To receive any apologies for absence

An Apology for Absence was received from Councillor Love.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Mrs Bateson declared an interest in the item Council Funding for Local Organisations as she was a council representative on the Ascot District Day Centre. She left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Rayner declared an interest in the item Council Funding for Local Organisations as during his year as Mayor he had been involved with a number of the charities listed. His wife was also a trustee of Windsor Festival. He remained in the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Ms Stretton declared an interest in the item Council Funding for Local Organisations as she was on the Maidenhead Festival board. She remained in the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

To consider the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2016

To note the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Local Authority Appointments Sub Committee held on 28 January 2016

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             The Part I minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2016 were approved.

ii)            The Part I minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Local Authority Governors Appointments Sub Committee held on 28 January 2016 be noted.

None

Members considered the recent announcements made by Post Office Ltd to make changes to 42 of its 314 directly-managed Crown Post Offices as part of its network modernisation programme. The Lead Member explained that the council was concerned as the Post Office Ltd. was looking for a franchisee to takeover the service and this could lead to relocation and a lower level of service. A number of franchises were operated from WH Smith stores; in Maidenhead WH Smiths had recently moved to a smaller premises therefore this option would be difficult. The tendering process would last 28 days and would be followed by a six week consultation.

The Lead Member proposed an additional recommendation that the Leader of the Council be asked to write to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to highlight the council’s concerns.

The Principal Member highlighted that the services of a Crown Post Office included identity and licence checks, document checks and services for drivers such as photocard renewal. It had yet to be discovered how far Maidenhead residents would have to travel for these services if lost in the High Street. She highlighted the e-petition that was currently open for signatures (http://petitions.rbwm.gov.uk/Post-Office/) and the opportunity for residents to contact the Post Office with their views on comments@postoffice.co.uk.

The Lead Member explained that the upper levels of the building were offices, however the ground floor was leased to the Post Office Ltd. A franchisee operator would be unlikely to operate from the same location. The Communication Workers Union had written to the Lead Member to express their concerns about access for the elderly or disabled at any new location.

Councillor Brimacombe urged the Post Office to be more transparent; it had not made information available to the council in relation to the reasons for its proposal.

The Principal Member highlighted that the regeneration of the town would increase activity in the town centre and she therefore found it a bizarre decision by the Post Office.

The Leader agreed to write to the Secretary of State to highlight the issues of concern about location, service and transparency. As the Post Office was owned by the government it was important the public was aware of what was happening with public assets. The council would publicise the letter. He had already written directly to the Post Office, as had the local MP.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet agrees:

i.    Post Office Ltd should be requested to provide assurances that the level and quality of existing services available to the local residents and businesses of Maidenhead will not be reduced.

ii.   Post Office Ltd should be requested to outline what would happen in the event that a franchise partner could not be found.

iii.                   That the Council publicises the opportunities available to residents and businesses to express their views on the proposed planned changes to the branch.

iv.                   That the Leader of the Council be asked to write to the Secretary of State for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

Members considered recommendations to Full Council in relation to the budget for 2016/17.

Cabinet was addressed by Graham Cribbin. Mr Cribbin explained that he and Mr Perez had started the Wraysbury Speed Watch group to enable residents to converse on any speeding issues they or their families had experienced. Over the past year the group had grown to 250 members, with many mentioning Wraysbury Station bridge as one of the key concerns. The group was aware of one fatality on the bridge and also one life-changing injury. A site visit had been held in January 2016 with South West Trains, National Rail, the borough, Ward Councillor John Lenton and Parish Council Chairman Margaret Lenton. The group had walked across the bridge and reached the top when two buses had met; all had had to lean back onto the collapsed fence to avoid being hit. The lack of pathway meant those using wheelchairs or pushchairs had no access to the station or village shops. Further site meetings had taken place and a feasibility study and safety plan had been developed that would cost £80,000. The online and hard copy petition had attracted 2250 signatures, 70-80% of which were local residents.

Cabinet was addressed by Henry Perez. Mr Perez explained that safety concerns relating to bridge access had been experienced by residents for over 20 years. In its current state the bridge was unsafe and not fit for purpose for pedestrian traffic. The population of Wraysbury and the number of station users had increased in recent years to an estimated 112,000 in 2014. Safety issues arose for both pedestrians and drivers. At present there was a footpath either side but it stopped at the foot of the bridge. The situation contravened the Highway Code for pedestrians and fell short of good practice guidelines for those with disabilities. Mr Perez had addressed the recent Highways, Transport and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel, which had recommended to Council that funding be found for the works.

The Lead Member thanked the public speakers and commented that if the cost was £80,000 for a fully developed scheme, this was a modest sum in the context of the council’s £25m capital programme. He had not seen a design or costings for the scheme and would like to do so as soon as possible. In this situation it was usual for the relevant Lead Member to bring forward a proposal.

The Lead Member introduced the budget by explaining that it had been set against the context of a challenging environment for the country’s finances. The council had to do what it was asked of by central government to help reduce the national deficit. There would be a very significant reduction in the grant funding for local authorities over the next four years, which had significantly exceeded the projections of the borough and other councils. At the same time there was a need to invest in services to protect the most vulnerable.

The council proposed to freeze council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

Members considered recommendations from the Grants Panel for council funding of local organisations in 2016/17. Members agreed that the decisions should be minuted in Part I.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the recommendations of the Grants Panel as detailed below be approved, and the decision be minuted in Part I:

RBWM / '3' GRASSROOTS FUNDING

i)             That the applications listed below for the allocation of RBWM / ‘3’ Grassroots Funding be approved and the decisions be minuted in Part I following Cabinet’s agreement of the budget –

* The Panel agreed that Family Friends in Windsor and Maidenhead should not be awarded any funding from the RBWM/3 Fund as they had also applied for and were recommended to receive funding from the Royal Borough Revenue Grants scheme. Members agreed the £3,000 originally allocated to Family Friends in Windsor and Maidenhead should be redistributed between the other 8 applicants. Members agreed to delegate authority to the Chairman and Vice Chairman to agree the re-allocation with Claire Tyrrell of BCF. 28/1/16 - Chairman and Vice Chairman agreed revised figures above.

</AI5>

<AI6>

COUNCIL FUNDING FOR LOCAL ORGANISATIONS 2016/17

i)  The grants as detailed below be approved, subject to:-

a)      The approval of the budget.

b)      The organisations receiving Capital Grants obtaining any requisite planning or building regulations consents and producing copies of audited accounts and evidence of the availability of finance for the remainder of the schemes.

c)      The organisations receiving Kidwells Trust Grants:-

i)     Providing suitable acknowledgement for the grant assistance in all publicity material.

ii)    Ensuring that there is adequate insurance cover for items purchased with grant assistance.  Continuing to look for other forms of sponsorship for special events.

d)      Organisations in receipt of Revenue and SLA Grants being required to complete an Annual Return Form which should demonstrate written evidence that the money had been spent according to their application and to identify the specific outcomes achieved as a result of the grant awarded.

e)      Organisations should, wherever possible, seek funding from other sources to ensure that they were not solely reliant on funding through the Royal Borough and it be noted that those organisations would not necessarily be automatically awarded funding year on year.

ii) That the following decisions be minuted in Part I following Cabinet’s agreement of the budget:

Revenue Grants

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 7-8 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 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 6-8 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 of Cabinet held on 28 January 2016

To note the Part II minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Local Authority Governors Appointments Sub Committee held on 28 January 2016