To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bhatti, Dr L Evans, Gilmore, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lion, Pryer, C. Rayner and Targowska.

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 12 December 2017 and the Extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 29 January 2018

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 12 December 2017 be approved, subject to a note to be added that :

Hurley & Walthams Neighbourhood Plan – 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%.

ii)            The Part I minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Full Council held on 29 January 2018 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

In relation to the item ‘Budget Report 2018/19, Councillor Lenton stated that his son was a director at Deloitte’s technical department, the council’s appointed auditor. This would have no impact on future audits.

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

Council

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.

a)    Helen Price of Park ward will ask the following question of Councillor Lenton, the Mayor:

Why are there prayers preceding a Council meeting?

b)   Carole Da Costa of Clewer North ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

During a radio interview on the Andrew Peach show on 9 January 2018, Cllr Dudley stated that, “Everyone has been offered, high quality housing.” He also said that he was going to visit the Southall unit. What Health and Safety Rating System does the RBWM use for its emergency housing including the Southall pay & sleep unit?

(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)

a)    Richard Endacott on behalf of Helen Price of Park ward asked the following question of Councillor Lenton, the Mayor:

Why are there prayers preceding a Council meeting?

The Mayor responded that the practice of saying prayers before aCouncil meeting had been a tradition and custom for most Council’s for many centuries. The practice of saying prayers before RBWM Council Meetings had been applied since 1 April 1998 when the Royal Borough became a unitary Authority. The legal basis was given by the Local Government (Religious Observances) Act of 2015. The Royal Borough was a multi faith society and prayers could be, and had been, said by members of various faiths in the community.  Future Mayors may wish to invite representatives of different faiths to say prayers before Council.

By way of a supplementary question, Richard Endacott commented that at the council meeting held on 29 January 2018 the prayers by Reverend Drake had included reference to wisdom, knowledge and understanding and that the work of the council would be pleasing in the sight of God. In view of what took place during the meeting, how would the Mayor asses the behaviour of council Members in relation to the prayers?

The Mayor responded that it was unlikely that God would wish to go into such detail of discussions at Council.

b)    Carole Da Costa of Clewer North ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

During a radio interview on the Andrew Peach show on 9 January 2018, Cllr Dudley stated that, “Everyone has been offered, high quality housing.” He also said that he was going to visit the Southall unit. What Health and Safety Rating System does the RBWM use for its emergency housing including the Southall pay & sleep unit?

Councillor Dudley referred the question to Council McWilliams as Principal Member for Housing. Councillor McWilliams responded that all properties were inspected by a council officer before being used as temporary accommodation. This included checking that all the necessary certification was in place and the property was safe and suitable for use.

By way of a supplementary question, Carole Da Costa commented that the borough website displayed a link to the health and safety rating system. She had recently visited a family living in a band b where a heavily pregnant mother fell and fractured her leg due to cramped and overcrowded conditions. This was the least of her concerns when she had to take her two day old baby into the room with black mould growing up the walls and into their beds. Could the councillor explain why the housing paid for by the borough, far from being the high quality described did not meet the standards on the website, and did inspections include electrical wiring, water temperature and bathroom temperature?

Councillor McWilliams responded that the council’s inspections met the national standards as required but if Mrs Da Costa had a specific case where she felt this had not been done then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 235.

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)

None received

To consider the above report

Members considered the 2018/19 budget.

Councillor Saunders introduced the report. He stated that there was a growing maelstrom of councils, up and down the country, saying they desperately needed to increase their base council tax by the full 2.99%, plus the 3% Adult Social Care Levy. The council’s innovative and prudent management enabled it to propose only a 1.95% increase in base council tax and the 3% Adult Social Care Levy.  Residents would continue to pay the lowest council tax outside of London, and several hundred pounds less than neighbouring councils.

The borough’s effective partnerships with councils and others, and the wider transformation programmes, enabled the council to continue to do more for less, protecting the needs of residents, particularly the vulnerable, and seeking to reward fairly the hard working council teams. The council had shouldered a rising demand to support more young and older vulnerable residents, with substantially more funding than raised by the Adult Social Care Levy and government grants, including the additional grant announced this month.  The council was also allocating more to home to school transport for pupils with special needs and families on low incomes.

Protecting and enhancing generous benefits and reliefs to reduce Business Rates and the grants to community organisations had all been assured. Borough libraries continued to thrive, and all remained open and for more hours. A central grant had been secured to address the desperate needs of homeless residents.  Significant investments in temporary accommodation at John West House and Braywick Lodge had attracted substantial government grant and the council expected to spend all of it by March 31, to help vulnerable residents and address the underlying causes of rough sleeping. 

Time based parking charges for residents with Advantage Cards would not rise and, unlike neighbouring councils, resident parking permits remained free.  Parking charges for season tickets and non-residents would increase, to half way between the current very low rates and the levels charged in comparable places outside the borough. Community safety continued to be a priority through the full funding of community wardens and the upgrade and expansion of CCTV coverage. 

The council would continue to meet the huge demands for infrastructure investments in schools, roads, leisure centres and parking.  This would facilitate the new full price, affordable and social rented homes in the submitted Borough Local Plan, the substantial regeneration of Maidenhead and Ascot, and the reinvigoration of Windsor ahead of the Royal Wedding.  The council would continue to waive the council charge for arranging road closures for local community events where the Ward Councillors support the waiver, including for Royal Wedding street parties.

Councillor Saunders commented that, looking forward to coming years, there were many uncertainties.  However, the council entered these challenging few years with finances fit for purpose.  Revenue reserves remained significantly above the accepted minimum and the projected budget for 2019/2020 was currently balanced with a 1.95% increase in base council tax, no further Adult Social Care Levy, no use of reserves and assuming the dubious  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

To consider the above report

Members considered the updated Pay Policy Statement for 2018/19.

Councillor Coppinger introduced the report in the absence of Councillor Targowska. He explained that the policy demonstrated the faith the council had in its employees. The Localism Act required the council to annually review and publish its policy by the end of March. The policy had been updated to reflect the chief officer structure, the pay ratios and the median and mean average salaries. Changes would still be required in relation to exit pay arrangements when government guidance was published.

603 people were now employed by the council and the pay multiples had reduced from 12 to 8.31; this was as a result of shaping the workforce to meet the needs of the borough. The council used market comparability to ensure it was not over or under-paying key roles.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and:

i)  Approves the updated Pay Policy Statement for 2018/19.

ii) Notes that further revisions will be required to the statement following the implementation of the Government’s reforms to public sector exit pay arrangements.

Details to be confirmed

Members considered the political balance and allocation of seats on the Standing Panels/Forums which had been reviewed following the resignation of Councillors Hill, Majeed and Brimacombe from the Conservative Group.

It was noted that the following Councillors had formed a group for administrative purposes called ‘Not the Administration’ (NTA): Councillors Jones, Beer, Werner, Da Costa, Hollingsworth, Stretton, Hill, Majeed and Brimacombe.

It was noted that, as a result of the resignations, the following vacancies (Conservative seats) have arisen: Employment Panel, Berkshire Pension Fund Panel.

The changes in political balance has resulted in three seats formerly held by the Conservative Group being allocated to NTA.

Councillor E Wilson commented that he understood the administration to be the members of the Cabinet only, therefore he questioned the name of the new group.

Councillor Jones stated that all nine members of NTA were individual councillors and not a group. Each decided how they wished to vote and had individual views, which they were quite happy to express with others. Councillor Hill commented that the arrangement had been made to satisfy local government law. The system was set up for a classic two party system. Councillor Dudley suggested that if NTA was not a group, the Opposition Leader should waive her Group Leader allowance. Councillor Jones responded that it was an administrative group of politicians. She still had to attend meetings with the Managing Director and senior officers and administer the group of individuals. Councillor Stretton commented that the name was suggested by a legal officer as being the one thing that connected all nine councillors. The group held meetings, debated issues and then entered the chamber and voted with their conscience.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i) Councillor Majeed (NTA) be appointed to the Licensing Panel, Councillor Hill (NTA) be appointed to the Borough-wide Development Management Panel and Councillor Stretton (NTA) be appointed to the Local Plans Working Group.

ii) Councillor Walters be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Maidenhead Development Management Panel

a)    Councillor E. Wilson will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Will the Lead Member advise the role of the Traffic Commissioner in dealing with changes to the Number 2 bus that runs through Dedworth?

b)   Councillor E. Wilson will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell,  Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Can the Lead Member for Highways advise what surveys are undertaken on bus punctuality in Dedworth?

c)    Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor D Evans, Lead Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead:

The Community Centre in York Road, Maidenhead is a valuable Community Asset used by countless residents each week.  Why as part of the York Road Regeneration Project is the Community Centre being demolished and not re-instated as vital Community Asset as part of the Regeneration Project?

d)   Councillor Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Principal Member Housing and Communications:

Can you tell me how many rough sleepers were offered accommodation during the period 1st December 2017 to 1st February 2018, and of those, how many were offered out of borough accommodation?

e)    Councillor Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

The recent public record of the Audit and Performance Review Panel shows: 2 meetings held, 3 meetings withdrawn or cancelled. This means no oversight since September 2017 and until the end of February 2018 (a 5 month gap). Are you content with this, and if so why, or do you see it as a missed opportunity?

(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 E. Wilson asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Will the Lead Member advise the role of the Traffic Commissioner in dealing with changes to the Number 2 bus that runs through Dedworth?

Councillor Bicknell responded that all new or changed bus services had to be registered with, and agreed by, the Traffic Commissioner prior to the services being authorised to commence. Cessation of services were also required to be advised to the Traffic Commissioner.

First Buses contacted the Traffic Commissioner on 4 December 2017 to advise they were de-registering the number 2 service. The timescale for this process required 56 days’ notice, which would mean the service stopping on 30 January 2018. Reading Buses applied to the Traffic Commissioner to take on this service on a commercial basis in early January 2018, thereby retaining the service following the withdrawal of First Buses. Reading Buses applied for this to be done as a short notice application, which was used in emergency situations, so they could start the route as soon as First Buses stopped, meaning that there would be no gap in service for customers. The Traffic Commissioner contacted both the Royal Borough and Slough Borough Council for comments on this application, which both council’s supported.

Courtney Buses also applied to register the number 2 service as a commercial operation on 12 January 2018, also under a short notice application. This was refused as the Traffic Commissioner only permits one such application from an operator under this process, which had already been granted to Reading Buses. Courtney Buses was going through the full 56 day notice process to start a Monday to Saturday operation on the 11 March 2018.

Courtney Buses had applied to the Traffic Commissioner to operate early morning and late evening services (Monday to Friday) and an all day Sunday Service on the number 2 route. This was in addition to the core times being operated by Reading Buses. This application was submitted under a short notice application to ensure customers were provided with an enhanced service. Similarly, both the Royal Borough and Slough Borough supported this application which was approved enabling the new service to commence on the 30 January 2018.

In addition, Courtney Buses applied to operate a very similar service to route 2 (operated by Reading Buses) in direct competition as a short-notice application. This required approval by the Traffic Commissioner and was declined as there was no technical requirement why the registration should be approved at short-notice as there was little detriment to the customer as an equivalent service operated by Reading Buses was in place. However, legislation encouraged competition and the Traffic Commissioner had approved the operation of the service following the 56-day registration period.

In essence, Reading Buses submitted the application first which was approved at short-notice to maintain services to customers following the withdrawal of First Bus.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor E. Wilson commented that in the eyes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 240.

a)    By Councillor N. Airey

The Plan International UK report ‘The State of Girls' Rights in the UK’ indicates that girls' voices need to be heard early and broadly by those who can change the lived experience on a daily basis. Geography also plays a significant part in determining girls’ outcomes in the UK.

That this Council:

i)             Notes the Plan International report ‘The State of Girls’ rights in the UK’ and the increasing coverage of issues where women experience a different climate to men.

ii)            Notes its leadership role and establishes a new ‘Girls’ Policy Forum’, operated by our youth services, so that the voices of young women and girls play an active role in shaping life in the Royal Borough.

iii)           Asks the Leader to write to the schools and youth groups in the Borough to make them aware of the Forum and appoint representatives, and to commit to taking the views of the Forum into consideration when making decisions.

Councillor N. Airey introduced the motion. She highlighted that, two weeks previously, the UK had celebrated that on 6 February 1918, the Representation of People Act granted some women in the UK suffrage for the first time. The law said that women over the age of 30 who were registered property occupiers (or married to one) could now vote. That was 8.5 million women - or about 2 in 5. However, had Councillor N. Airey been alive 100 years ago, she would have been one of the 3 in 5 who still did not have the right to vote, never mind the opportunity to be elected. In 100 years, society had come a long way for which she was very grateful, but there was more to do.

The Plan International UK report ‘The State of Girls' Rights in the UK’ posed the question, ‘What is the current state of girls’ rights in the UK?’ and concludes that the answer was clear: not equal. By exploring the real experiences of girls in the UK, the report found that whilst the UK may be the fifth-richest country in the world, it was failing its girls, and failing to meet international standards set out in human rights frameworks and the United Nation’s new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The report also compared girls’ rights in the UK at local authority level, which showed that young women had different experiences depending on where they lived. Geography played a significant part, and whilst the borough was not in the worst 10 local authorities to be a girl, it was not in the top 10 either. It was known that access to excellent education, public health services, living in a safe environment free from the fear of harm, and more, were all essential factors for young people to thrive. The borough held to the vision that a person’s background, family income, ethnicity, postcode or any other circumstance should not be a limiting factor in their future outcomes or wellbeing.

The purpose of the report was that policy makers and decision makers could recognise the reality of the state of girls’ rights in the UK was not where it both could and should be, and then act. She was bringing the motion to Council so that the borough could make a difference on its own patch and aspire to be the very best local authority to be a girl in the UK. This was something Councillor Airey wanted to ensure happened from the grassroots and not just top-down. Therefore, the motion sought to redress the balance in RBWM, and to establish a Girls’ Policy Forum.

The aim for the Girls’ Policy Forum was that it fed into policy making, not after the event, so the council was proactively seeking to listen to girls where previously their voices had not been heard. She requested that the first meeting of the Girls’ Policy Forum should appoint a ‘Girls’ Rights Champion’ as the report recommended. She invited any girl aged  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241.

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the council’s constitution, the Mayor 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.

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 13 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"

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 13 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