a)    By Councillor Larcombe

 

This Council:

 

i) Agrees to allocate seats on the politically balanced committees to single non-aligned members in accordance with the political proportionality calculations.

ii) Requests officers to bring a report to full Council in November 2022 to consider the representation of the different political groups and single non-aligned members on bodies appointed by the Council for the remainder of the 2022/23 Municipal Year

 

b)    By Councillor Cannon

 

Since the Environment Agency took responsibility for managing the Thames and alleviating its flood waters, it has ceased the river dredging that had been in place for the previous 50 years.

 

It is believed that this has caused a decrease in capacity due to unmanaged silting, impacting on river navigation and the river’s capacity to contain flood waters.

 

This Council:

 

i) Requests that the Environment Agency resumes dredging of the River Thames within the boundaries of RBWM (especially the undefended reach between Black Potts and Bells Weir) to both ease navigation and increase the rivers capacity to hold water and therefore alleviate flood risk to our riverside communities.

ii) Requests that the Environment Agency expedites its efforts (in working with RBWM) to bring forward its alternative plans for flood alleviation for the Black Potts to Bells Weir reach of the River Thames following the EA removal of Channel One from the River Thames Scheme in July 2019.

 

c)    By Councillor Bhangra

 

This Council:

 

i) commends the excellent work of the Trading Standards team;

ii) thanks the officers in the team for their commitment to the Borough’s residents, and;

iii) supports the team’s continued efforts to provide an environment in which residents can buy goods and services without fear of being cheated, and honest businesses can be supported to thrive and grow.

 
    d) By Councillor Davey

 

Outside bodies determine their own memberships, including whether their constitution requests a council representative.

 

This Council agrees that as outside bodies are able to appoint non-Councillors to other positions in their membership, any appointment of a council representative must be restricted to an elected Member, a council employee or resident willing to sign up to a version of the Code of Conduct, to be defined by the Members Standards Panel, to ensure they are accountable to the public. 

 

e)    By Councillor Coppinger

 

This Council:

 

i) Thanks every one of our residents for the positive way in which they have approached the changes we made to the collection of waste last year. 

ii) Notes that change is never easy but as a result waste reduced by 18%; recycling increased from 51% to 55.7% of the total and most importantly food waste recycling increased from 2500 tonnes to 4600 tonnes.

 

f)     By Councillor Reynolds

 

Both Parliament and this Council have declared an Environmental and Climate Emergency. Yet, the Climate and Ecology Bill is hopelessly stalled in Parliament and our own Biodiversity Action Plan has been deferred for a second time. Cabinet won’t consider it until November 2022, at the earliest. To break this log jam, we need a clear statement of purpose now.

 

This Council:

 

i) Will halt and reverse its overall contribution to the degradation and loss of nature in the Royal Borough

ii) Will increase the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations, habitats, and ecosystems

iii) Will ensure that nature is visibly and measurably on the path to recovery by 2030

 

g)    By Councillor Singh

 

Visitors to parks are an increasingly selective group. For them, Green Flag status is a “must have”.

 

In 2012 we had seven Green Flag parks, today we have none. We are missing out on a significant boost to our local tourism and hospitality sectors. Achieving Green Flag standards would improve our offer and our Borough.

 

This Council:

 

i) Acknowledges that Green Flag status is a valuable accreditation

ii) Commits to adding at least one park per year from 2023/4 onwards

iii) Commits to complete accreditation of all Borough parks by 2030.

 

h)    By Councillor McWilliams

 

Housing challenges are being faced by many within the Borough. Positive steps are being taken under the Housing Strategy and Homelessness & Rough Sleeper Strategy.

 

This Council:

 

i) Will ensure that developers deliver the promised hundreds of new affordable homes, particularly for social rent, as part of the Borough Local Plan, including a minimum of 30% across the south-west Maidenhead development, to support this the RBWM allocation policy is being updated to ensure appropriate priority is given to those in greatest need, those within the reasonable preference categories and those with a local connection, where there are additional requirements for specific sites local lettings plans will also be considered.

ii) Commits to the outcomes of The White Paper – A Fairer Private Rented Sector which seeks to improve standards within the private rented sector, including tackling rogue landlords.

iii) Will continue to expand the council's own portfolio of housing stock, through the RBWM Property Company, including social rent, discount market rent, and low-cost homeownership properties through the introduction of a new RBWM HomeBuy scheme.

 

i)      By Councillor Haseler

 

The RSPCA and a number of RBWM residents are very concerned for the welfare of animals given as prizes at fairgrounds and other public events, calling for a ban on this practice.

 

This Council:

 

i) Agrees to ban outright the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Council land.

ii) Requests the Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection to write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land.

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

 

Motion a

 

The motion had been considered as part of the earlier item ‘Political Balance’.

 

 

Motion h

 

Councillor McWilliams introduced his motion. He explained that when he had taken on responsibility for housing, the borough had been in challenging position. The key issue to tackle at the time was support for roughsleepers. Significant work had been undertaken by officers and partners and progress had been made.  The focus now was how to fix the housing market to ensure no resident had to sleep rough through necessity; this objective was included in the Corporate Plan. The Housing Strategy codified the council’s strong preference for social housing to be delivered and for more council owned housing in the borough. The motion was an opportunity for all to articulate the strong preference for the expansion of socially rented homes in the borough.  With thousands on the housing register, many of whom faced unsustainable housing situations, the council needed to seize the opportunities the Borough Local Plan offered.

 

The White Paper ‘For a Fairer Private Rented Sector’ set out a huge range of proposals particularly relating to local councils including transparency and enforcement. There was a specific proposal that would require licences on a property basis which would ensure all homes were kept up to standard. Good landlords should not be punished for the behaviour of bad ones. Increasingly local authorities had relied on private landlords to plug the gap where insufficient socially rented homes had been delivered. It was not fair on the residents or the landlords. The borough should have a housing market with housing stock that met the needs of residents. The PropCo provided an obvious vehicle for increasing the volume of council owned stock, particularly on council owned land.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that the majority of landlords in the borough were exceptionally good however there were always a few rotten apples that did not pay attention to the welfare of their tenants. They would be targeted as part of the initiative. The fundamental point was to give residents in rented accommodation greater choice and stability. This was not to interfere in the market but to show leadership. The adopted Borough Local Plan (BLP) had included a bold policy statement on the delivery of affordable housing especially on strategic sites. Councillor Johnson referred to a written response to an earlier public question:

 

Since the 8th February the Council has received major planning applications proposing a total of 817 private market homes and 429 affordable homes. On average 34.4% of all housing applied for since the adoption of the Borough Local Plan is affordable.

 

The figure of 34.4% put the council ahead of its target of 30%. He would obviously like to go further but circumstances were difficult. The council intended to hold developers’ feet to the fire to meet the target. The centrepiece of the proposal was a local lettings plan. Those on the existing housing waiting list would be given additional priority for new affordable housing in their vicinity.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that it was important to understand the way the council as Local Planning Authority (LPA) had to consider planning policy. The local planning policy already stated a minimum of 30% in the BLP. This motion did not supersede the policy therefore the issue was already covered. It was also important to understand that viability statements meant affordable housing was not always included. The local authority could not influence viability set by the national government. If an application came forward with 20% and a viability statement, there was nothing the council could do. He asked if the motion was therefore proposing to go against national planning policy? He had been given advice that the motion could be seen as predetermination. He felt the most constructive way to get the motion through would be to split it into three separate votes.  

 

Councillor Davey quoted from the constitution that ‘Motions must be about matters for which the council has a responsibility and are not offensive or frivolous.’ Policies listed in the BLP currently carried weight so telling officers their job could be considered offensive and frivolous. Committing to a Government White Paper was probably not the council’s responsibility. He asked if the RBWM HomeBuy Scheme was in play or was it simply a plan to use an extensive slush fund, or one generated by the generosity of those residents gifting their 5% budget savings to help residents who only earned £100,000 a year buy their first affordable home.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that the proposal seemed to be to build unaffordable houses on the green belt in Windsor, then to give some of them away rather than retaining them for future residents. Many times, Members had sat in planning meetings and been told that the 30% affordability clause was being waived because it was economically unviable. Councillor W. Da Costa therefore felt it would be predetermination. He agreed with the sentiment and supporting the White Paper, but he had serious concerns about points i) and iii).

 

Councillor Johnson requested a personal explanation. He had not been talking about unaffordable homes. He had been explaining that under a local lettings plan, affordable housing was delivered by tenure type in a policy compliant mix of affordable rent, social rent and shared ownership. He was simply saying that as part of that mix, the council would look to give preference where possible to local people.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that approving the motion would not amount to pre-determination.

 

Councillor McWilliams explained that the HomeBuy scheme would be explored in more detail including consultation. He would be happy to discuss it further with Councillor Davey and if the motion was approved, more information would be brought forward. The motion explicitly stated that the council wanted social housing delivered. He felt that could never be overstated. Viability was a different issue on council owned land as the council had a choice to decide how much affordable housing would be delivered.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That: This Council:

 

i) Will ensure that developers deliver the promised hundreds of new affordable homes, particularly for social rent, as part of the Borough Local Plan, including a minimum of 30% across the south-west Maidenhead development, to support this the RBWM allocation policy is being updated to ensure appropriate priority is given to those in greatest need, those within the reasonable preference categories and those with a local connection, where there are additional requirements for specific sites local lettings plans will also be considered.

ii) Commits to the outcomes of The White Paper – A Fairer Private Rented Sector which seeks to improve standards within the private rented sector, including tackling rogue landlords.

iii) Will continue to expand the council's own portfolio of housing stock, through the RBWM Property Company, including social rent, discount market rent, and low-cost homeownership properties through the introduction of a new RBWM HomeBuy scheme.

 

Councillors C. Da Costa and W. Da Costa left the meeting.

 

Motion b

 

Councillor Cannon introduced his motion. He highlighted typographical error in the second point of the motion; the date should have been July 2020. Since the Environment Agency (EA) took responsibility for managing the River Thames, it had ceased river dredging which had taken place for the previous 50 years. It was believed by many river users, and riverside residents and people in the floodplains that this had led to a decrease in capacity due to the unmanaged silting up.

 

The motion was due to come to the cancelled July meeting. The publicity had already made it a success as the EA had already committed to consider dredging in the undefended reach. The council needed to support residents by approving the second part of the motion.

 

Councillor Coppinger commented that he was delighted that Councillor Cannon had managed to get the EA to do what was their basic duty.

 

Councillor Larcombe commented that after the Jubilee River had been built at a cost of £100m all flood water was diverted to his ward of Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury. This happened in 2003, twice in 2014 and nearly again on many other occasions. The rules changed in 2010 as the council gained some powers and introduced partnership funding. This council agreed to put money into the River Thames scheme back in 2014/15 but when it came to the crunch and the EA wanted £53m as part of their £650m scheme, somebody at the council said no. Councillor Larcombe did not believe that the council was told how much was actually needed. In the 2019 elections the claim was made that the council was putting in £10m to the scheme, when the required figure was £53m. Councillor Larcombe had never been invited to the sponsorship group even though at the time he was on the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, a position which was suddenly removed from him when he started asking questions about funding. When his fellow councillor attended a meeting in July 2020 it was stated that Channel One had been removed. He had copies of all the minutes which referred to a lack of funding for two or three years, yet nobody had said anything. Winter was now on its way. The council would no doubt send sandbags. It has not looked after the watercourses it was responsible for. The EA had no duty to dredge the River Thames, only to maintain the navigation channel.

 

Councillor Hill highlighted the importance of riparian obligations on all water courses, some of which had not been cleared for decades. When the River Thames rose, there was nowhere for the water to go. He suggested Councillor Cannon should put pressure on the EA in this area.

 

Councillor Davey commented that Councillor Cannon had had ample opportunityto address this issue of dredging with the EA.The failure of the administration to keep their promise to the residents of Wraysbury, Old Windsor and Datchet that they would support the River Thames Scheme could not be solved with, what amounted to a sticking plaster.

 

Councillor Cannon stated that the EA was responsible for the River Thames. He took the point that small watercourses were mainly the responsibility of riparian owners. He hoped that members had reported any clogged watercourses.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That: This Council:

 

i) Requests that the Environment Agency resumes dredging of the River Thames within the boundaries of RBWM (especially the undefended reach between Black Potts and Bells Weir) to both ease navigation and increase the rivers capacity to hold water and therefore alleviate flood risk to our riverside communities.

ii) Requests that the Environment Agency expedites its efforts (in working with RBWM) to bring forward its alternative plans for flood alleviation for the Black Potts to Bells Weir reach of the River Thames following the EA removal of Channel One from the River Thames Scheme in July 2020.

 

 

Motion c

Councillor Bhangra introduced his motion. He explained that in the past months, the Royal Borough’sTrading Standards team had:

·       successfully prosecuted a rogue trader for pressurising victims into accepting poor quality and overpriced emergency repairs to windows and doors

·       provided 30 call blockers to vulnerable Royal Borough residents to protect them from scam telephone callers, and 20 video doorbells to protect others from doorstep scammers

·       dealt with an outbreak of avian influenza in the Borough, working with government departments and other agencies to minimise the effects of the disease and protect domestic poultry

·       carried out hundreds of inspections at high profile events such as RoyalAscot, the Royal Windsor Horse Show and Cookham Rock the Moor to ensure that visitors were getting the quantity and quality of food and drink and other goods and services that they were entitled to

·       investigated the sale of counterfeited designer goods

·       carried out regular test purchase operations to ensure retailers were not selling alcohol, tobacco or knives to people under 18 including counterfeit alcohol.

·       implemented a wide range of ever-changing coronavirus rules and regulations setting out which businesses could be open and how they should operate

Councillor Bhangra felt this demonstrated the very wide range of activities thatTrading Standards carried out to protect residents and support businesses, despite being such a small team.

 

Councillor Davey stated that he agreedTrading Standards had done a great job but so had the libraries, the housing team and all employees, not forgetting all the volunteers that helped with the many events hosted in RBWM, most recently the funeral of Her Majesty. He thanked all RBWM officers and community volunteers.

 

Councillor Cannon commented that the team had done a great deal of work, going above and beyond. As the service fell in his portfolio area, he was grateful the actions had been recognised.

Councillor Bhangra commented that the team worked with businesses to ensure they understood what was expected of them. There were also rare events such as dealing with avian influenza.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bhangra, seconded by Councillor Cannon, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:This Council:

 

i) commends the excellent work of the Trading Standards team;

ii) thanks the officers in the team for their commitment to the Borough’s residents, and;

iii) supports the team’s continued efforts to provide an environment in which residents can buy goods and services without fear of being cheated, and honest businesses can be supported to thrive and grow.

 

 

Motion d

Councillor Davey introduced his motion. He explained that currently any local authority (LA) representatives who were put forward by Cabinet to an outside board were not accountable to the local residents in any way.

They did not need to comply with the Code of Conduct rules which any resident asked to sit on a LA board would have to agree to. They could push out posts on social media denigrating the work of local councillors and be rewarded with a role of representing the administration on an outside board. They could put in Code of Conduct complaints by the bucket load, wasting officers time but could not have them laid at their door, even though they were representing the borough. Failure to recognise the flaw in the current situation would reinforce the feelings of the electorate, that the administration was only interested in their own ends and not in the democratic process.

 

Councillor Werner seconded the motion. He commented that the motion was not saying non-councillors could not sit as council representatives, but that they should sign up to a Code of Conduct.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that he presumed all outside bodies would have their own code of conduct.

 

Councillor Davey concluded that the reality was that an organisation could have its own rules and regulations but if an individual’s involvement was as a council representative, they should be accountable to the electorate and the council.

 

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 14 Councillors voted for the motion. 20 Councillors voted against the motion. The motion therefore fell.

 

 

Motion e

 

Councillor Coppinger had withdrawn his motion in advance of the meeting.

 

 

Motion f

 

Councillor Reynolds introduced his motion. He referred to the council’s declaration of a climate emergency some years previously. At that time all agreed on the need to act decisively and promptly. The Climate and Ecology Bill had stalled in Parliament. The BLP stated that the council was due to adopt the biodiversity policy by the end of 2021; it had been delayed not once but twice. The motion he proposed was a good way to put in place key items that all had agreed upon back in 2019. It would act as a key point of reference in reinstating trust and confidence in the matter There were many people outside the council who felt the council had missed the mark and not made sufficient progress.

 

Councillor Davies seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Davey quoted Charles Davey, sustainability champion and entrepreneur:

“One of the best solutions to the climate crisis is to teach sustainability philosophy to future generations. Replace the prolific desire for excess and arrogance with a passion for environmental custodianship and appreciation.The next generation of adults on this planet must be capable of safeguarding the future for humanity and understand that the existential threat of the climate crisis should not be ignored or understated. It is imperative that the contemporary generation of educators and guardians provide the youth, our future, with appropriate sustainability knowledge and wisdom.”

 

Councillor Stimson commented that she would not be able to support the motion as it was simply rhetoric. It wanted x, y and z to happen, and it would be handed over to an officer who was already extremely busy working to meet targets agreed in the Corporate Plan. The Biodiversity Action Plan had not been stalled bit was being further developed with the farming community so it would be stronger. The sustainability team was delivering quietly on its ongoing work, The team had grown from 2 to 8 staff members. Mentoring programmes to educate young people were taking place.

 

Councillor Johnson endorsed the comments made by Councillor Stimson. The Biodiversity Action Plan had only been delayed to allow for more consultation. The council’s main priority over the last two years had been fighting a global pandemic yet an innovative Climate Partnership had still been established.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that another meeting of the Rural Forum was scheduled for 29 November, with Cabinet on 24 November; he had been watching the dates carefully. Biodiversity gains did not work in islands or through minor initiatives. The consultation with landowners and their willingness to co-operate was essential. The suspicion that was referred to was that the Rural Forum had exercised a de facto veto on two occasions.

 

Councillor Davies explained that Councillor Reynolds’ motion was due to come to full Council at the July meeting, which was cancelled due to record-breaking high temperatures. This was an illustration if one was needed of the impact of climate change. Yet it sadly seemed even more necessary for this motion to be passed by Council now. Within the last week there had been news that the government was going to scrap the Environment Land Management Scheme before it had even been implemented; and news of the creation of 38 investment zones in which planning rules would be liberalised, an announcement which caused the RSPB to say that ‘this government has today launched an attack on nature’. In the light of this, it seemed to Councillor Davies that the council needed to re-affirm its own commitment to reversing the current severe decline in biodiversity in Windsor and Maidenhead and put into place actions which would ensure that nature was visibly and measurably on the path to recovery by 2030. She urged members to vote for the motion and in so doing to demonstrate the borough’s continued commitment to protecting nature and increasing biodiversity.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that a previous motion that evening had been about the council reinstating its commitment, so he did not see why this motion was any different. It was an important topic that should be raised. He would be glad to know if the biodiversity team had grown from two to eight members of staff. In the budget biodiversity training for officers had been removed; this said a lot about the council position.

 

Motion g

 

Councillor Singh introduced his motion. He explained that Green Flag status was a must-have for visitors to parks in the borough. Previously the council had 7 Green Flag parks, but today there were none. The borough was missing out on a significant boost to the local tourism and hospitality sectors. Green Flag status would improve the borough and the environment. It would mean parks were of the highest possible standard, had excellent facilities and were well-maintained all year round. The award was given by the environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy. It also recognised the work undertaken by volunteers across the borough. The scheme was in its 25^th year.

 

Councillor Del Campo seconded the motion. She suggested that Green Flag accreditation was a kind of biennial MOT for parks; a friendly critic, to use local government parlance. That was really important as a climate emergency was faced, alongside a cost-of-living crisis and the relentless march of development in town centres.

 

Green Flag had around 600 expert assessors in England. They were all volunteers who were passionate about public open space. The first visit would be by two assessors who would produce a report for RBWM officers. When a park achieved the Green Flag Award, and it could be on the first visit, it was re-assessed every second year against an agreed management plan. On the in-between years, parks were visited by mystery shoppers.

 

The goals of the Green Flag scheme broadly aligned with RBWM policy:

 

·       A welcoming place which was healthy, safe and secure, and that was well maintained and clean

·       A place that was managed with the environment, biodiversity, landscape and heritage in mind

·       Well-marketed and advertised open spaces, bringing in visitors from outside the borough.

·       And vitally, community involvement parks and open spaces were delivered that residents wanted and need.

 

Councillor Del Campo fully expected someone to say if the council already had these goals, why did it need to enter a scheme? No doubt budgets and officer time would get a mention too. The answer was accountability. Borough parks have been sadly neglected of late. A child had been injured on play equipment; there were reports of damaged equipment or dodgy repairs with tape; six-foot hedges sprouting 12-foot trees right next to houses and threatening to undermine foundations; shrubs given 80s-style flat-top haircuts; and, apart from the notable efforts made by residents, scant attention to the introduction of drought-resistant and pollinator-friendly planting.

 

Up to now, the council had left it to contractors to mark their own work and, unsurprisingly, the outcome had not been entirely satisfactory. Inviting Green Flag assessors in would not only hold the council to account but also give access to a wealth of expertise for just over £500 including VAT for a park like Oaken Grove.

 

Councillor Coppinger highlighted that the manual for Green Flag accreditation was 80 pages long and was designed to generate funds for the charity. The council recognised the benefits of parks and open spaces which was why they were included in the Corporate Plan under ‘Inspiring Places’ and ‘Climate Change’. He wondered how many residents had heard of the scheme and saw it as a must-have. In total the borough had 70 parks and open spaces. They were not on the local tourism and hospitality scene, other than the Great Park which was owned by the Crown Estate. Several had successful local events during the year. Residents did not go to a park because it had a Green Flag but because it was local, well maintained and had the right facilities. He accepted that there were many good ideas and standard in the manual, many of which were already adopted. Councillor Coppinger felt it was most important that officer time was used making sure the council met the needs of residents rather than filling out forms. It was a pity that the motion did not set out the costs involved, or the number of additional officers needed. The cost would be more than £500; he believed it would be £42,000 for all parks and open spaces in the borough. To receive a Green Flag a fully involved community group on site was needed. The council had the opportunity with Deerswood to create such a community.

 

Councillor Hill felt it was an excellent motion as parks needed to be brought up to the highest standard.

 

Councillor Davey commented that he felt it was a great idea. Part iii was probably a bit ambitious based on what Councillor Coppinger had said but he supported parts i and ii.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that it was a hugely important motion. The borough previously had a number of Green Flag parks. The importance of open spaces had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

 

Councillor McWilliams asked what problem the motion was trying to solve. It suggested the borough parks were in a state of disrepair, which was not true. He knew Thriftwood and Ockwells Park very well; thousands of trees had been planted and new play equipment had recently been installed. Regular litter picks were also held. He did not feel that Green Flag status would change any of this. The model of Thriftwood demonstrated if a community came together to make plans it could create a great asset.

 

Councillor Werner that the problem was that play parks were starting to fall apart and were showing their age. They used to have daily checks, but this no longer happened. His daughter pointed out faults to him and he reported them to the borough. All parents were concerned for their child’s safety.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that his experience of parks in north Maidenhead was that they were in desperate need for external accreditation that was internationally recognised. Parks week had been promoted on the RBWM Twitter feed. He had visited Grenfell at the time and met the contractor who was litter picking, but only in areas around the play park. Councillor Baldwin had subsequently collected 12 kilos from other areas of the park. If the council aspired to places it was proud of, it should aspire to external accreditation.

 

Councillor Cannon asked how the £42,000 cost would be funded.

 

Councillor Tisi suggested the administration’s reluctance to support the motion was simply an admittance that none of the borough parks would make the grade.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that of course the administration was committed to improving standards n parkas and expanding provision of open spaces. This was why a new consultation on the future of Deerswood meadow was about to start.

 

Councillor Singh agreed to remove part iii) of his motion. He felt that in reality the proposal would save money. For example, there was a council determined to build a sensory park for the visually impaired. Following the Green Flag protocols a targeted consultation was undertaken which revealed what was really wanted was a roped walkway around a lake, saving £200,000. Page 154 of the agenda stated that if the borough did not progress the tennis court proposal, there would be further deterioration therefore there was clearly an issue. Councillor Singh had raised the issue of dangerous facilities in a park at an earlier Council meeting. Issues were clearly being missed. In 2006 there were 7 Green Flags in the borough following a £2m investment. Now there were none in the borough. It was possible, but the council needed the appetite and the ambition.

 

Councillor Del Campo agreed that part ii of the recommendation should be removed. The meeting consented to the change as the debate had already started.

 

A vote was undertaken on the first two elements of the motion.

 

 

Motion i

 

Councillor Haseler had withdrawn his motion in advance of the meeting.