To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brimacombe, Cox, D. Evans, L. Evans, Kellaway, McWilliams, Pryer, Smith and Targowska.

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 11 December 2018 and the Extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 28 January 2019.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             The Part I minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2018 be approved.

ii)            The minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 28 January 2019 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Sharma declared a personal interest in the item ‘Budget Report 2019/20’ as he worked for the First Group.

Councillors Dudley, Love, Saunders and S Rayner declared personal interests in the item ‘Petition for Debate – Maidenhead Golf Course Blanket TPO’ as Directors (non-remunerated) of the Joint Venture with Cala Homes.

Councillor Diment declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate – Maidenhead Golf Course Blanket TPO’ as she was a member of the Golf Club. She left the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

Councillor Gilmore declared a prejudicial interest in the item ‘Motions on Notice’ as an employee of Airbus. He left the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

Councillors S Rayner and C Rayner declared prejudicial interests in the item ‘Motions on Notice’ as they owned land that would be affected by Heathrow. They left the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

To receive such communications as the Mayor may desire to place before the Council

The Mayor had submitted in writing details of engagements that the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last meeting, which were noted by Council.

An e-petition containing 1249 signatories was submitted to the Council on 9 February 2019. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be reported to, and debated at, a full Council meeting.

The petition reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to Place a Blanket Tree Preservation Order on the Maidenhead Golf Club development site.

http://petitions.rbwm.gov.uk/MheadGolfClub/

The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate such petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

Members debated the following petition:

‘We the undersigned petition the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to place a blanket Tree Preservation order on the Maidenhead Golf Club development site.’

Jenifer Jackson, Head of Planning, explained that the council was the landowner for the majority of the site. It was not usual practice for the council to make a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in respect of trees on its own land; as the council had control as landowner the risk was likely to be low. The council was committed to protecting trees, especially significant trees. The site was identified as a development site in the Borough Local Plan Submission Version, which was currently at examination. There was no reason to believe the trees on the site were currently at risk.

Equally it would not be good practice to impose a blanket order on the site with a view to preventing future development. The appropriate way forward would to be to work with the developer to ensure the protection of trees with amenity value through planning conditions. A blanket order would never protect every tree on site being removed through development or redevelopment of that site, due to the relevant considerations of amenity as set out in the report. The Head of Planning therefore advised a blanket TPO was not a valid mechanism to use to prevent development on a site, particularly when a site had been identified through a local statutory process as being potentially suitable for development. TPOs could be made on individual trees, on roots of trees, or on woodlands. The report set out details of relevant legislation and guidance.

Councillor Hill spoke as lead petitioner. He highlighted that the petition had gathered 1249 signatures. He thanked his fellow ward councillor, the residents who had gathered signatures and all those who had signed the petition. The local Desborough family had allowed the borough to acquire the land for use as open recreational land. Many walkers and dog walkers used the land which contained ancient woodland and wildlife. If the land was not a golf course it should be used for other recreational purposes. To do anything other than keep it intact was wilful destruction of the environment. If the development went ahead it would be against stated government policy. He quoted from the Daily Mail online 7 October 2018 in relation to the newspaper’s campaign to stop councils selling off land. The campaign had been supported by Secretary of state James Brokenshire. A recent report from UK Active had found that a quarter of boys and a fifth of girls did not complete 60 minutes of regular exercise per day. The health benefits of parks helped save the NHS £101m per year. The charity Fields Trust said that parks provided £34bn of health and social benefits.

Councillor Hill proposed the following motion:

i)             This Council places a blanket TPO on the whole of Maidenhead Golf club site that can’t be overruled by a planning condition.

ii)            This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

a)    Gavin Weeks of Castle Without ward, will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Regarding “no deal” Brexit preparation, Councillor Dudley was quoted in the Slough Express as saying: “The Government is going to release something in the region of 70 impact assessments. We will look for the commentary in those impact assessments.”  These assessments were published in early Autumn 2018. What preparations have been made by the council?

b)   Simon George of Clewer South ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Brexit and no-deal Brexit will affect businesses and residents, and consequently service demand on the council. Organisations reliant on EU workers or funding will be particularly exposed. What risks and service areas have you identified as being vulnerable to Brexit and to no-deal, and when will a report be available for scrutiny by Members and the public?

c) Lisette Stux of Bray ward will ask the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

Local government update: Written statement - HCWS1279 notes that each Unitary Authority will be given £210K for Brexit preparations by central government; £105K in current year and £105K in 2019/20. What have you spent this money on in 2018/19, and what will it be spent on in 2019/20, and where in the council budget is this noted?

d) Karen Davies of Park ward will ask the following question of Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Given that the government has forecast a downturn in the economy post Brexit, local businesses will be affected.  How will you support small businesses in the borough through this difficult period?

e) Lisette Stux of Bray ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health:

Bristol CC are preparing for impacts of “No Deal” on Social Care, including that: “Pressures on workforce and supply chain could lead to disruption to services. Including Impact on the timeliness /quality of care delivered and, increased wage demands putting contractors at risk.”  What mitigation is the council planning for EU27 residents who perform vital jobs, but are leaving?

f)     Gavin Weeks of Castle Without ward, will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Bristol CC and LB Enfield have identified risks “to achieve its housing delivery targets, and to manage/maintain our council stock.” Given the potential negative effect on property prices post Brexit, and the issues of availability of skilled labour, is it possible that some or all of the RBWM property ventures will become less lucrative?

g)   Simon George of Clewer South ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Pilot schemes demonstrate that some EU27 residents will struggle with the Settled Status application process, for varied reasons (including technology difficulties, age, disability).  Councils such as Southwark are offering support to these persons, while Southampton CC is offering passport scanning and verification. What  ...  view the full agenda text for item 94.

a)    Gavin Weeks of Castle Without ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Regarding “no deal” Brexit preparation, Councillor Dudley was quoted in the Slough Express as saying: “The Government is going to release something in the region of 70 impact assessments. We will look for the commentary in those impact assessments.”  These assessments were published in early Autumn 2018. What preparations have been made by the council?

Councillor Dudley responded that the council had:

·         designated a lead officer within the council to co-ordinate communication and provide oversight;

·         ensured Brexit had been the focus of specific corporate leadership team meetings and formed part of strategic planning for the year;

·         issued specific guidance for local government to relevant service leads and members of the council leadership team (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-government-brexit-preparedness) for awareness and, where appropriate, response;

·         co-ordinated closely with the council’s Joint Emergency Planning team and was responding and participating in the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum regional response;

·         and continued to focus on the issue at the CLT level with regular briefings scheduled on the issue to regularly review what remained a rapidly changing situation.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Weeks asked who was heading up the Brexit preparations task force at Member and officer level.

Councillor Dudley responded that ultimately he as Leader of the Council, along with the Managing Director, were responsible.

b)   Simon George of Clewer South ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Brexit and no-deal Brexit will affect businesses and residents, and consequently service demand on the council. Organisations reliant on EU workers or funding will be particularly exposed. What risks and service areas have you identified as being vulnerable to Brexit and to no-deal, and when will a report be available for scrutiny by Members and the public?

Councillor Dudley responded that the co-ordinated work with the Joint Emergency Planning Team and the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum, which formed the substantive part of the council’s preparations, were classified as Official Sensitive and therefore could not be made public.

Cabinet would be briefed on the updated position after the next Council Leadership Team meeting on 6 March 2019.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr George commented that for example, Bristol City Council had identified eight areas: finance and funding, civil contingencies, workforce, legal and regulatory, supply chain, housing, key operations and city economy. Will the council now look into these areas?

Councillor Dudley responded that the council was looking into the necessary areas in preparation for leaving the EU, and the Cabinet would be updated by the Corporate Leadership team and the Managing Director of any necessary actions.

c) Lisette Stux of Bray ward asked the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

Local government update: Written statement - HCWS1279 notes that each Unitary Authority will be given £210K for Brexit preparations by central government; £105K in current year and £105K in 2019/20. What have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

To receive any petitions presented by Members on behalf of registered electors for the Borough under Rule C.10.

(Any Member submitting a petition has up to 2 minutes to summarise its contents)

No petitions were received

To consider the above report

Members considered the Budget 2019/20.

Members noted that the following petition, with over 1000 signatures, had been received by the council on 21 February 2019

‘We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to censure the Cabinet and reject the proposed budget for 2019/20.’

David Knowles-Leake, lead petitioner, explained that the petition had originated before Christmas when members of UNISON had been presented with a council document that purported to have budget pressures or cuts in services of £9m, therefore a number of people were told their jobs were at risk. The figure subsequently reduced to £6.8m as the government provided a grant of approximately £2m for children’s services. Mr Knowles-Leake explained that he was Chairman of the local Labour Party. There had been a lot of support for the petition; at one point on a Saturday it was being signed by 200 people per hour.

Mr Knowles-Leake stated that in his view the proposed budget was not fit for purpose. It was important for what it did not say rather than what it did say. The budget was presented with cuts or savings of £6.8m and increased spending of £11.2m. In reality the overall increase in spending was just £0.9m. Despite the £2m government grant, council tax would increase by £1.9m and £3.5m was being added to reserves. Appendix O provided an analysis of risks. Mr Knowles-Leake commented that it was actually an analysis of uncertainty and assumed probability attached itself sensibly to the discussion of uncertainty. With percentages rounded off, three appropriate levels were given for reserves. At the bottom was £4m appropriate for one year. £5.8m was deemed appropriate for 18 months. £8.9m was deemed appropriate to cover all manner of risks. He asked why did reserves need to be set at £11.8m? What was the council not telling the public as to why such a high level was needed? What kind of problems were envisaged down the line? Were all the development projects going as well as they could? Was a negative result of the planning review expected? There were a lot of people who would like to look at the budget and take a different approach that related to the benefits of people, not property.

Councillor Saunders paid tribute to all of the Directors and Heads of Service from across the council, and their officer teams, for the diligent and professional manner in which they had worked with their respective Cabinet Lead Members, and to the expertise and devotion of the Head of Finance, the Senior Accountancy and Finance Ops Lead and the Finance Team to assemble the budget for next year.  It had been a truly collaborative effort and he saluted all of the officers and Members involved.

The budget proposed that base Council Tax would increase by 2.99% to £961.33 at Band D, remaining the lowest Band D Council Tax outside of London by some distance.  The Adult Social Care Levy was proposed to remain at £74.74 at Band D,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the council’s constitution, the Chairman called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 10.00pm.

Upon being put to the vote, those present voted in favour of the meeting continuing.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the meeting continue after 10.00pm to conclude the outstanding business on the Agenda.

The meeting adjourned at 10.54pm for a comfort break. The meeting resumed at 11.02pm.

To consider the above report

Members considered approval of the council’s Treasury Management Strategy.

It was proposed by Councillor Saunders, seconded by Councillor Dudley, and:

 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council:

i) Approves and adopts the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy.

The political balance and allocation of seats on the Standing Panels/Forums has been reviewed following the resignation of Councillor Sharma from the Conservative Group.

Councillor Sharma has joined the ‘Not the Administration’ (NTA) group. The resulting change in political balance means that five seats formerly held by the

Conservative Group are allocated to NTA.

Members are therefore requested to note the appointments made to fill the positions on the respective panels, and to consider one Vice Chairman appointment.

RECOMMENDATION: That full Council:

i)             Notes the following appointments:

·         Councillor Brimacombe (NTA) – Maidenhead Development Management Panel

·         Councillor Jones (NTA) – Windsor Rural Development Management Panel

·         Councillor Beer (NTA) – Windsor Urban Development Management Panel

·         Councillor Stretton (NTA) – Borough-wide Development Management Panel

ii)            Notes one vacancy (NTA) on the Licensing Panel

iii)          Appoints Councillor D. Wilson as Vice Chairman of the Maidenhead Town Forum for the remainder of the municipal year

Members noted that the political balance and allocation of seats on the Standing Panels/Forums had been reviewed following the resignation of Councillor Sharma from the Conservative Group.

Councillor Sharma has joined the ‘Not the Administration’ (NTA) group. The resulting change in political balance meant that five seats formerly held by the

Conservative Group were allocated to NTA.

Members noted that an updated version of the recommendations had been distributed.

 It was proposed by Councillor Dudley and:

REOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council:

i)            Notes the following appointments:

§  Councillor Brimacombe (NTA) – Maidenhead Development Management Panel

§  Councillor Jones (NTA) – Windsor Rural Development Management Panel

§  Councillor Beer (NTA) – Windsor Urban Development Management Panel

§  Councillor Stretton (NTA) – Borough-wide Development Management Panel

§  Councillor Sharma (NTA) – Licensing Panel

iii)         Appoints Councillor D. Wilson as Vice Chairman of the Maidenhead Town Forum for the remainder of the municipal yea

To consider the above report

Members considered the council programme of meetings for 2019/20.

Councillor Jones commented that as the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel would take on the work of the Audit and Performance Review Panel from May 2019 it would need more meetings than had been currently scheduled.  It was confirmed that each Overview and Scrutiny Panel would review their work programme at the first scheduled meeting of the municipal year in June 2019. Each Panel could therefore agree additional meetings if required.

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor Bicknell, and:

RESOLVED: That Full Councilnotes the report and:

i)     Approves the programme of meetings for the 2019/20 Municipal Year, attached as Appendix A.

Councillor Sharma abstained from the vote.

To consider the above report

Members considered the updated Pay Policy Statement for 2019/20.

Councillor Dudley introduced the report on behalf of Councillor Targowska. He asked the Managing Director to look into a report being produced in relation to the council’s gender pay gap.

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor Bicknell, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and:

i)   Approves the updated Pay Policy Statement for 2019/20 as recommended by the Employment and Member Services Panel.

ii)    Notes that further revisions will be required to the statement when the Government’s reforms to public sector exit pay arrangements are implemented.

To consider the above report

Members considered the updated Corporate Parenting Strategy.

Councillor N. Airey explained that there were 125 children in the care of councillors, as all Members were corporate parents. In addition there were 69 care leavers (between the ages of 19-25) who were in active contact with the borough. Looked after children were not the sole responsibility of children’s services. The borough as a whole was the corporate parent, and councillors had a key role to play. There were 62 girls and 63 boys in the council’s care.

Whilst an ugly term, corporate parenting was the technical term for the collective responsibility of the local authority and its partners to ensure the care and protection of children in care and care leavers. However many natural children a councillor had, they would have many more in terms of children in care.

Corporate parents must:

·         Act in the young person’s best interest and promote physical and mental wellbeing 

·         Promote the expression of wishes and feelings and giving the young person’s views 

·         Take into account their views, wishes and feelings 

·         Provide support with accessing the services needed 

·         Promote high aspirations 

·         Provide safety and stability their home lives, relationships and education, work and training 

·         Prepare young people for adulthood and independent living

Councillor N Airey commented that she was sure all would agree, this sounded like good, normal parenting. This was the point; councillors should always be asking 'is this what I would want or expect for my child?'.

The administration had taken a lead in promoting the wellbeing of children in care and care leavers, for example giving discretionary council tax relief to care leavers to age 25. The council wanted every child in care and care leaver from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to reach their full potential and be healthy, happy, safe and secure whilst feeling loved, valued and respected.

The new Corporate Parenting Strategy would build upon the Inclusion Charter. It set out what children in care in the borough could expect from the council and how they could engage with services. She thanked all those involved in developing the strategy. Councillor N. Airey was working with offices to ensure robust training would be in place for new and returning councillors.

Councillor N Airey encouraged councillors to attend a KICKBACK meeting. She also encouraged Members to read the letter that had been written by KICKBACK to all councillors in their capacity as corporate parents. She thanked KICKBACK for all their input. Members should read the documents and advocate the work as champions of children in care; no matter what role they sat in on the council, all Members were corporate parents.

Councillor Stretton commented that she had not received any training in this area in the eight years she had been a councillor therefore she welcomed the proposals for training of new and returning councillors. Councillor Dudley also welcomed the proposals.

Councillor Quick stated that she fully endorsed the recommendations as a member of the Corporate Parenting Forum. If  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

To consider the above report

Members considered member attendance statistics for the current term of office.

The Managing Director explained that the report highlighted the intention to better use the Modern.gov system in the next civic year, including a request that the annual report from the Employment and Member Standards Panel include details of member attendance. The report was being presented to Full Council now to enable any issues to be picked up in advance of the new municipal year. An example that had already been raised was to ensure that where the Mayor or Deputy Mayor sent apologies for a council meeting due to a mayoral engagement, this would be recorded as ‘apologies due to council business.’

Councillor Dudley proposed the recommendations in the report. He highlighted a number of councillors who had an attendance record of over 90%. He thanked Councillor Beer for all he had done as a Member; Councillor Beer would not be standing for re-election in May 2019. Councillor D. Wilson was the most hard-working councillor having attended 235 meetings with an attendance rate of 99%. The statistics were a useful tool to understand the efficiency of councillors. The inclusion of voting records in future would also be important.

Councillor Jones welcomed the transparency element relating to voting records. However there were many reasons councillors were unable to attend meetings including family holidays, caring for dependents and bereavement which she felt should be recorded.

Councillor E. Wilson commented that as council meetings were funded by the taxpayer, it was right that residents should know what councillors were up to. Councillor N. Airey highlighted that the maternity policy was now in place. Councillor Bicknell commented that with the reduction in the number of councillors from May 2019 and the volume of meetings, variances would occur. It was not about making excuses; people would understand that 100% could not always be reached as Members had families who would need to come first sometimes. However the statistics were useful to identify trends.

Councillor Saunders commented that he supported Councillor Bicknell’s comments. There had been about 10 meetings that he had not attended as he had not felt his mental health had been sufficiently strong. He did not feel that reasons for non-attendance needed to be detailed. Members had to honestly accept that if there were aspects of their life that affected their role as a Member, this was part of the package that people would be voting for. He was happy for absences to be shown without explanation.

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor Bicknell, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: ThatFull Council:

i)          Notes the Member attendance statistics for all councillors for the period 26 May 2015 – 8 February 2019 (Appendix A).

ii)         Requests the Employment and Member Standards Panel annual report to Full Council from 2019/20 to include details on Member attendance.

iii)          Requests officers to identify ways to expand the data available on the council website in relation to Member attendance, voting statistics and declarations of interest at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

a)    Councillor C. Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

I made a number of capital bids for the 2019/20 financial year for the ward that I represent (Horton and Wraysbury), however I believe all were unsuccessful. Do you think that the capital budget should be more evenly spread among the rural parishes?

b)   Councillor C. Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Further to a letter dated 18/1/19 from the Environment Agency to the borough in Wraysbury, what does the council now intend to do regarding the planning policy/local plan for this land in Hythe End, in light of the official advice from the statutory body?

c)    Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Why have numerous lamppost banners costing circa £22,000 been displayed across RBWM without advertising consent and without being submitted to the relevant planning panel?

d)   Councillor Cannon will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Please can you provide an update on the current position in respect of plans and their progress to address the current funding gap for the Environment Agency River Thames Scheme?

(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)    Councillor C. Rayner asked the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

I made a number of capital bids for the 2019/20 financial year for the ward that I represent (Horton and Wraysbury), however I believe all were unsuccessful. Do you think that the capital budget should be more evenly spread among the rural parishes?

Councillor Saunders responded that he agreed that capital budgets should be more evenly spread among the rural parishes.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C. Rayner asked if the Lead Member would write to Horton and Wraysbury Parish Council to give them hope for funding for the CCTV programme in the village.

Councillor Saunders responded that there were ongoing discussions in relation to CCTV in Horton and joint arrangements for funding were being looked at. He suggested that the relevant Lead Member, Councillor M. Airey, together with officers would be in a better position provide Councillor C Rayner with the information requested. Councillor M. Airey agreed that he would respond in writing to Councillor C. Rayner.

Councillor C. Rayner commented that he was still waiting for a response in writing from Councillor M. Airey to a question from a previous full Council meeting. Councillor M. Airey confirmed that a written response had been sent. Councillor C. Rayner commented that this was from a junior officer and he expected the response to come from the Lead Member. Councillor M. Airey commented that the response had come from the Head of Commissioning – Communities, who was not a junior officer. 

b)   Councillor C. Rayner asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Further to a letter dated 18/1/19 from the Environment Agency to the borough in Wraysbury, what does the council now intend to do regarding the planning policy/local plan for this land in Hythe End, in light of the official advice from the statutory body?

Councillor Coppinger responded that as the question related to a current planning application, he was limited in the response he could give. The letter referred to was the response from the Environment Agency as statutory consultee to a consultation on a planning application, it would not be appropriate for him to comment on that application specifically.  He noted that the Environment Agency had objected to the proposal as it comprised development in the functional flood plain (otherwise known as flood zone 3b). Each application was considered on its own merits.  The National Planning Policy Framework set strict tests to protect people and property from flooding which all local planning authorities were expected to follow. Where these tests were not met, national policy was clear that new development should not be allowed.

Councillor Lenton commented that residents in Wraysbury were just as concerned about CCTV as those in Horton. In relation to Hythe End, this had been a running sore ever since he had become a councillor and ever since the borough allowed the operations to start. It was not satisfactory to say  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

a)    By Councillor Dudley

The 6.5km Western Rail Link is an approximate £1.5 billion rail scheme (leaving the main line between Langley and Iver) between the Great Western Main Line and Heathrow Airport. This scheme would significantly reduce surface transport movements to the airport from Maidenhead and the west, and dramatically improve local rail transport infrastructure in conjunction with the Elizabeth Line. 

This Council:

i)             Has grave concerns about any expansion of Heathrow Airport with a third runway and the implications for air quality and the health of our residents.

ii)            Requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister, Theresa May MP and copy the Secretary of State for Transport, in support of the Western Rail Link being promoted by Network Rail.

Councillor Dudley introduced his motion. He explained that he had attended the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Western Link Railway in the House of Commons. The borough was not supporting the Windsor Link Railway. The real way to give western rail access to Heathrow was the proposed Western Rail Link, which had been worked on extensively by Network Rail. It would leave the main line between Langley and Iver and go up to Heathrow airport. It would significantly reduce surface transport movements to the airport from the west. It was expensive at a cost of £1.5bn but Councillor Dudley believed it would be of enormous benefit to residents. The borough continued to have grave concerns about the expansion of the airport. The judicial review would begin on 11 March 2019; the borough was a party to that action. The reduction in surface transport movements would help to reduce air pollution. The link was also a vital part of infrastructure for the town.

Councillor Hilton stated that Councillor Dudley was right to be concerned about air quality and the health and wellbeing of residents should the third runway proceed, but air quality was not the only issue. By far Heathrow was the biggest noise polluter in Europe, adversely affecting more than three times as many people as Frankfurt, and if a third runway was built 2 million people would be adversely affected.

Heathrow was undertaking a consultation on airspace design for a three-runway airport and an increase in 260,000 Air Traffic Movements a year. They proposed to use Performance Based Navigation (PBN) which would set aircraft on narrow flight paths and concentrate noise on the ground. Residents in Ascot and Sunningdale experienced this during the 2014 westerly departure trials which created public outrage. More than 1,100 people attended a meeting with Heathrow and the CAA at Ascot Racecourse and the trials which were scheduled to run for five months were abandoned after 10 weeks.

Councillor Hilton was a member of the Community Noise Group which had been meeting with Heathrow for four years. The group had spent time researching airports that had introduced PBN and all had led to unacceptable annoyance for communities around all the airports.

The government had said that annoyance started at 54 dBm, which was five times higher than that recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO suggested that aircraft noise above 45 dBm was associated with adverse health effects. If adopted the WHO recommendation would increase the disbenefits of a third runway at Heathrow by about £7 billion which would mean the net economic benefit would be negative.

Councillor Hilton urged everyone to go to the Heathrow consultation web site, put in their postcode and see if they would be impacted, and if so let Heathrow know their proposals were unacceptable.

Councillor Sharma explained that during the consultation in 2018 the following issues had emerged. He asked the Leader of the Council to raise these matters in his letter to the Prime Minister:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

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 18-19 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 18-19 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 receive the Part II minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 11 December 2018.

To receive the Part II appendix to the earlier Part I report.