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

Can the Leader of the Council inform us what steps he is taking to try to reinstate the Saturday guard change in Windsor?

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

Will the Lead Member for Highways and Transport provide an update on the 305 bus service, with particular reference to Horton and Wraysbury, following changes to the funding of the route?

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

Government has accepted there is a housing crisis, but Government, MPs and the expand Heathrow lobby ignore that expansion would exacerbate the crisis.  Will your Administration please resource an urgent active campaign alerting other Councils and the public using Local Plan data on housing and the entire infrastructure as the overriding reasons to reject expansion in the current NPS consultation?

(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.)

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

Can the Leader of the Council inform us what steps he is taking to try to reinstate the Saturday guard change in Windsor?

Councillor Dudley responded that last year, the Headquarters Household Division reviewed the Queen’s Guard at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Guard frequency and agreed that from Monday 16 January 2017 the Windsor Guard will be on the same the day as Queen’s Guard.  The Guard Change days being Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, although the Guards did not march to Windsor Castle on Sundays.

The Headquarters Household Division had stressed that the changes were very much a trial and were currently being reviewed, with a decision expected by the end of March.  Councillor Dudley had written to the Brigade Major, who was carrying out that review, to convey to him the concerns that had been expressed locally about the loss of the Saturday guard change in Windsor.  He had informed the Brigade Major that what was considered suitable for London, in terms of guard change days, was not necessarily suitable for Windsor and had therefore suggested to him that the Saturday Guard Change in Windsor be reinstated.

The initial response from the Brigade Major to the arguments made to him had been positive and he was hopeful for a satisfactory review outcome and the reinstatement of the Saturday Guard Change in Windsor

Councillor C. Rayner confirmed he did not have a supplementary question.

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

Will the Lead Member for Highways and Transport provide an update on the 305 bus service, with particular reference to Horton and Wraysbury, following changes to the funding of the route?

Councillor Bicknell responded that Service 305 was operated by ‘Bear Bus’ connecting Wraysbury, Horton and Hythe End with Poyle, Colnbrook and Staines. The service was financially supported by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Surrey County Council, the borough contributes approximately £30,000. In September 2016, Surrey County Council withdrew funding for the service. The Royal Borough agreed to fund the shortfall in the short-term to ensure that the service was maintained, whilst options were explored.

Councillor Bicknell explained that with officers and the Deputy Lead Member for Buses, he had considered options. Bids had now been invited to continue to provide the service in a cost-effective manner. Following receipt of bids, he would work with Ward Members and officers to agree the way forward, seeking to maintain bus services for local residents. No decision had been made and the way forward will be made in consultation with Ward Members.

By way of a supplementary, Councillor C. Rayner commented that it was a shame that ward councillors had not been told in August 2016 when Surrey County council withdrew their funding.

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

Government has accepted there is a housing crisis, but Government, MPs and the expand Heathrow lobby ignore that expansion would exacerbate the crisis.  Will your Administration please resource an urgent active campaign alerting other Councils and the public using Local Plan data on housing and the entire infrastructure as the overriding reasons to reject expansion in the current NPS consultation?

Councillor Dudley responded that the council had been actively engaged in a campaign against the potential expansion of runway capacity at Heathrow Airport.  The council had worked in partnership with other like minded authorities and organisations, namely the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Richmond and Greenpeace.

The National Policy Statement public consultation was launched by the Secretary of State for Transport on 2 February 2017.  Prior to this, the council, along with its partners, had set out its intention to challenge the legalities of such a process by way of judicial review.  In response, Government initiated legal proceedings in the High Court to strike out the council’s case.  Mr Justice Cranston delivered his verdict at the end of January setting out that any challenge could not be heard by the High Court until after the NPS consultation and parliamentary scrutiny process had run their course. This was expected to complete at the end of 2017.

The advice given to the council by its legal team was for residents, alongside officers, to engage in the process, raising awareness of the impacts that such a scheme would have. The consultation document itself set out a number of specific impacts that the NPS needed to address, including amongst others: noise, air quality, surface access, land use and green belt pressures.  The borough’s communication plan included measures to ensure residents knew the impacts of expansion at Heathrow and how they could have their say on this very important matter. 

An officer working group was currently reviewing the consultation and technical documents relating to the NPS.  Members and officers would ensure a robust response was submitted to the Secretary of State.  This would highlight the impacts the council believed expansion would have including such infrastructure demands that would place a burden on the local area and future requirements for housing and employment land. The council would continue to do all that that it could to protect its residents and the borough from the effects of expansion at Heathrow.

By way of a supplementary, Councillor Beer highlighted that the Back Heathrow campaign had put out a lot of information that was inaccurate and exaggerated. DfT displays at a recent meeting in Egham presented false and inaccurate presentations. The council needed to publicise this in the council newspaper and state the true facts so misunderstanding and opposition to the council continuing its legal action was corrected. High profile publication in combination with other authorities was required.

Councillor Dudley responded that the next edition of Around the Royal Borough would include a leaflet on the NPS outlining the facts and enabling residents to respond to the consultation via a tear-off slip. The cost of the leaflet was £10,000. Lawyers were analysing the consultation to identify any weaknesses.