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.)

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 and Maidenhead for the five year period 2015 – 2020. The assessment of provision and strategy recommendations were in accordance with Sport England Assessing Needs and Opportunities (ANOG) Guide for Indoor and Outdoor Sports Facilities.

The council’s commitment towards promoting increased activity and healthier lifestyles was demonstrated in the report in the agenda with plans for the new Braywick Leisure Centre which was in line with the strategic approach.  The council was also looking at a leisure centre in Sunningdale with a working title of ‘The Oaks’. In the last year in Windsor the council would have spent £0.75m on sport, including at Victoria Park, Windsor Leisure Centre and Dedworth Middle School, alongside spending on leisure centres across the borough and the purchase of Thriftwood. The council would continue to invest in the health and wellbeing of its residents.

Councillor E. Wilson confirmed he did not have a supplementary question.

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?

Councillor McWilliams responded that all knew what an expensive place the borough was to live in. It was important that the council provided affordable housing for residents and future generations. The Borough Local Plan (BLP) was going to potentially meet 100% of housing needs which was a rare achievement. For too long vested interest had stifled house building. As planning authority the council currently sought 30% of new dwellings (on sites delivering more than 15 units) was secured as affordable housing.  The emerging Local Plan would still seek 30% but on sites delivering 10 or more units in line with Government policy.  The council would work with partners including Housing Associations to explore all possibilities to increase the number further. There was no policy to magic affordable homes into existence; a realistic planning policy was required that was flexible enough to react to the increasing costs of house building.  At the moment the council had an Affordable Housing Guidance note, this would be replaced in due course by an Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document once the plan was adopted.  Housing and planning were working together on this. 

RBWM had acted wisely in securing a number of key sites and was working in joint partnership with Countryside. As a landowner the council was looking to deliver schemes which would provide affordable homes for residents and Key Workers. The JV allowed a greater deal of control over the mix of affordable housing. A variety of products were needed as there was no silver bullet.

Councillor Yong confirmed she did not have a supplementary question.

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.

Councillor Dudley responded that Community Warden numbers had been maintained at 18 since the last meeting.  An options appraisal was being developed by officers in conjunction with the Lead Member for Environmental Services) to deliver this commitment over the remainder of the term. The appraisal would include opportunities to bring the Community Warden function together with other community or front facing services and functions. The options paper would be considered by the council’s senior leadership team and the Lead Member in November.

Councillor Beer, by way of  a supplementary question stated that it had been  agreed in principle that Community Wardens would not have to take on parking duties because of they were the council’s interface with the public.

Councillor Dudley responded that this was under review.

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?  

Councillor D. Wilson, responded that he law required that some types of development and development within designated areas, for example, Conservation Areas, be advertised with a notice on site and in a newspaper circulating in the borough.  Due to the costs of putting the adverts in a number of different newspapers this was reduced in 2010 in order to reduce the associated costs.  This was a cost saving exercise and the following year there was a £10,000 reduction in advertising costs.  As it stood the planning service spent around £25,000 per year on placing statutory advertisements on planning matters. Parish Councils across the borough reviewed and commented on many of the planning applications that the borough received and the council valued their input.  He felt that it was more likely that residents would see the yellow site notice that the officer posted whilst carrying out their site visit rather than the notice in the newspaper; in this digital age many people no longer read a newspaper or if they did so it was on line. He  could not see a sound reason for a change of approach which would cause a budget pressure in the planning service.

Councillor Beer, by way of a supplementary question, stated that it was therefore a waste of money to pay for notices, possibly 50% of which  related to Windsor and the south of the borough. If the policy was not going to change from just using one newspaper then he suggested money should be save and adverts for Windsor and the south of the borough should not be bothered with at all. People did not read the Maidenhead Advertiser in those areas. The requirement was for a newspaper appropriate to the area and he therefore asked for this to be reviewed.

Councillor D. Wilson responded that the Maidenhead Advertiser covered Windsor and Ascot. For key, significant schemes the council did advertise in more than one local paper.  This would not be appropriate though for the smaller scale developments.