the People to Places service, which provided direct pick up and drop off.

The Chairman requested that if not already available, an analysis of best practice and how to encourage people to use public transport should be undertaken. Alternative business models may be needed in the future to avoid simply using council tax payer money to provide the service.

It was confirmed that, if the recommendations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

Members considered a progress report on the Intensive Family Support Programme (IFSP).

The Lead Member explained that the council had worked with 484 families since April 2012 under the Troubled Families programme. Through innovative practices including the inclusion of a health worker, 301 families had been supported by the IFSP. Of these, 214 were considered to have made sustained changes, for example 90% school attendance across three academic terms. The Lead Member highlighted the case studies detailed in the report. It was noted that robust monitoring was in place, including a detailed step-down process. The borough’s statistical neighbours had re-referral rates of 22.9%, the borough’s rate was just 10%.

The Deputy Lead Member for Ascot Regeneration commented that the rounded approach was an excellent idea when there were issues across a family. The programme tried to establish quality of life for the families involved and was a positive form of prevention. He asked whether the government had calculated the preventative savings made? The Lead Member responded that a recent report had looked at the project across the country, but that it was very hard to calculate the cost of something that did not happen. It was acknowledged that due to the multi-agency input, one family could cost up to £250,000 per annum. The Chairman suggested that an analysis of social impact bonds would be useful and asked for a review to be undertaken.

RESOLVEDUNANMOUSLY: That Cabinet:

1. Notes the progress made in supporting our residents whose families have multiple and complex needs to turn their lives around.

2. Commits to continue to support vulnerable families within The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, through the Intensive Family Support programme, for the duration of phase 2 of the national Troubled Families programme which runs until March 2020.

Members considered an update on the activities, priorities and progress of the Council’s trading companies. The Lead Member explained that the report showed how the council was delivering a housing portfolio to meet the aspiration of building a borough for everyone. It also provided transparency; in future this would be dealt with via a quarterly report by the Chairman of the RBWM Property Company to the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee. In June 2016 it had been agreed to use Section 106 funding to undertake property refurbishment and property purchases for affordable Key Worker housing.  In December 2016 the initial business plan was approved to deliver 138 properties over five years. The objectives were to provide good quality affordable housing for key workers and to contribute to the general fund in the form of dividends. It had been envisaged that six sites would be completed in 2016 and 2017; to date three sites were fully completed and were awaiting approval of the Secretary of State for transfer. Three sites were delayed:

·         The Brocket – a Task and Finish Group had been established to look at uses other than housing. The Chairman asked the Lead Member to write to the Chairman of the Task and Finish group to request a report by 1 June 2017 at the latest.

·         Two sites adjacent to Ray Mill Road – a flood alleviation scheme was required; the agreement with the developer could not be signed until the technical flood work had been completed.

The interim Managing Director of the property company was refreshing the business plan and this would be circulated to Members of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee. Housing Solutions had been appointed as the managing agent for the property company.

Members noted that the council owned eight flats on York Road which were currently let on a commercial basis. As tenants left, the flats would be transferred to the affordable housing portfolio for key workers.  The Chairman asked that tenants be given good notice of the council’s intention and an explanation of the background. The Lead Member was asked to review any exceptional personal circumstances that a current tenant may put forward.

The Lead Member for Adult Services and Health proposed an additional recommendation to highlight the scheme to social care and health workers.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet:

i)       Notes the update on trading activities

ii)     Agrees that the Director of Children’s Services writes to all Head teachers to outline the process for key worker housing including indicative timing and numbers

iii)    Agrees that the Managing Director write to Optalis and the Clinical Commissioning Groups to outline the process for key worker housing and availability for key workers in social care and health.

Councillor Saunders left the meeting at 7.26pm

Members considered recommendations on the pool cars leased by the Royal Borough, the Mayoral car and Electric Vehicle Charging points.

The Lead Member highlighted that the issue of sustainability was important to the council. He was the Lead Member with responsibility for the issue, the Sustainability Panel met in public every six weeks and there was a manager whose responsibility was sustainability, energy and the reduction of carbon emissions. PV panels had been installed on the roof of the Town Hall and the council had spent £1m on schemes to reduce energy usage across its estate. The Lead Member had unfortunately been unable to attend the Overview and Scrutiny Panel the previous week, he felt that the outline he would give would answer the questions raised at that meeting.

The Lead Member proposed amending the recommendations to refer to electric/hybrid cars rather than just electric.

The Lead Member explained that the council previously had electric cars for its pool fleet, but the decision had been made to a system that allowed online booking and coded entry, removing the need for someone to manage bookings and keys. However, the new scheme required a much higher mileage level than was being achieved. It was therefore proposed to terminate the existing contract at the end of the second year when costs would be minimal. A report would be submitted to Cabinet in six months setting out proposals for a replacement scheme using electric/hybrid vehicles.

In relation to the Mayoral car, Members noted that it played an important role as it was often the first thing people saw when the Mayor arrived at an event, however it was felt that the council should show leadership by looking at an electric or hybrid option. The market was changing quickly and it was anticipated more options would be available by next year.

The Lead Member explained that there were very few electric vehicle charging points in the borough. There was a demand for points to be installed in areas such as in Windsor and Eton where residents lacked off street parking. However, the location of these points would need to be carefully identified, involving ward councillors. A grant was available for the project and the proposed supplier, Pod Point, already worked with a number of local authorities. It was confirmed that five sets of two charging points were proposed.

The Chairman suggested looking at the option of car clubs such as Zip Car for the council’s pool car fleet. He commented that charging points encouraged drivers to visit an area and therefore could enhance economic vibrancy. Councillor D. Wilson highlighted the need for fast charging points. He also suggested that the Managing Director and Leader of the Council approached Tesla, which had an office in the borough, to explore options for the Mayoral car.

The Deputy Lead Member – Bus Champion commented that the benefits of electric vehicles were numerous including being cheaper to run, cleaner, quieter, lower insurance and road tax and no congestion charge.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6e

Members considered alternative options for managing the facility at 4 Marlow Road as the new contractor (Achieving for Children) did not wish to manage the community building.

The Lead Member explained that 4 Marlow Road was a purpose built youth and community centre. The site had previously been managed by leisure services, then youth services, and it was now proposed to move it to Parkwood Leisure from 1 August 2017 as an addition to the existing contract with the borough. The day to day running of the facility would move to Parkwood, however the ownership of the building would remain with the borough and highways would maintain the car park. 1.8FTE staff would TUPE transfer to Parkwood. There would be no breach in service for existing users and no change to leases other than an extension.

The Lead Member for Business and Customer Services confirmed that the Youth and Community Centre board was supportive of the proposals.

The Lead Member for Culture and Community Services highlighted that the borough supported local charities by grants as well as providing office accommodation.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinetnotes the report and:

                  i)        Approves the addition of 4 Marlow Road to the existing Parkwood Leisure contract, fixed for eight years, as a deed of variation, effective from 1 August 2017.

                 ii)        Approves the TUPE transfer of four part time staff, 1.8FTE, to Parkwood Leisure.

               iii)        Notes the following sub leases which will be issued subject to a further report to cabinet in May :

a.    Achieving for Children for use of the Youth Service area, see Appendix 1. (in line with leases for other AfC building)

b.    Windsor and Maidenhead Youth Counselling Service for their base, see Appendix 2. (for 10 years)

c.    Relate for their base, see Appendix 3. (for 10 years)

d.    Citizens Advice Bureau for their base, see Appendix 4. (for 10 years)

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 items 8-9 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

RESOLVED UNAIMOUSLY: 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 items 8-9 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2017

To note the Part II minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee held on 21 March 2017

To note the Part II minutes of the Cabinet Local Authority Governors Appointments Sub Committee held on 23 March 2017