Agenda and minutes

Venue: Guildhall, Windsor - Guildhall

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Items
No. Item

205.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Bhatti, Brimacombe, Burbage, Bullock, Clark, D. Evans, Hill, Love, Majeed, Pryer, Saunders, Sharp, Stretton, Targowska and Walters.

206.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 164 KB

To receive the Part I minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 26 September and 30 October 2017

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meetings held on 26 September and 30 October 2017 be approved.

207.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillors C Rayner and S Rayner declared interests in the item ‘Hurley and the Walthams Neighbourhood Plan – Formal Making of the Plan’ as landowners potentially affected by the Plan. They left the room for the duration of the discussion and vote on the item.

208.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 96 KB

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

Council

Minutes:

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

209.

Public Questions

a)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

 

RBWM has been investigating the Conservative party leaflet's incorrect statement that "both garden centres no longer form part of the BLP". Why did RBWM officers not (as a precaution) use, e.g., official Twitter and Facebook accounts before the election to issue a simple statement of objective fact in accordance with paragraph 16 of the recommended code of practice?

 

b)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

 

Datchet Parish Council passed a motion (17.083) on 11.9.17 requesting "a copy of the legal advice received by RBWM immediately prior to the extension and change in terms of the RBWM BLP Regulation 19 Consultation". As of 27.11.17 the Clerk had not received it. How many months will RBWM be taking to give the Parish their requested information?

 

 

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

a)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

 

RBWM has been investigating the Conservative party leaflet's incorrect statement that "both garden centres no longer form part of the BLP". Why did RBWM officers not (as a precaution) use, e.g., official Twitter and Facebook accounts before the election to issue a simple statement of objective fact in accordance with paragraph 16 of the recommended code of practice?

 

Councillor Dudley responded that Paragraph 16 of the recommended code of practice was “permissive” not “mandatory” and the Monitoring Officer (having considered the position in relation to the Purdah) took the view that any corrective statement could have involved RBWM in further debate regarding the leaflet, which could potentially be seen as influencing public opinion. The Monitoring Officer decided therefore to refrain from issuing specific statements in relation to the leaflet.

 

Mr Hill posed a supplementary question but the Monitoring Officer ruled that it did not relate to the original question and was therefore not answered.

 

b)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

 

Datchet Parish Council passed a motion (17.083) on 11.9.17 requesting "a copy of the legal advice received by RBWM immediately prior to the extension and change in terms of the RBWM BLP Regulation 19 Consultation". As of 27.11.17 the Clerk had not received it. How many months will RBWM be taking to give the Parish their requested information?

 

Councillor Dudley responded that prior to the submission of Mr Hill’s question the Head of Law & Governance personally advised the Clerk to Datchet Parish Council on Monday 27 November that the Parish Council would not be given the requested information on grounds of legal professional privilege.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill stated that on 25 July 2017 Councillor Dudley had said, in the interests of transparency that the legal advice would be published on the website. In September at Datchet Parish Council Councillor Grey proposed a counter motion not to ask for a copy of the legal advice. Did Councillor Dudley believe it was in the interests of the residents of Datchet not to see the legal advice?

 

Councillor Dudley responded that it had been his desire to release the advice in the interest of transparency but following advice from the council’s QC it could not be released on the basis of legal professional privilege.

 

210.

Petitions

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)

Minutes:

No petitions were received.

211.

Panel Memberships pdf icon PDF 3 KB

RECOMMENDATION: That Councillor Cox be appointed as Chairman of the Licensing Panel for the remainder of the municipal year.

 

Minutes:

On behalf of the council, Councillor Dudley congratulated Councillors Mike and Natasha Airey on the birth of their daughter Helena Joy Airey.

 

Councillor Dudley explained that Councillor Cox had stepped down from the Cabinet to focus on his successful career and young family. Councillor Grey had therefore been appointed as the new Lead Member for Environmental Services including Parking and Flooding. As a result, Councillor Cox was proposed to Chair the Licensing Panel for the remainder of the municipal year.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor Cox be appointed as Chairman of the Licensing Panel for the remainder of the municipal year.

212.

Council Tax Support Scheme pdf icon PDF 933 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered the results of a recent public consultation into proposed changes to the council’s scheme. Councillor S. Rayner explained that the borough was committed to helping those who struggled financially by reducing the council tax bill through the scheme. The borough gave the 90% maximum relief to working age applicants, compared to 85% in Slough and 75% in Reading. Since 2013 the scheme had been determined by councils. The DWP and DCLG continued to make changes. The report therefore brought together changes since 2016 so the borough’s scheme was in line. It would assist the administration of the scheme and avoid confusion between national and local schemes. It would not affect residents of pensionable age who would continue to receive up to 100% council tax relief. The council had powers to give financial assistance to anyone who suffered hardship as a result of changes. As part of this a consultation was carried out via the website, libraries, housing benefit counters and flyers with council tax bills. 64 responses were received, 35% of which were from people who were currently in receipt of support.

 

The changes proposed were:

 

·         Backdating claims would be limited to 1 month rather than the previous 6 months. It was estimated that up to 5 people would be affected

·         Allowances would be provided for the first two children in the family only when calculating support. It was estimated this would affect up to 11 people

·         Removal of family premium. It was estimated that this would affect up to 15 people

·         Employment support allowance. It was estimated up to 5 people would be affected

·         Severe disability premium. This would be aligned with the new rule under universal Credit.

·         Each year DWP and DCLG altered the rates to calculate support and the council wished to do the same

 

The council would use its powers to provide mitigation to anyone who would be affected. All staff would be trained to assist residents.

 

Councillor Dudley highlighted that the Conservative administration had a lower contribution rate than the two Berkshire unitary authorities run by Labour.

 

Councillor Jones asked, of the 45 councils that had a contribution rate of 10% or less, how many were Conservative and how many were Labour. Councillor Dudley agreed to provide this information to Councillor Jones in writing and the response to be added to the website.

 

Councillor Werner commented that the proposal was punishing vulnerable people and that therefore he felt Councillor Dudley was a hypocrite. Councillor Dudley asked for Councillor Werner to withdraw the personal slur. Councillor Werner responded that he apologised that he felt Councillor Dudley was a hypocrite. Councillor Dudley stated that he accepted the apology.

 

 

It was proposed by Councillor S. Rayner, seconded by Councillor Dudley and:

 

RESOLVED: That Council:

 

i) Notes the outcome of the consultation exercise undertaken with regard to the proposed Council Tax Support scheme.

 

ii) Approves the proposed changes to the 2018/19 Council Tax Support scheme with effect from 1 April 2018.

 

(38 Councillors voted for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

213.

Hurley and the Walthams Neighbourhood Plan - Formal Making of the Plan pdf icon PDF 5 MB

To consider the above report

 

Minutes:

Members considered making the Hurley and the Waltham’s Neighbourhood Plan part of the Development Plan for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. Councillor Bateson explained that if approved it would be material in decision making for relevant planning applications in the area. It was the second of ten Neighbourhood Plans in the borough and had started its journey through various community consultations. The independent examination had been carried out based on written representations. The examiner’s report recommended it should proceed to referendum subject to some modifications. In July 2017 Cabinet approved the pan to go to referendum, at which over 50% of the community said ‘yes’ to the plan. The last stage was Council adoption. Councillor Bateson thanked Councillor Hunt, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, the parish councils, and all the volunteers involved.

 

Councillor Cox paid tribute to his fellow ward councillor and the people she managed to galvanize to get the report together. There were three parish councils and a parish meeting in the area. Councillor Dudley echoed these comments; he stated that Councillor Hunt was a true community champion.

 

Councillor E. Wilson also echoed the thanks. He felt it was an excellent planning document that fitted neatly between the national planning framework and what people looked for locally. The plan concentrated on policies and local matters. If the Lead Member considered it to be an exemplar document, he asked how she would ensure all the other groups would be made aware.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that the Neighbourhood Plan in the south of the borough had done exactly what it was meant to in adding granularity. He congratulated all involved in the Hurley and Waltham’s Plan. He highlighted the need to set the expectations for the role of the Neighbourhood Plan Group once the plan was adopted and to make it clear that once adopted, the plan passed to councillors and officers to use in taking decisions on planning applications.

 

Councillor Coppinger commented that it was superb that a number of communities came together to prepare the document. He was particularly pleased to see the inclusion of affordable housing for local people.

 

Councillor Bateson confirmed that completed plans were always sent to the other Neighbourhood Plan groups to look at and discuss.

 

The Mayor added his congratulations; he was pleased to see the parish councils working together.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bateson, seconded by Councillor Coppinger, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

 

i)     That the Council make the Hurley and the Waltham’s Neighbourhood Plan part of the Development Plan for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

 

ii)    Delegates authority to the Executive Director, in consultation with the Principal Member for Neighbourhood Planning, to make minor, non-material, amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan prior to its publication.

 

(Councillors C Rayner and S Rayner left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item)

 

Councillor Dr L Evans joined the meeting at 8.08pm.

214.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Electoral Review - Stage Two: Warding Patterns pdf icon PDF 15 MB

To consider the above report

 

Minutes:

Members considered proposed warding patterns based on the future council size of 43 Members from May 2019. Councillor McWilliams explained that the review was required because a number of wards were either over or under represented, and Oldfield itself would trigger a review as it was 39% above the average. The Working Group had been reconstituted for the second stage of the process and had met between September – November 2017. It had been made clear from the start that the Working Group wanted officers to consult with all Members; the majority of councillors had been able to discuss their community interests as a result. 

 

The review had three criteria:

 

·         To deliver electoral equality

·         To reflect community interests and local identities

·         To promote effective and convenient local government

 

To ensure community interests were reflected, a 10% tolerance was allowed which provided some flexibility in boundaries. The review had also included electoral forecasts related to building development in the borough.  The proposed warding patterns were:

 

·         22 Councillors in Maidenhead: 11 wards of 2 Members

·         21 councillors in Windsor: 5 wards of 3 members and 3 wards of 2 Members

 

Councillor C Rayner highlighted that he had represented Horton and Wraysbury since 2005 and his family had farmed the area since the 17th century. He knew the community better than a mathematician at the Boundary Commission.  Horton and Wraysbury had many links whereas there were few to Datchet. He said that all children in the ward went to school in Wraysbury, the area shared the River Colne and a number of footpaths. He questioned what would happen to the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan and the Horton and Wraysbury Character Assessment after the split. He advised that the distance from Horton to Datchet was 10 miles; it would end up being the longest ward in the country. He believed the review had been done in good faith but it was not all about the mathematics. A number of people who lived in the area were not on the electoral role and had not been included in the calculations. However, people who did not yet live on the golf course site in Maidenhead had been included.

 

Councillor Jones stated that the review worked for Maidenhead and some of central Windsor but not for rural Windsor. She highlighted the criteria of the need for effective and convenient local government. The boundaries proposed for Old Windsor would mean less effective government. Trying to merge large areas meant community representatives may be deterred from standing for election. The proposals were being made when the extent and location of new developments were not yet clear; the Borough Local Plan had yet to be submitted. A reduction to 47 councillors instead of 43 would allow identities to be maintained and still achieve a significant reduction.

 

Councillor Hilton stated that the figure of 43 Councillors had already been accepted. No other person or organisation was better qualified to make recommendations to the Boundary Commission than the councillors in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 214.

215.

Berkshire Business Rates Pilot Application pdf icon PDF 229 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered a proposal in response to the invitation to all local authorities in England to apply to be a 100% business rates pilot in 2018-19. Councillor Rankin explained that the proposal would unlock £25m of funding to the LEP for transport infrastructure. During 2017 Surrey County Council agreed a pilot with the government. The Leader wrote to the Secretary of State to ask for other local authorities to be offered the opportunity to be a pilot. As a result, a process was started to allow local authorities to retain income growth and explore other options for the design of local government financing reforms. Internal modelling was initially undertaken, led by Slough Borough Council. Berkshire Treasurers  enlisted the help of the LEP and LG futures to further develop a brief.

 

As was well known, 50% of business rates collected went directly to national government;1 % went to the Fire Authority; 49% went to the local authority. At the end of that process was a year-end levy calculation  allowing the council to retain some of the growth. All Berkshire authorities actually collected more than their baseline amount of business rates. In  the new pilot the council would maintain the 50% share of the baseline but the year-end revenue calculation process would not be required therefore the council would retain more locally. For 2018/19 it was estimated to  be £35m for the six Berkshire authorities. It was proposed that 70% of the gain be put into to a strategic fund to be run by the LEP. Every council would then get the same return as if there were no pilot.  This meant for the year of the pilot, the council could not be financially worse off. The remaining 30% would be shared equally between the six authorities until the £1m mark was reached.  Then the share of growth would be given on a pro rata basis.

 

It had been suggested that the borough should submit a sole bid to retain more of the funding. However although there was no published criteria, it was believed that the government would be interested in investing in strategic infrastructure.

 

Councillor Dudley explained that successful bidders would be notified before Christmas.  The council was very hopeful for success and was pitching hard for local communities.

 

Councillor Da Costa asked whether the application had already been submitted. He requested that the details come back to an Overview and Scrutiny Panel if the bid was successful.  Councillor Rankin confirmed that the bid had already been submitted, the report requested support for the application. Councillor Dudley suggested that the appropriate forum would be the Audit and Performance Review Panel. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and:

 

i)     Support the application set out in appendix A.

 

216.

Windsor Improvement Programme pdf icon PDF 234 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered 17 capital schemes within the proposed 2018-19 budget that the council was seeking to bring forward into 2017-18 in order to start carrying out the improvement works in 2017-18.

Councillor Bicknell stated that this was probably the most important paper to bring to Full Council for approval because it was driven by the announcement on 27 November 2017 by Prince Harry that he intended to get married in Windsor in May 2018. He acknowledged the small amount of notice for the report but it was important that Windsor town looked at its very best. The town was used to state visits and Royal Horse Shows but the wedding was happening in St Georges chapel within the castle. Windsor received over 7 million visitors a year who spent nearly half a billion pounds, which in turn resulted in about 10,000 jobs. This was impressively 13% of all jobs in the borough. Prince Harry would marry Meghan Markle, an American citizen born and raised in Los Angeles, California. Americans loved a big occasion and he was sure many thousands would travel to be part of the history being made.

The report was asking for 17 capital scheme bids to be brought forward, which covered three lead member portfolios. They had been scrutinised and all scrutiny comments had been incorporated. If the recommendations were approved the much needed improvements could start in January 2018, not only for the main TV shots up and down Thames Street and Castle Hill, but the surrounding parks and adjacent street scenes. The total spend was £2.6 million of which just over £1 million was funded from external sources. The cost of borrowing for bringing the schemes forward was about £70,000. He believed this was a price worth paying to help make the world class town continue being a ?must-visit? destination for many more years to come.

Councillor Dudley stated that the council wanted to ensure Windsor was a town fit for a prince and a princess. When the council had heard that the wedding would be in Windsor, it was suggested works should be accelerated to  ensure the town looked as good as possible. It would also be important to ensure that works were not being undertaken at the time of the wedding.  Councillor Dudley requested the wrap around York House be improved to be more attractive and include the borough logo. 

 

Councillor Beer referred to the proposal for safety checks on play equipment and questioned why this was not already done on a yearly basis. Councillor S Rayner stated that she fully supported the proposals; the wedding gave the opportunity to show Windsor to the world.  She confirmed safety checks were performed each year, it was just that the checks were being brought forward.

 

Councillor Dudley confirmed that the council was working with Thames Valley Police on the hostile vehicle mitigation measures, it was hoped that the replacements could be accelerated before the wedding to be more aesthetically pleasing.

 

Councillor E. Wilson  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

217.

Members' Questions

a)    Question submitted by Councillor E Wilson to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Will the Royal Borough add the location of defibrillators to its website?

b)    Question submitted by Councillor Jones to Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

 

Many schools are struggling financially. The funding doesn't allow for rises in costs such as pensions & NI (that have cut teaching budgets by 5.5%) and inflation.  The IFS estimates that schools will lose nearly £2 billion by 2020.

 

What steps can this council take to raise awareness of this funding deficit and how are we supporting our schools?

 

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Jones to Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

 

Can the Leader update us on the steps taken to address the recommendations highlighted within the LGA Peer challenge?

 

d)   Question submitted by Councillor Da Costa to Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

 

Universal Credit has already caused great suffering to citizens young and old in the UK and will affect our residents from May 2018.

 

What preparations are being made by RBWM to offer financial help, coaching, education and outreach and can you assure residents that none of our residents will fall into the poverty trap because of Universal Credit’s roll out?

 

e)    Question submitted by Councillor Da Costa to Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways, Transport and Windsor:

 

There are reports on social media and from Slough Council, that First Buses are discontinuing the routes 702, 2, 5, 10/11, 15 and reducing availability on routes 1, 7 & 4. Can the Lead Member shed any light on this and whether the no. 2 will be continuing?

 

(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.)

Minutes:

a)    Question submitted by Councillor E Wilson to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Will the Royal Borough add the location of defibrillators to its website?

Councillor Coppinger responded that this was a simple task to complete, and the locations of theAutomated External Defibrillators (AEDs) can be added to the RBWM website as a list, or as pin points on the existing RBWM community map.  In addition, HeartSafe had the AED Locator and Arrhythmia Alliance website, on which RBWM’s AEDs would be added. www.heartsafe.org.uk

 

South Central Ambulance Service had an App available for iPhone and iPad which had an AED Locator to which RBWM’s AEDs could be added. He was aware that many Councillors had put some or all of their personal grant money towards defibrillators.  In Bray he and Councillor Walters had supported one at Braywood Cricket Club and one in Holyport.   On 15 December 2017 on Holyport Green a carol concert would take place to raise money for charity, including a further AED for Holyport.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor E. Wilson asked if the Lead Member would work with the  Windsor and Maidenhead Lions who had a fantastic scheme to support AEDs.

Councillor Coppinger agreed to follow this up.

b)    Question submitted by Councillor Jones to Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

 

Many schools are struggling financially. The funding doesn't allow for rises in costs such as pensions & NI (that have cut teaching budgets by 5.5%) and inflation.  The IFS estimates that schools will lose nearly £2 billion by 2020.

 

What steps can this council take to raise awareness of this funding deficit and how are we supporting our schools?

 

Councillor Coppinger, on behalf of the absent Councillor N. Airey,  responded that schools in the Royal Borough were making great strides in providing excellent education for borough children and young people.  86% of schools in the Royal Borough were rated Good or Outstanding by Ofsted; indeed one third of them had reached the Outstanding judgement despite an increasingly difficult test by Ofsted.  The scale of improvement in education across the country since 2012 was illustrated by the recent announcement in respect of reading: In 2012, 58% of 6 year olds passed reading checks. This year, that figure rose to 81%.

 

The borough worked well with schools in the Royal Borough and the Schools Forum was an effective representative body which made decisions about school funding and advised the Local Authority on its decisions.  The Forum explored the proposed National Funding Formula which was to come into operation in April 2020 and considered ways to best transition from the current local formula to the National Funding Formula.  Based on that work, schools had been consulted on a local funding formula for financial year 2018/19 which would mean 57 schools in the Borough would receive more money in 2018/19 than they did in 2017/18.

 

The overall increase in budget for education in the Royal Borough in financial year 2018/19 did not offset  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.

218.

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor Kellaway:

 

This Council calls on Great Western Railways to include and commit to a regular half hourly service through the day on the Marlow line.  This line links Marlow, Bourne End, Cookham and Furze Platt to Maidenhead station and the Elizabeth Line which opens in 2019.  We applaud this new connection and the electrification of the mainline but for maximum benefit to our residents a half hourly service is vital.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Kellaway introduced his motion. He explained that the GWR franchise would soon be up for renewal. The improved links for Maidenhead into London with the Elizabeth line and electrification of the mainline were excellent but did not include the Marlow line. Some direct services would be lost from Cookham and Furze Platt.  There would be reasonably good links during the morning and evening, but not during the daytime. He was aware that there were engineering complications but he urged GWR to take account of this in the new franchise. The line to Marlow was one of the last to use steam and was called the Marlow donkey. It would be a shame if Cookham and Furze Platt were stuck in the 17th Century when Maidenhead was moving forward. He requested a direct approach to GWR.

 

Councillor Dudley stated that he would be delighted to write to the Secretary of State for Transport, copying in Sajid Javid MP, the Prime Minister and the Chief Executive of GWR. Councillor Kellaway should be involved in the drafting.

 

Councillor Werner commented that there was work going on at Bourne End to make this possible.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Kellaway, seconded by Councillor Werner, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council calls on Great Western Railways to include and commit to a regular half hourly service through the day on the Marlow line.  This line links Marlow, Bourne End, Cookham and Furze Platt to Maidenhead station and the Elizabeth Line which opens in 2019.  We applaud this new connection and the electrification of the mainline but for maximum benefit to our residents a half hourly service is vital.

 

 

 

 

 

Note added 21/2/18:

 

Hurley & Walthams Neighbourhood Plan – it was correctly minuted that ‘In July 2017 Cabinet approved the plan to go to referendum, at which over 50% of the community said ‘yes’ to the plan.’ However turnout for the referendum was only 16%.

 

219.

Local Government Act 1972 - Exclusion of Public

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 item 16 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

Minutes:

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 item 16 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act