To receive any apologies for absence

Councillors Haseler and McWilliams attended virtually, therefore took no part in the voting on any item.

To receive any declarations of interest

None

To consider the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 25 August 2022.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 25 August 2022 be approved, subject to the following amendment:

Item G to read:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet notes the report and:

i) Notes the risk in relation to the grant of planning consent

ii) Approves the option to sell Cedar Tree House (option C) as a family dwelling for best market consideration, and to consider the option to sell as three flats.

None

To consider the Forward Plan for the period October 2022 to January 2023.

Cabinet noted the Forward Plan for the next four months including the following additional changes:

·       The item ‘Budget Implications of Replacement Adult Social Care Case Management System’ would be considered by the Cabinet Transformation Sub Committee on 7 November 2022.

·       The item ‘School Place Planning Annual Report’ would be deferred from October 2022 to December 2022.

To consider the referral from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Members considered a referral from the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel to reconsider the decision taken at the Cabinet meeting held on 25 August 2022. The Chairman explained that the O&S Panel had requested further clarity on Cabinet’s agreed option to dispose of the property at market value.  Earlier in the meeting, Cabinet had agreed to amend the minutes from the August meeting, to include reference to the option to consider selling the property for conversion into three flats alongside the agreed option to sell as a single dwelling. Whichever option offered best value would be pursued.

Karin Falkentoft, a registered public speaker, stated that she did not wish to address Cabinet, given the recommendation was still to sell the property.

Councillor Hilton commented that costs were increasing therefore it was the right decision to sell as a refurbished single dwelling.

Cabinet agreed to reconfirm the decision taken at August Cabinet as below:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet notes the report and:

i)               Notes the risk in relation to the grant of planning consent

ii)             Approves the option to sell Cedar Tree House (option C) as a family dwelling for best market consideration, and to consider the option to sell as three flats.

Cabinet considered a petition requesting a reduction in the speed limit on London Road, Ascot. Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport, explained that in October 2021 a petition with 174 signatures had been submitted by local residents to request that the existing speed limit on the A329 London Road, Ascot was reduced from its current 40mph to 30mph between the junctions with Cheapside Road and Sunninghill Road.

A speedsurvey wascarried outin December2021 whichshowed that85% of the vehicles travelling east, towards Virginia Water, were travelling at a speed of 38mph or less. The corresponding speed for westbound, towards Ascot, trafficwas36.2mphorless.Althoughtherewereanumberofvehiclesthat were exceeding thespeedlimit,thiswouldindicatethatthecurrent40mphspeed limit was correctly set for the road and the majority of drivers were obeying it.

Councillor Haseler explained that LondonRoad, Ascotbetween thejunction withCheapside andSunninghill Road,wasruralinappearancewithfewhousesandfrontages.ItwasanAclassroad and carried between 6500 – 7000 vehicles in either direction each day, thereby providing through route options for a large number of residents and visitors. The 40mphspeedlimitprovideda linkto thenewlyreducedspeed limit,from50mph to 40mph, on the Virginia Water side of Sunninghill Road that now ran along the A329 London Road to the Surrey County Council boundary.

Members noted the collision history for the road as detailed in paragraph 2.5 of the report. Councillor Haseler highlighted that there was little commonality in the incidents and speed had been a contributory factor in only one. Inlightofthesaferecordofthe road and thecomplianceofdrivers,itwasconsideredthattheroadwas safeat thecurrent speed limit and that no further action should be taken. Councillor Haseler commented that he had undertaken a site visit and considered the issue in light of his professional career in the police as a collision investigator. He believed a 40mph limit was fair and reasonable for the road.

As Councillor Haseler was in attendance virtually, the recommendation was proposed by Councillor Johnson. Councillor Hilton seconded the proposal.

Kate Valance, lead petitioner, addressed the Cabinet. Photographs of a recent collision on the road were circulated to Members of Cabinet.

Kate Vallance stated that she wished to appeal the decision not to reduce the speed limit. The report said that 85% of vehicles were travelling at less than 40mph, but this was not her experience. She could only conclude that drivers slowed down when they saw the speed check survey board. It had been stated that 40mph would be in line with driver expectations, but she felt that safety should be the priority. The section of the London Road was narrow with zigzag  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

Cabinet considered approval of the Cookham Village Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA).

Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport, Planning and Parking, explained that the CAA described the important features and characteristics of the area and would be used in determining planning applications. It was part of a long-term project to review all existing CAAs in the borough and complete ones for new areas.

A CAA identified specific buildings of architectural or historical interest, defined the Conservation Area boundary, increased public awareness of the need for preservation, and provided a framework to inform planning decisions.

The Cookham Village CAA included a five-year management plan which summarised the actions the council would take to ensure the area was preserved or enhanced. A public consultation had been undertaken to inform the CAA, including letters to all properties in the area and public meetings. There had been strong local support for the CAA. Once adopted, the CAA would replace the previous 2002 appraisal. Councillor Clark, ward councillor, had written to Councillor Haseler to say he was delighted with the updated CAA and residents had been grateful for the opportunity to help shape the document through the consultation process.

As Councillor Haseler was in attendance virtually, the proposal was recommended by Councillor Johnson. Councillor Coppinger seconded the proposal.

Councillor Rayner stated that she fully supported the proposal. The borough had an incredible wealth of heritage and culture, and anything done to preserve and enhance it should be applauded.

Councillor Hilton commented it was an excellent document that would protect the area. There were a few more areas in the borough that could benefit from Conservation Area status.

Councillor Stimson commented that she supported the proposal. As work was undertaken to retrofit old buildings to make them more comfortable to live in, the CAA would ensure the heritage and appearance of the area was preserved.

Councillor Coppinger commented that two areas in his ward had benefited from Conservation Area status. He was delighted the area covered in Cookham was being expanded.

Councillor Brar commented that she was very pleased with the proposal. Cookham was a unique place. She had been disappointed that the Railway Cottages on Station Road and High Road were not included and asked if there was any opportunity for them to be added at a later stage.

It was confirmed that there was a five-year review period foe the CAA therefore other areas could be included in future.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet notes the report and:

i)           Agrees the revised conservation area appraisal document and notes the change of name of the conservation area from the Cookham High Street Conservation Area to the Cookham Village Conservation Area.

ii)          Agrees the revised boundary of the conservation area to encompass the additional areas identified as part of the boundary review and their publication in the London Gazette and one local paper as required under Section 70 (5) and (8) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

iii)        Agrees that all addresses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

Cabinet considered the 2022/23 Month 4 Budget Monitoring Report.

Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Asset Management & Commercialisation, Finance, & Ascot reported an adverse movement of £303,000 from Month 2 which moved the year end forecast to an overspend of £2.108m. This reduced to £333,000 after taking into account unused contingency.

Adult social care was forecasting an overspend of £376,000 which was the outcome of a number of movements. Paragraph 4.3 stated that £2.15m of earmarked reserves and Better Care Fund had been used to manage the overspend along with £750,000 of contingency that was included in the budget for demographic growth. In real terms this was an overspend of £3.276m. Appendix G included a table on social care client numbers which provided an explanation. There were 143 more older people in residential and care homes than the 619 included in the budget; an increase of 23% which, assuming an average cost of placements, would predicate a £4.6m overspend.

During the pandemic hospitals were provided funds to support early discharge and they used these funds to moved patients from hospital to care homes. The usual protocol was to use reablement to help patients re-establish their lives in their own homes. The unintended consequence of early discharge was that older people had been admitted to care or residential settings earlier than they might have been, and few returned to their homes but stayed longer in a residential setting, significantly increasing care costs. Optalis were now better managing the process, but it showed the unintended consequences of some actions taken during the pandemic.

The increase in budget for Director & Support expenditure related to the Homes for Ukrainians scheme where the council has received £1.876m for guests arriving in quarter 1, of which £1.1m was committed. Some of the balance was likely to be used on temporary accommodation. Councillor Hilton knew of one host in the south of the Borough who wished the family staying with him to leave in October.

In Housing, income from Hackney Carriage and street performing licenses was down by £140,000 and temporary accommodation was forecasting an overspend of £93,000 to be funded by the homelessness prevention grant. There was concern that the recent increase in the cost of living would impact on numbers.

Children’s services showed an overspend of £649,000, which was driven by the impact of the Children’s National Transfer scheme for unaccompanied asylum seekers where the council would receive 15 more children to bring it up to the 0.07% quota, but the quota was set to increase to 0.1% and push up costs further. Legal services were overspent by £241,000 and the difficulty in recruiting to permanent positions had increased agency staff costs to £260,000.

To manage the Dedicated Schools Grant deficit of £2.467m, apart from the Deficit Management Plan, Achieving for Children was participating in the DfE Delivering Better Value in SEND support programme.

Covid continued to impact on the Place directorate, which, despite support from the Covid reserve, was forecasting an overspend of £1.186m, most of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7c

Cabinet considered the RBWM Domestic Abuse Strategy 2022-24. Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health, Mental Health & Transformation stated that he was pleased to bring the update to Cabinet. Although the report was only for noting, he had brought it to Cabinet because of the absolute importance of the issues. The strategy built on the work of the previous 2012-2020 strategy. It renewed the commitment to build on achievements, maintain and improve best practice and develop services for anyone experiencing domestic abuse in the borough. Councillor Carroll paid tribute to the DASH charity which provided key services across the borough.

Members noted that strategy had been developed around four priorities, closely aligned with those in the Government’s Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan(March 2022):

1.    Prevention and early intervention

2.    Provision of services

3.    Pursuing perpetrators

4.    Working in partnership

It also linked to a number of other key local and regional strategies and action plans including:

·     Thames Valley Police & Criminal Justice Plan 2021-2025 (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner - OPCC)

·     Thames Valley Police Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2022-2023

·     RBWM Community Safety Plan 2021-24

·     RBWM Safeguarding Partnership Strategy 2022-25

·     RBWM Domestic Abuse Safe Accommodation Strategy 2021-24

·     Thames Valley Police Strategic Plan 2021-2022

·     Berkshire Suicide Prevention Strategy 2021-2026

Councillor Carroll concluded that sadly, due to the pandemic, the incidence of domestic abuse had increased and therefore the council must redouble its efforts to ensure victims were protected, and work harder to provide prevention and intervention services.

Councillor Johnson seconded the proposal, highlighting that bringing the report to Cabinet demonstrated a powerful intent.

Councillor Stimson endorsed the strategy. The DASH charity was soon moving premises to ensure it was as comfortable as possible for victims to access services.

Councillor Rayner highlighted the partnership working with Street Angels and Project Vigilance. Councillor Cannon highlighted partnership working with the Community Safety Partnership and the Police and Crime Commissioner.  

Councillor Del Campo welcomed the report. She commented that she understood the strategy was a living document and therefore made a number of suggestions. It was encouraging to see in the EQIA that work was being done to see how different groups experienced the situation and how they accessed support, however she did not feel that the issues of disadvantage had been specifically addressed in the main body of the report. She was glad to see support for perpetrators was included as this was essential to prevention. However, she asked if the scheme was available to those outside of a setting involving children. She would also like to see more information, including the link to mental health, drug and alcohol abuse and multi-agency support.

The Safe Accommodation Strategy identified a number of gaps in the service around refuge support, tailored support for protected characteristics, lack of data on victims’ socio-economic status, and the movement of victims between authorities. Her own experience helping residents was that the strategy was not always consistently applied. Councillor del Campo suggested that delivery of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7d

Cabinet considered the Tivoli Contract for Grounds Maintenance.

Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead, explained that the council was judged by its residents across a wide range of issues. He was responsible for possibly the two most visible: Waste and recycling and grounds maintenance.  In partnership with SERCO, the borough now had one of the best waste and recycling operations in the country. The contract with Tivoli for grounds maintenance now needed the same level of attention that had been given to SERCO.

Grounds maintenance included a wide range of services:  Grass cut regularly, hedges and shrubs maintained, cemeteries and burials, litter and dog waste bins, parks, open spaces and sports pitches.

Last year the contract was not operating to the standard the council and residents required and both parties issued a Notice of Dispute which highlighted two areas: inaccurate bills of quantity and a failure to follow the variation process.

Quite rightly, Overview and Scrutiny had asked that Tivoli attend a meeting to explain themselves and state what action they would take. One of the key issues for Tivoli was cost escalation, together with shortages of labour and equipment shortages. This did not apply solely to them but to all companies operating in the sector. The meeting was constructive but with a lot to do by both parties.

At this stage the council had two choices: end the contract and go out to tender, or work with the supplier to find a solution. The council decided to do the latter as it would give the lowest risk and avoid a very steep rise in fees. Officers had worked very closely with Tivoli over the last 12 months and explored a range of options both on improving the service and other ways of achieving the desired result. Service had improved and was now at or above the target, and there have been no formal complaints as at the end of July. Councillor Coppinger accepted that there were still issues but given the weather conditions earlier in the year this was not surprising. He highlighted the amazing work that had been done by Tivoli and council officers to ensure Windsor looked pristine during the recent events surrounding the state funeral.

Officers now accepted that in order to meet the original contract specification would cost an additional £200,000 per annum. However, to offset this there were a number of initiatives that had been identified and that officers were following up, including:

·       Options for the provision of pets corner on Ray Mill Island. Councillor Coppinger was not saying it would close but there were many ideas that would raise income.

·       A number of functions were duplicated with other contracts, could they be combined

·       A revision of the KPIs to better match the requirements and with new indicators around a number of areas

·       A joint project on mapping highway verges to ensure that all had the appropriate maintenance regimes. This would also give the opportunity to consider biodiversity improvements and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7e

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 9-11 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 the grounds that the items 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 25 August 2022

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 25 August 2022 be approved.

Cabinet noted the Part II appendices to the earlier Part I report.

Cabinet noted the Part II appendices to the earlier Part I report.