To receive any apologies for absence

There were no apologies received. (Cllr Carroll later gave apologies for the Part II meeting)

To receive any declarations of interest

None received.

To consider the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2020.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2020 were approved.

None

To consider the Forward Plan for the period December 2020 to March 2021

Cabinet considered the contents of the Forward Plan for the next four months and noted the changes made since last published, including:

·         Siena Court moving from December to January 2021 Cabinet.

·         St Clouds Way, Maidenhead, Site Proposals was proposed to go to December 2020 Cabinet.

Cabinet considered the report that set out the latest financial position of the Council in respect of the 2020/21 financial year at the end of Month 6.

The Chairman informed Cabinet that Mr Andrew Hill had registered to speak on this item and asked him to address the meeting.

Mr Hill mentioned the projected increase in general reserves and asked the Lead Member for Finance what the projection was for the following financial year.

The Lead Member for Finance and Ascot informed Cabinet that the finance update provided a narrative of financial activity in the Council.  He proposed to present the highlights of the report as further detail could be found within the report if required.

Cabinet were informed that paragraph 4.2 of the report informed that, excluding the impact of COVID-19, we would be reporting a favourable variance of £4.5 million, an increase of £1.66M from last month. This supported the statement made in the revised MTFS published in October which states, The Council approved a robust budget in February 2020, which would have stabilised the Council’s financial position.

The Lead Member asked what had changed to get such a turnaround and informed that  about a year ago this administration changed, the new leader had acted upon all the recommendations in the CIPFA Finance and Governance report He recruited a Director of Resources and Head of Finance to increase the capacity and capability of the finance team and re-established the administration’s financial competence.

The report forecasts the Council’s financial outturn based upon assumptions that are changed as we move through the year and circumstances change.  He highlight two services; forecasts on parking income had proven to be optimistic and in the light of income to date and the current lockdown, additional losses of £2.348M were forecast. For homelessness, unfortunately the number of residents requiring support continued to rise and the projected outturn was nearly 3 times the approved budget. He mentioning that the emerging homelessness strategy offered some solutions to this social problem that was so harmful to the families affected.

Cabinet were also informed that  the first Sales / Fees and Charges compensation return had been made to the MCHLG.  This amounted to just over £2.4M for the period from April to July 2020 and a further £3.4M was included in the report for the period July to March 2021. Under the rules the council could claim just over 71% of losses but nothing for income from commercial properties. However, when these sums were included in the non -service expenditure, at the end of month 6 we report a positive variance of £3.125M. This would be transferred to general reserves which increased to £9.138 million, nearly £2.8M above the minimum.

The Lead Member went on to say that a revised MTFS was presented to Council in October 2020. Based on the assumptions made the paper indicates a that for 2021/22 there would be a £8.4m gap between income and expenditure, 10% of current service expenditure. This was driven  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

Cabinet considered the report regarding the adoption of a new parking strategy which would replace the previous strategy and supporting policies.

The Chairman informed Cabinet that Mr Andrew Hill had registered to speak on this item and asked him to address the meeting.

Mr Hill mentioned that he had participated in the BLP meetings and in the meeting about parking he got the impression that RBWM had said that there was an imminent revision of the 2004 parking standards, however this report at paragraph 2.4 stated that there would only be a review at an appropriate point.  When is this appropriate point.  He also mentioned that the latest Nicolson’s Broadway car park proposals included a viability report that stated that the land value did not include the car park, why was this asset not included.  He also questioned the cost of the proposed increase of 98 parking spaces across the borough to alleviate the loss of spaces, referring to the proposed cost of the Vicus way car park.

Mr Hill was informed that as Nicholson’s was a live planning application there would not be any comment on this.  With regards to his other points the Director of Place said he would provide a written response.

The Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking informed Cabinet that before he introduces the report he wished to say that during this current climate it was important to assist businesses and residents so there would be free Christmas parking on certain days in most of our town centre council run car parks in the run-up to Christmas, to help support local businesses and rejuvenate the high street.

Free parking would be on Wednesdays from 3pm in both Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough town centre council car parks on 9, 16 and 23 December. It would also be free on Sundays in Windsor on 6, 13 and 20 December. Maidenhead was already free on Sundays.

The Lead Member informed that the report was about the adoption of a new parking strategy which replaces the previous strategy and supporting policies, for example: enforcement strategy, which have been refreshed. In addition, it brought together a number of existing policies and practices into one document.

The strategy recognised and sought to balance the impact and influence of parking in terms of ‘Place’ making; commerciality and supporting the Climate Change strategy.  With regards to the Climate Strategy it was noted that there had been a typing error and the target year was 2050 and not 2040.  It was also noted that in the recommendation it should say policy and not police.

The strategy was designed to provide a framework for decision making; policy making; guide financial decisions and help to prioritise and deliver activity in a co-ordinated manner which brings improvements to customers.

During 2021, the council would be developing a strategy focussed on opportunity and innovation. The parking strategy promotes the future use of innovative technology (for example: wireless charging and ‘Green’ projects) and seeks to support economic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

Cabinet considered the report regarding the approval for the implementation of the preferred early help model of the integrated Family Hub Service.

The Chairman informed Cabinet that Mr Andrew Hill had registered to speak on this item and asked him to address the meeting.

Mr Hill said that the paper mentioned the Maidenhead Community Centre and the Marlow Road Youth Centre whose futures were linked.  The report said that legal advice had been sought on the Child Care Act but he was concerned if this advice had been taken before or after the decision was made to move the youth centre.  Lots of people valued the youth centre as shown in the report.  He said in the consultation question 25 was to retain the centre as a family hub, you consulted to retain but are now proposing to remove it.  He felt that would require a separate consultation. He also questioned what were the limitations of both being on the same site.

The Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health informed Cabinet that the Family Hub Service would bring together a range of services that would focus provision on targeted support to our most vulnerable children, young people and families. The aim of the remodelling was to strengthen support for those families that most need it and in doing so reduce the demand for statutory intervention. It was designed to give better outcomes to those that need support.

As part of the approval we were seeking a decision about the retention or closure of specific children’s centres and youth centres and the resulting lease arrangements for those spaces.  The decision will result in a significant restructure of the roles required to deliver the new service.  The final proposals were based on an initial 12 week public consultation that took place January to March 2020 and a further eight week public consultation from July to September 2020. The feedback received is summarised in this report and has shaped the final proposed model.  He thanked everyone who took part in the consultation. 

The preferred model is to bring together services being run by children’s centres, youth centres, the parenting service, health visitors, school nurses and the family resilience service so that residents can get all the help they need from one Family Hub.  The preferred model was to establish two main Family Hubs, one in Windsor and one in Maidenhead. In addition, there would be a number of sub-venues across both Windsor and Maidenhead. Children’s centre services and youth services will be delivered from these venues, other community venues, in people’s homes and via other outreach in the community.  The model was based on best practice from the Government.  It was important to have flexibility to meet demands and requirements of young people.

The Director for Children’s Services informed that the rational for the proposals had been through Cabinet previously.  With regards to the planned sites when looking at them it became clear that each site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

Cabinet considered the report regarding the mid-year performance report.

The Deputy Leader of the Council, Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor informed Cabinet that the Council Plan 2017-21 remained current up to 30 July 2020 when Cabinet approved an Interim Council Strategy 2020/21 for immediate adoption on the basis that the Covid-19 pandemic had significantly altered the context in which the council was currently operating.

Table 2 of the report showed that 9 reported targets were showing as one target, 6 near target and 4 off target.  There has also been other successes such as the completion of the Braywick LC, the Climate Change Strategy, keeping our residents safe, the library service and the modern workforce project.

There had been issues with the new waste contract that was now stabilising and due to the pandemic there had been on temporary accommodation and care leavers finding employment.

Resolved unanimously: that  Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Notes the Mid-Year Performance Report in Appendix A.

ii)         Requests relevant Lead Members, Directors and Heads of Service to maintain focus on performance.

Cabinet considered the report regarding the Annual Report and Audited Accounts for 2019-2020 (for the year ended 31 March 2020) for RBWM Property Company

The Chairman informed Cabinet that Mr Andrew Hill had registered to speak on this item and asked him to address the meeting.

Mr Hill said that the company had evolved over time from when it had first been established.  When set up it was given properties in York Road and had to return interest payments.  He asked why the minutes of the company were not public as they used to be.  Could the company be more transparent.  Could we see minutes or hold public meetings due to how close it is to the council and represents the council on major development schemes.  He asked what the process of transferring properties to the company.  As it grows the public need to Know what it is doing.

The Leader of the Council and Chairman of Cabinet, Business, Economic Development and Property informed Cabinet that the company had had an excellent year in its growth and the quality of services provided to the council.  The company has support the transformation programme.

Barbara Richardson, Executive Director RBWM Property Company, informed Cabinet that the only assets that transfer into the company are residential assets.  The council’s commercial portfolio remained within the council.  The York Road flats were transferred for private rented units with a loan on them as a profit making process, the loan is still on the accounts.  Since then assets have been transferred for repurposing and used for affordable housing.  There was currently only 13 assets.  With regards to minutes and Board meeting the company was independent and a private registered company so we do not have the same rules that the council has.  However nearly all items discussed come to Cabinet. 

The Chairman mentioned that the Council was not in a position that Croydon found itself in.  Every investment made was based on sound financial planning.

Cllr Baldwin raised a question of one of the Non-Executive Directors by name asking about his connections with the Shanley property company and if this had been declared.  He asked if the Leader was aware of this as many of the residents would see this as a conflict of interest.  The Managing Director informed that if Cabinet were going to discuss an individual this needed to be in Part II.

Cllr Baldwin mentioned that this information was in the public domain but the Chairman said that he was questioning an individual who was not at the meeting and thus had no right of reply about a perceived conflict of interest.  

Resolved unanimously:  that Cabinet notes the report and the Annual Report and Financial Statements for RBWM Property Company for 2019-2020 (the year ended 31 March 2020).

Cabinet considered the report regarding school admission arrangements and co-ordinated admissions scheme for 2022/23.

The Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health informed Cabinet that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead was the admissions authority for community and voluntary controlled schools in the borough and set out the admissions arrangements for these schools. 

The Local Authority also had a statutory duty to formulate a scheme to coordinate admission arrangements for all publicly funded schools within their area for phase transfer, e.g. primary to secondary school, and publish it on the website by 1 January 2021. This report recommended a revision to the co-ordinated admissions scheme to introduce a deadline by which a late application must be received for consideration in the second round of allocations.

The report sought approval to consult with other admission authorities and local authorities on the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Co-ordinated Admissions Scheme including the proposed change.  Following the consultation, it seeks delegation to the Director of Children’s Services, in consultation with the Lead Member, to approve the revised arrangements, having taken into account any views arising from the consultation.

Resolved unanimously: that Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Approves, and thereby determines, the RBWM Admission Arrangements for 2022/23 as set out at Appendix A.

ii)         Approves consultation on the RBWM Co-ordinated Admissions scheme for 2022/23 as set out at Appendix B.

iii)       Delegates authority to the Director of Children’s Services in consultation with the Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children Services, Health and Mental Health to approve, and thereby determine, the RBWM Co-ordinated Admissions scheme for 2022/23 set out at Appendix B.

Cabinet considered the report regarding the request for relocation of Maidenhead United Football Club

The Chairman informed Cabinet that Mr Andrew Hill had registered to speak on this item and asked him to address the meeting.

Mr Hill mentioned that the BLP meetings did discuss Braywick Park and the issue of Forest Bridge School and the football club was raised.  He felt that the location was still not known to the public and asked why we had not been told.

The Leader of the Council and Chairman of Cabinet, Business, Economic Development and Property informed Cabinet that any move was still subject to the planning process.  The report had been discussed at the Corporate O&S Panel and he thanked Member of the Panel for their input.  The paper was an approval in principal subject to subject to an s.123 report, planning consent and a detail consultation exercise.  This is driven by the football club and when they are ready to proceed all the relevant details will be made available.

The Deputy Leader of the Council, Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor said she supported the paper and the club moving would complement the Braywick LC and create a wonderful sport hub.

Cllr Singh said that this had been in his ward for 150 years but they had been looking for a new home.  This will help the club, however he was concerned about the number of facilities being put into the park and on busy days the impact on transport.

Cllr Price mentioned that on page 542 under sustainability that consideration should be made about the existing nature reserve and any noise from the club and any associated activities.  The Chairman mentioned that this would be considered in the planning process that the club would have to address. This paper was to progress to the next stage they still had a lot of hard work to do.

Resolved unanimously:  that Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Approves the release of land identified at appendix B, subject to planning for £460,000 as recommended in the s.123 report.

ii)         Delegates authority to Executive Director of Place, to undertake the statutory procedure required under Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 as required and negotiate draft agreement for lease, for 999 years at a peppercorn rent.

Cabinet considered the report regarding the properties known as 18-20 Ray Mill Road East, Maidenhead.

The Leader of the Council and Chairman of Cabinet, Business, Economic Development and Property informed that this was a good example how the RBWM Property Company and operational services have worked closely together to identify an underutilised asset which could either been disposed of for a capital receipt or be used differently for in this instance helping with affordable housing.

Resolved unanimously: that Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Approves the investment report at appendix A.

ii)         Recommends the relocation of Family Centre to Pinkneys Green Community Centre, in line with the family hub consultation process.

iii)       Recommends that Council approves a capital budget of £272,500 for the project. 

iv)       Approves the transfer of 20 Ray Mill Road East, once completed to RBWM Property Co Ltd, for use as affordable housing.

v)         Approves the disposal of 18 Ray Mill Road East, by way of an open market bidding process.

vi)       Delegate’s authority to the Executive Director of Place in consultation with the Lead Member for Business, Economic Development and Property to progress the project.

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 8-9 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) od the Local Government Act 1972, the public were excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion took place on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the Part II minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 29 October 2020.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2020 were approved.