Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Town Hall - Maidenhead

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Items
No. Item

178.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N. Airey, M. Airey, Bullock, Burbage, Coppinger, Jones, Kellaway, Majeed, Pryer, Shelim and Stretton.

179.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 163 KB

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 July 2017.

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2017 be approved.

180.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor Brimacombe declared a personal interest in the item ‘Braywick Leisure Centre’ as he owned property close to the town centre, not far from Braywick.

 

Councillor C. Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘River Thames Scheme – Funding’ as he was a Trustee of the Rayner Family Trust, which owned land that could be affected. He left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

 

Councillor S. Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘River Thames Scheme – Funding’ as her husband was a Trustee of the Rayner Family Trust, which owned land that could be affected. She left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

 

Councillors Clark, Hill and Hunt declared personal interests in the item ‘Waterways Funding’ as she owned property in the town centre.

 

Alison Alexander declared a personal and potentially prejudicial interest in the item ‘Waterways Funding’ as she owned a property overlooking the waterway. She left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

181.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 87 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 Council. The Mayor highlighted a number of upcoming events, including a tea party and zoo visit at Berkshire College of Agriculture on 8 October 2017, a charity afternoon tea at the Guildhall, Windsor on 25 October 2017 and a charity dinner on 1 December 2017.

 

A typographical error was noted in the report, which should read:

 

·         Started the charity bike ride in aid of Churches Conservation Trust

182.

Public Questions

None received

Minutes:

No public questions had been received.

183.

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 had been received.

184.

Panel Memberships

To consider the recommendation that Councillor Nicola Pryer be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Tourism Development Forum.

Minutes:

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor Nicola Pryer be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Tourism Development Forum for the remainder of the municipal year.

185.

Constitutional Changes pdf icon PDF 179 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered a proposal to amend the terms of reference for the Berkshire Pension Fund Advisory Panel. Councillor Targowska explained that this was an administrative report requesting minor changes to ensure the membership reflected the composition of bodies included.

 

Councillor Targowska announced that a full review of the constitution would take place over the next few months, to reflect the new operating model. All members would be able to participate in the review. Councillor Dudley confirmed that the review had been recommended by the LGA Peer Review.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Targowska, seconded by Councillor Hilton and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council notes the report and:

 

i) Considers and approves the amendment to the Constitution set out in paragraph 2.5; see Appendix 1 for full details.

186.

Borough Parking Plan pdf icon PDF 217 KB

To consider the above report

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered the council’s parking plan for the borough which would provide new permanent and temporary parking provision with an investment of over £12 million.

 

Councillor D. Evans introduced the report and advised Members of an amendment to the recommendation to refer to the figure £12,344,600 in the first recommendation. He explained that the report looked at parking across the borough. Councillor Sharpe had raised the particular problem of parking in Sunninghill at a recent Overview and Scrutiny Panel; officers would be working with the Ward Councillors to see how the situation could be improved. The report also detailed additional capital expenditure at the River Street car park in Windsor to provide a further 100 spaces.

 

In relation to Maidenhead, the council had spent time consulting with residents including at a Countryside joint venture presentation in the Nicholson’s Centre. The overriding message was generally positive. The report would begin to address any resident concerns. It was anticipated that a further report would be presented in November 2017 in relation to investment in the Broadway car park to provide up to 1500 additional spaces. To enable this to happen the old car park would have to be pulled down therefore temporary parking was required. In addition, the first phase of the York Road scheme was due to commence on 2018. Temporary provision would include extra space at Hines Meadow, as council officer parking would be moved to Reform Road. In excess of 500 temporary spaces would be provided at St Cloud Way. Appendix C demonstrated that by 2021, there would be a net increase of 657 spaces in the town centre.

 

Councillor Dudley highlighted that 718 residents had attended the three day consultation event with Countryside. The findings were imminently due and would be placed on the regeneration website and detailed in a press release. It was clear that parking was the pre-eminent issue for residents. The proposals did not deal with parking for residential schemes as these would be brought forward as part of the individual planning applications. At a Board meeting earlier in the day the importance of ensuring vibrancy in the town during the regeneration had been discussed at length. He thanked officers for all their work on the scheme.

 

Councillor Brimacombe commented that it was key to get the number of temporary spaces right. Appendix C detailed the two key variables of location and capacity and a broad timescale. The devil was in the detail, in particular in relation to proximity and day to day timing. He had been pleased to see that Parking Matters Ltd had been appointed as consultant. He encouraged Lead Members to ensure that demand, parking flow and past and future trends, compared to proximity and timescale, be factored in.

 

Councillor Hill raised concerns as Ward Councillor. The Countryside development proposed 0.5 spaces per new dwelling, which was inadequate. Great care needed to be taken in the town centre. He urged more spaces to be built so that Maidenhead did not become  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

187.

River Thames Scheme - Funding pdf icon PDF 641 KB

To consider the above report

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a recommendation from the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee, that had met earlier the same day, in relation to a future funding commitment to assist in delivering the River Thames Scheme. 

 

Councillor Dudley explained that there was a significant gap in funding for the scheme. The estimated cost was £476m compared to identified funding of £248m. The 2014 floods in the borough had caused significant disruption to residents. The River Thames Scheme was intended to protect 15,000 properties, 2,300 of whom lived in the borough. It would be a significant piece of national infrastructure to protect infrastructure assets in the southeast of England. The Environment Agency (EA) had advised that if 2cm more rain had fallen during the floods in 2014 the M25 would have been closed and Heathrow would have been significantly affected. 

 

At the next meeting, the Treasury would be deciding if the scheme would proceed or not. Councillor Dudley wanted to ensure that the Royal Borough did all that it could to ensure the scheme proceeded. The proposals in the report included a flood levy on a household basis to help with the capital expenditure and operating expenses, which were not covered by the EA’s budget. This would be in the region of £7.50 per household.

 

Councillor Da Costa asked how many residents would benefit and what this represented as a proportion of all boroughs affected.

 

Councillor Dudley confirmed that 2,300 properties would be protected therefore he estimated this to be 5,000 residents out of a total borough population of 145,000. The council was in a strong financial position because the Borough Local Plan was being taken forward and the regeneration programme was progressing. He hoped other authorities would step up, in the interests of partnership.

 

Councillor Grey stated that the scheme was a must, particularly for residents of Datchet, Wraysbury and Old Windsor. He welcomed the positive investment for residents. The funding would allow partners to plan and strive for the fruition of the scheme. Over 150 properties and scores of businesses were wiped out in 2014; many had been left empty. In addition, the rail and road links were closed despite the borough distributing more than 100,000 sand bags and manpower. It was so bad the Army and Navy had to be called in.  The borough and its partners needed to make the commitment to unlock and release  other strands of funding.  As the council’s representative on the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee he would sit more comfortably after the commitment had been made.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that the borough enjoyed the setting of the Thames in many parts, but it was a challenging friend with whom to share the environment.  It brought residents great pleasure and at the same time for many residents it offered a clear and present danger.  The council must demonstrate its clear and meaningful intent to invest in this important measure.  There was much to be done by environmental experts, engineers and central government and the plan would doubtless  ...  view the full minutes text for item 187.

188.

Waterways Funding pdf icon PDF 164 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered approval for additional funding to be added to the council’s capital programme to complete the current phase of the waterways project, build the weir and progress associated contractual processes.

 

Councillor D. Evans explained that the Waterways was a critical artery in Maidenhead. Over the years the council had approved funding for various plans including £6.7m for Phase 1. However a further £1.5m was now required to complete the scheme. Detailed reasons were provided in the Part II appendix as the council was looking at all avenues as to how the situation had arisen. If the scheme was stopped at this point, there would just be a muddy channel. If the scheme were finished, it would enhance the centre of Maidenhead.  The development of the York Road site was dependent on the waterside frontage. The scheme had already been embraced by residents and a number of companies had held team building events to help clear the channel.  The Rotary Club had planted 5000 crocuses in front of the amphitheatre.

 

Councillor Love commented that the scheme was widely accepted as a catalyst for investment in Maidenhead and the development of the AAP. The scheme would generate a waterside culture with the immediate effect of an attractive ambience. The scheme had widespread public support.

 

Councillor Werner stated that the Waterways project was an amazing scheme. When he had been Deputy Leader he had been approached by Richard Davenport and £1m of Section 106 funding had been allocated to the scheme. The scheme had been complex and taken longer than originally anticipated. It was obvious that the additional funding had to be approved to finish the scheme, however he questioned why extra funding was now needed. It worried him when extra money was needed at the last minute.

 

Councillor Brimacombe commented that although all were supportive,  there had been a lapse of time, a number of incremental contributions and a lack of continuity of officer oversight. He requested confirmation of who presently had the legal management of the project, which previously had been the Waterways Board. Who was responsible for the receipt and spend of funds?

 

Councillor D. Evans explained that he took over as responsible Lead Member the previous summer. Legally this was a council project under the Executive Director, with input from the Waterways team.

 

Councillor D. Wilson highlighted that the waterways would bring life back into Maidenhead and be a catalyst for regeneration.

 

Councillor Da Costa highlighted that this was a report with substantial expenditure and some key control risks which had not been subject to an Overview and Scrutiny Panel. He understood that there was a Part II appendix but today there was a very expensive ditch and an unscrutinised report that asked for an extra £1.5m, massively more than it has cost already, to fill the ditch with water. He called for an independent investigation into what went wrong and why the council was being asked to approve an extra £1.5m, money that could have gone to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

189.

Braywick Leisure Centre pdf icon PDF 226 KB

To consider the above report

 

Minutes:

Members considered approval for a capital budget of £30,881,000 to re-provide the Magnet Leisure Centre at Braywick Park to be added to the approved capital programme.

 

Councillor S. Rayner stated this was a once in a generation opportunity to build a new leisure centre whilst keeping the current centre open in the meantime. Capital receipts from the housing development on the old site would then pay for the new leisure centre. The architects had shared the council’s vision from the start of creating a beautiful building to enhance the parkland setting. The technical design would mean running costs would be 75% lower each year than current costs. Members noted the additional leisure offering included in the design, as detailed in paragraph 2.3 of the report.

 

Councillor S. Rayner explained that consultation had taken place with residents including an exhibition in the town centre and at the Magnet and letters to homes close to the Braywick site.  Sportsable, the Access Advisory Forum and local sports clubs had also been consulted. These discussions had led to changes including making the pool competition size, improved disabled facilities and a viewing court for squash competitions.

 

Councillor Werner commented that he would be supporting the proposal as it was the only offer available, but he felt it was not a good offer. People who could not drive would not be able to get there. An hourly shuttle bus services was inadequate. He had had many communications from people who wanted a town centre location for the new facility.  The proposals were just a bit better than the current leisure centre. He felt there had been no vision or ambition. The borough was an Olympic sporting borough and included Bisham Abbey and Eton College. The new leisure centre would not even have a proper swimming pool.

 

Councillor Dudley responded that feedback from residents did not reflect Councillor Werner’s comments. He highlighted that in one evening the council would be investing £56.5m in the borough.

 

Councillor Sharma commented that he had met many residents at the consultation event. A regular bus services would mitigate concerns. When a Post Office had been moved in his ward he found that those who were now closer to it were pleased and those a bit further away were happy to travel a bit further for better facilities.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that this was a fabulous opportunity to build a new leisure centre. A joint Overview and Scrutiny panel had been held to discuss the proposals at which transport questions had been raised. A number of bus routes, cycle lanes and parking spaces would be provided.

 

Councillor D. Wilson commented that when he had first been elected in 1991 the council had been considering refurbishing the leisure centre at a cost of £7m. It was felt then that it was in the wrong location. Braywick Park already had a number of sporting facilities so was the obvious location. Bus links would be provided. The 8 lane pool would be extended to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

190.

Members' Questions

a)    Question submitted by Councillor E Wilson to Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

Will the Lead Member for Children’s Services advise what her directorate’s plans are for special educational needs provision in Windsor?

b)   Question submitted by Councillor E Wilson to Councillor S. Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Will the Lead Member for Culture and Communities confirm what additional leisure facilities will be required in Windsor should the Borough Local Plan be implemented?

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Yong to Councillor McWilliams, Deputy Lead Member for Policy and Affordable Housing:

 

What assurances can be given that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is committed to delivering affordable housing in the Borough?

 

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

 

The Council has publicised its admirable policy to double the number of Community Wardens by adding another 18 Wardens.   Please advise how many more have been appointed since the last Annual Meeting.

 

e)    Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor D. Wilson, Lead Member for Planning:

 

Several times at Development Management Panel meetings I have objected to the wasted cost of Public Notice space in a Maidenhead newspaper listing Windsor and Ascot planning applications. This would be far more appropriately spent by publication in newspapers read by residents of those areas.   Nothing has been done. Please can this be changed without delay?                 

 

 

(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:

a)    Question submitted by Councillor E Wilson to Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

Will the Lead Member for Children’s Services advise what her directorate’s plans are for special educational needs provision in Windsor?

Councillor D. Evans, on behalf of Councillor N. Airey, responded that the Borough Local Plan set out how and where the Borough could plan to build 14,000 homes over the next 20 years.  As part of that work, the Education team had been assessing the impact on the school estate, including the provision of special educational needs. A report would be brought forward in October which set out the scale of school development required and the process of turning that into specific plans over time as the houses were developed and families moved in.

 

The Borough Local Plan had noted the need for further special needs school capacity, based simply on the forecast population growth with an earmarking of site HA11 in Windsor.

 

The borough was already served by both Manor Green and Forest Bridge special school and young people also accessed a range of other settings across Berkshire and in other neighbouring authorities.  Windsor residents already had access to this wide range provision and the detailed planning of provision which may be provided on this site would continue to take into account the wide range of needs of all of residents across the borough.

Councillor E. Wilson, by way of  a supplementary question stated that SEN in HA11 would be welcomed by many, especially parents in Windsor who felt that provision was lacking. He suggested that the council should meet with some of the excellent SENCOs and SENCO governors to flesh out what was actually needed.

Councillor D. Evans responded that it was an excellent idea which he would pass to officers and the Lead Member.

b)   Question submitted by Councillor E Wilson to Councillor S. Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Will the Lead Member for Culture and Communities confirm what additional leisure facilities will be required in Windsor should the Borough Local Plan be implemented?

Councillor S. Rayner responded that the infrastructure required to support the Borough Local Plan was set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which was published on the Council website.  The IDP covered leisure uses as well, and as developments came forward the additional facilities would be identified in the IDP, which included a range of leisure and recreational amenities, which would be considered on a case by case basis.

 

Where development required new schools or school facilities, including publically funded or independently funded schools, consideration would always be given to having community access agreements to enable these additional facilities to be utilised by the wider community when not in school use. The council was currently working with state schools and private schools, including Eton College, to increase community use.

 

This approach reflected the council’s strategic plan as set out in the Indoor Sport and Leisure Facility Strategy for the Royal Borough of Windsor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

191.

Motions on Notice

None received

Minutes:

None received

192.

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.

 

193.

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 items 16-19 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"

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 items 16-19 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

 

194.

Minutes

To receive the Part II minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 July 2017.

195.

Borough Parking Plan - Appendix

To consider the Part II appendix to the earlier Part I report.

196.

Waterways Funding - Appendix

To consider the Part II appendix to the earlier Part I report

 

197.

Braywick Leisure Centre - Appendix

To consider the Part II appendix to the earlier Part I report