Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Town Hall - Maidenhead

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Items
No. Item

245.

Appointment of Chairman

Minutes:

In the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, a Chairman was appointed for the duration of the meeting.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor D. Evans, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOSLY: That Councillor Story be appointed as Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

246.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cox, Da Costa, Diment Lenton,  Majeed, Quick, Sharma and  Walters.

247.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 210 KB

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 20 February 2018.

Minutes:

Councillor Saunders requested an amendment to the minutes relating to comments made by Councillors Hill, Dudley and the Mayor, which had been the subject of query and debate and for which clarification was required.  The amendments had been exclusively and accurately extracted from the recording of the meeting and the choice of tense and wording used had been guided by the Clerk.

 

Councillor Jones requested clarification that the wording used by Councillor Hill had been that the budget was insanely speculative. The clerk confirmed that, as detailed on page 15 of the minutes, this was accurately recorded in Councillor Hill’s speech on the budget item.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2018 be approved, subject to the following amendment:

 

Page 21, paragraph 2 to read: ‘Councillor Hill had labelled him as insane for his budget. As the council’s Mental Health Champion he queried the dubious slander.  Councillor Hill interjected that he had labelled the budget insane. Councillor Saunders explained he had a well-known sub clinical bi polar condition, and he regretted those with a contempt for mental health challenges might ignorantly label this as some form of insanity.

 

Page 21, paragraph 3 to read ‘Councillor Dudley commented that mental health was a very important issue and he did not think people should throw around the expression insane because he thought it very insensitive. Councillor Hill responded that he had not alleged that Councillor Saunders was insane; he had said that ‘the budget was insanely speculative’. The Mayor advised Members that the word insane had a specific meaning and was often cast around as a rather unpleasant adjective and was much best avoided as it could be interpreted personally. The word insane was to be avoided in future discussions.’

 

 

248.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor C Rayner declared an interest in Item 12c  as he was the trustee of a trust that could be affected by Heathrow’s expansion plans. He left the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

 

Councillor S Rayner declared an interest in Item 12c  as her husband was the trustee of a trust that could be affected by Heathrow’s expansion plans. She left the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

 

Councillor Hill declared a personal interest in item 4 as his wife attended yoga at the Community Centre on a Wednesday evening.

 

249.

Order of Business

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be amended, to bring item 12b immediately after item 4.

 

250.

Petition for Debate pdf icon PDF 105 KB

A petition containing 1,583 signatories was submitted to the Council on 29 March 2018. 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 ensure that redevelopment plans for the York Road area include a replacement community centre

 

Details can be viewed on the link below: http://petitions.rbwm.gov.uk/save-the-centre/

 

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:

 

 

a)         The Mayor may invite the relevant officer to set out the background to the petition issue.

b)         The Lead Petitioner to address the meeting on the petition (5 minutes maximum)

c)         The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors present to address the meeting. (Maximum time of 3 minutes each for this purpose)

d)         The Mayor to invite the relevant officer to provide any further comment.

e)         The Mayor will invite all Members to debate the matter (Rules of Debate as per the Constitution apply) 

 

 

Minutes:

Members noted that a petition containing 1,583 signatories had been submitted to the Council on 29 March 2018. 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 read as follows:

 

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to ensure that redevelopment plans for the York Road area include a replacement community centre

 

Russell O’Keefe, Executive Director, introduced the petition. He explained that the petition asked the council to ensure redevelopment plans included a replacement community centre. The current centre operated a range of community services from the building in York Road that was leased to the Royal Voluntary Service (RVS). The council was negotiating with RVS over the surrender of the lease. Subject to agreement, the community centre would be part of the Phase 2 redevelopment. Discussions were ongoing with the centre and others over future provision.

 

Dean Yorke, on behalf of the lead petitioner, addressed the meeting. Mr Yorke explained that he was a volunteer trustee. He thanked all those in attendance and who had offered support. The centre provided many services and was a valuable asset to the town centre. The King George VI Club had originally been built by public subscription and opened by the Queen in 1957. Approximately 10 years ago it had been taken over by RVS. Six months after Mr Yorke had become a volunteer in the office, RVS had announced it would close the centre. RVS had then agreed to allow Mr Yorke, along with Jack Douglas and Simon Chan, to run the centre as volunteer trustees from January 2017 under the new name of Maidenhead Community Centre. The centre included a fantastic café run by a volunteer chef cooking lunches for £5 for two courses. The centre was a great meeting point, particularly for elderly groups. Function rooms were hired out the majority of the time and funded the upkeep of the centre. Activities included yoga, martial arts and church groups.

 

The case had been put for a new centre when the redevelopment plans were announced for York Road. The petition had attracted over 1500 signatures; Mr Yorke thanked the local community for signing and sharing the petition. He thanked the Managing Director of the RBWM Property for her communications on the issue and Councillor Hill for his advice and support. It was important that the centre remained in the town centre; the elderly would not be able to use the centre if it were not on one of the bus routes. Many customers also worked in the town centre and used the centre at evenings and lunchtimes. With the likely increase in housing in the town centre as a result of the redevelopment it was important the council took the opportunity to work with people showing a fantastic community spirit.

 

Councillor Hill, Ward Councillor, thanked Cllr D Evans for reacting to the petition and producing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 250.

251.

Motion b

Minutes:

Councillor Carrollintroduced his motion. He thanked the Chief Executive of the DASH charity, its volunteers and the borough officers who worked in the areas of domestic violence and domestic abuse. Last week he had been proud to launch the new service, an independent source of advice for adults and children and an outreach service. On a national level it was estimated that 1.9m people experienced domestic violence in the year ending March 2017, with the police recording 1.1m incidents. There had been a steady rise in cases reported in the borough year on year. These figures did not include unreported cases. Domestic abuse could be physical, emotional or mental abuse. In any form it was unacceptable and devastating for those affected. The issue needed to be addressed head-on as victims and future generations deserved better. The council must resolve itself to tackle the issue and take a zero-tolerance approach. It was important to bust the myth that only women were affected; men were also victims but found it harder to come forward due to the stigma. It was important people could come forward and know they would be listened to. The council should stand united and send a clear message on such a critical issue.

 

Councillor N. Airey stated that she was delighted to support the important motion. In 2014, under the last administration, she had brought a motion to Council on raising awareness of domestic violence and offering help and support to those affected. Nationally, domestic abuse crimes accounted for a third (32%) of all violent crime:

 

   • 1 in 4 women would experience domestic abuse in their lifetime

   • 1 in 6 men would experience domestic abuse in their lifetime

   • On average, two women a week were killed by a current or ex-partner in England and Wales.

   • Domestic abuse cost the UK £17 billion per annum.

 

The local picture for children and young people was illustrated by the fact that 127 high risk victims were discussed at the RBWM Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference; 172 children were in these households. Of the 2669 referrals into the borough’s Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub, 31% had domestic abuse as the key concern

 

As Cabinet member for Children's Services, she was delighted that the new contract with DASH had a real focus on supporting children and young people affected by domestic abuse. However, it was known that children learned behaviours. For many children, what they saw was what they would reproduce, and a significant number of perpetrators of domestic abuse were victims themselves. The cycle must stop; domestic abuse was something no person, regardless of age, gender or any other factor, should endure.?No child should feel unsafe in their own home, by being a victim of domestic abuse, living with the threat of violence, or witnessing domestic abuse in the home. The administration would not stop until every child and young person could grow up in safety in the borough.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that he had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 251.

252.

Order of Business

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be amended, to bring item 12a as the next item.

 

253.

Motion a

Minutes:

Councillor Dudley introduced his motion. He commented a significant number of pubs were under threat, including the North Star in Boyn Hill, the Swan in Clewer, the Barley Mow in Cox Green, the Ark in Riverside and the Red Lion in Oakley Green. Before the banking crisis a number of large pub owning companies were established, managed through aggressive acquisition activity to establish large property estates funded by debt. The banking crisis left them in a highly indebted situation and needing to de-gear to meet banking covenants. The only way to do this was to liquidate assets by letting the business go bust then selling the properties for alternative use. The Pub Code Adjudicator had been established with the aim of ensuring tied tenants would be no worse off than if they were not tied. The beer tie was usually not at market prices. The Adjudicator was meant to break the link between the dry lease (the property) and the wet lease (the beer tie). Sadly the secondary legislation was not working as intended. The motion included a letter to be sent to the government to make the legislation fit for purpose.

 

Councillor McWilliams explained that the Barley Mow had been located in Cox Green since 1840. It had survived 177 years including two World Wars but now found itself in difficulty. The tenants had been unable to buy beer on the open market without the threat of the rent rising astronomically. The tenants had offered to buy the freehold but had received no response.

 

Councillor Carroll commented that the North Star in Boyn Hill as also facing possible closure. The motion highlighted the importance of pubs to local communities. Public Health England was starting to evidence the importance of community assets such as pubs in terms of addressing issues such as loneliness.

 

Councillor Lion stated that pubs had a special place and should be supported. Councillor D. Wilson commented that the issue had been around for some time. Many years ago he had helped the Fir Cone in Norrys Drive in its dealings with Enterprise Inns. Tenants were continually suffering because they could not make sufficient profits to enable them to buy the freehold.

 

Councillor Brimacombe commented when the business model was so onerous you ended up with only one type of pub, when pubs should reflect the character of the local community.  He suggested the letter should highlight the council was a vanguard authority and should show the way for a national issue.

 

Councillor Bicknell commented that this was a national issue and British people were entitled to a pint. The secondary legislation was not working. Windsor had pubs going back to the time of Nell Gwynne. The council needed to be more forceful with Ministers on this issue.

 

Councillor Jones commented that she was delighted to support the motion. she was aware of the issues as her parents had run a pub for over 20 years. Running a pub used to be ‘work hard, play hard’; now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 253.

254.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 91 KB

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

Council

Minutes:

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

 

Council congratulated the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their second son.

255.

Public Questions

a)    Lars Swann of Clewer South ward will ask the following question of Councillor Rankin, Lead Member for Economic Development, Property, Communications and Deputy Finance:

 

What help can the council give to help save The Swan pub in Clewer village?

 

 

(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)    Lars Swann of Clewer South ward will ask the following question of Councillor Rankin, Lead Member for Economic Development,

Property, Communications and Deputy Finance:

 

What help can the council give to help save The Swan pub in Clewer village?

 

Councillor Rankin responded the council had been pleased to support the successful bid for the Crauford Arms in Maidenhead led by local residents and the Crauford Arms Society Ltd last year. That support had included:

 

  1. Advice and guidance by ward councillors and officers and, through the council’s external funding and development service - Our Community Enterprise, help community groups to put together bids for external finance and help structure the share arrangements. The tenants of the Swan had already been put in touch with Our Community Enterprise.

 

  1. The council was able to offer financial support a small short term loan to bridge, on the basis it was secured against the premises should the Society be successful in their purchasing. In the end the loan was not required,

 

He was sure the council would seek to offer similar support to the Clewer community.

 

Mr Swann, by way of a supplementary question, asked if Councillor Rankin would be prepared to meet with him, ward councillors and Mr Williams to discuss options.

 

Councillor Rankin responded that he would be delighted to do so.

 

256.

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:

None received

257.

Appointment of Statutory Officers pdf icon PDF 158 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered approval for the statutory appointment of Monitoring Officer. Councillor Targowska explained that the Employment Panel had agreed a new management structure on 12 March 2018 including the separation of the Monitoring Officer function from the Head of Law and Governance. Mary Severin had been Acting Monitoring Officer since the departure of the previous Monitoring Officer. If approved, she would take up the permanent post immediately. Councillor Targowska thanked the Acting Monitoring Officer for the fantastic job she had done so far. Councillor Dudley echoed the thanks. Councillor Werner wished good luck in a challenging role.

 

The Managing Director confirmed that the role was shared with Wokingham and was on the basis of 1.5 days per week. The Monitoring Officer function had been only one element of the previous full time Head of Law and Governance position.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and appoints:

 

i)     Mary Severin as the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

 

 

258.

Equality and Diversity Policy pdf icon PDF 430 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered a revised Equality Policy. Councillor Targowska explained that the council had a statutory responsibility under the Equality Act 2010 to publish equality objectives at least every four years and information to demonstrate compliance with the Equality Duty on an annual basis. Implementation was monitored by an annual report, and a six monthly update on progress against objectives to the Principal Member and Senior Management Team and Access Advisory Forum. In addition, Employment Panel would also receive an annual update in terms of council staff.

 

Councillor E Wilson commented that the definition of anti-Semitism was important but had not actually been included in the policy and he asked if this could be included. It was also important to ensure people remembered the Holocaust and children were educated so that there could be no denying it occurred. He asked what activities the council planned in remembrance?

Councillor Saunders stated that he was pleased to support the recommendations in the report, which was not simply an administrative report.  The duties of councils in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 were there to protect and advance equality for all protected groups who had experienced unwelcome, degrading and offensive prejudice.  The duty extends to all those exercising a public function, including all Members and all officers, contractors and partners.  It provided the opportunity for those who were elderly, with disabilities, expecting a baby, with gender ambiguity, with religious or other beliefs, of any race or ethnic origin, any gender or any sexual orientation, to reasonably expect that they could go about their lives, and in their dealings with the council, free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation.  The council’s duties and those of Members were clear and extended into all aspects of  public service, including, but not exclusively, in how the council managed its premises, recruited and employed, educated children and mature learners, made appointments, funded organisations and licenced taxis.  Each of these areas were spelled out in the law.  Each borough team and partner should reflect with care on the council’s duties and satisfy themselves that those duties were clear, understood and alive.

Councillor M. Airey expressed concern at the enduring presence of anti-Semitism in local and national government and the lack of action by the Labour Party leadership. Councillor Airey was proud to be part of a political party in which Jews had a home, particularly as he had lost relatives at Auschwitz.  The IHRA definition included some examples of modern-day anti-Semitism including denying Jewish people the right to self-determination by claiming the existence of the state of Israel was a racist endeavour and accusing the Jews as a people or the state of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. It seemed in 2018 Britain was still grappling the issues that should have been finished in the Second World War. He hoped the council would promote action against anti-Semitism including Holocaust remembrance and reinforcing the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in the state of Israel.

It was proposed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 258.

259.

Order of Business

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be amended, to bring item 11h as the next item.

 

 

260.

Member Question h

Minutes:

a)     Councillor Hill  asked the following question of Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

 

Oldfield School pupils only got 40% of their 1st choice places with only 2 girls out of 7 going to Newlands.  Why, when you knew all the class sizes, gender mix and likely 1st place choices did you do nothing for Oldfield school children?

 

Councillor N. Airey responded that the council had a statutory duty to ensure that there were sufficient school places for every pupil and the current investment of £30m, including £15m of local capital, was increasing the capacity in secondary schools.  In Maidenhead these extra places were at Furze Platt Senior, Cox Green and some at Newlands Girls’ school.  At Newlands the Council had added to the s106 funds for the school to ensure the additional places were delivered as planned.

 

In the admissions round for September 2018, over 80% of residents were offered their first place preference of school. Over 88% of applicants at primary level also got their first place preference, the highest in eight years.  It was sadly a reality that no authority can promise a particular school because of four factors:  the expressed preferences in a given year, the reputation of the available schools,  the operation of the national admission system, and the individual admission arrangements set by different academies. It was not in the council’s power to directly impact these four issues.

 

It was these factors which determined the order in which places were allocated.  The national system was called “equal preference” and mandated that places must be allocated against criteria that could not include preference. It was very pleasing to note that all our secondary schools were rated as Good or Outstanding by Ofsted which gave every young person a good chance of educational success regardless of which school was allocated by the system.

 

Within the current arrangements for Maidenhead secondary schools, the linear distance from home to school was the most commonly used approach to order applications for pupils living in the designated area.  There were a range of other types of criteria that could be used including feeder schools,  different measuring points, and so called ‘random allocation’.  All had strengths and weaknesses, and give a different pattern of space allocation.  Councillor Airey had invited representatives of all secondary admissions authorities to a workshop at the Town Hall on 9 May 2018 led by the Director of Children’s Services to consider what changes could be proposed to improve the situation.  Any proposals would need to be consulted on by the admission authorities before the system was changed however she believed that a coordinated approach was better than each admission authority working alone. Feedback to Oldfield representatives would be provided.

 

Looking further ahead to the expected increase in housing within the area, it was estimated that a further 20 classes would be needed in every school year group by 2035, at an estimated cost of £277m.  The council had allocated £1.3m to enable feasibility and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 260.

261.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Electoral Review - Submission on Draft Recommendations pdf icon PDF 516 KB

To consider the above report

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered the Royal Borough’s representation on the electoral review draft recommendations to be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). Councillor McWilliams explained the background to the report including the fact that the review was required as Oldfield would soon be over the 30% threshold and that the borough was in the bottom quartile in terms of elector representation. Stage 1 had been to determine the number of councillors needed in future, which had been proposed at 43. In the first draft proposals the LGBCE had reduced the figure to 42.

 

A series of Member briefings had been held on the second stage. The consultation was open to 7 May 2018 and Councillor McWilliams encouraged everyone to respond. The council’s overall response would be an important part of the LGBCE machinations. If the recommendations in the report were not supported the LGBCE work would continue without the council’s input. This would be a great shame as the Working Group had placed great focus on community identity. The Working Group had agreed that, particularly in the south of the borough, the electoral representation threshold should be breached to ensure community identity was maintained. Option 1 therefore proposed the Boltons be included in Clewer East. To ensure the LGBCE was aware the council had considered all options, it was proposed to include an option 2 (not preferred) that had an electorally balanced situation but the Boltons was split between Clewer East and Old Windsor.

 

Councillor S Rayner commented on the need to offer taxpayers value for money in terms of less elected representatives. The patterns proposed maintained community identities as much as possible, The council had a duty to exercise its duties in the most efficient way possible.

 

Councillor Jones commented that the council approached the LGBCE to resolve an issue in Maidenhead. Whilst 43 councillors addressed this issue, it had proven not to work in Windsor and in the south of the borough because of geographical constraints. Councillor Jones thanked officers who had worked so hard to produce the warding patterns that put communities first. Councillor Jones had requested, and had now received, confirmation that the ward name of Old Windsor would remain and would not be proposed for amendment to Old Windsor and Great Park.

 

Councillor Hilton stated that he would confine his comments to the south of the Borough where he had local knowledge. At the December consultation the seven councillors in the south of the borough, supported by the two Parish Councils, proposed three 2-councillor wards which, based on local knowledge of major sites that would be coming forward for development, and using the same methodology as officers would have, had a maximum of 11% deviation, just 1% outside the desired 10% target. The proposals would have been coterminous with Parish boundaries with four councillors within Sunninghill and Ascot and two within Sunningdale. Sadly, the proposals were rejected by the LGBCE.

 

The latest proposals were for two wards in the south: Sunningdale and South  ...  view the full minutes text for item 261.

262.

Borough-wide Development Management Panel pdf icon PDF 378 KB

To consider the above report.

 

The Mayor has agreed to this urgent item, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, to allow the amendments to take place with immediate effect, upon approval.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered changes to the terms of reference for the borough-wide Development Management Panel.

 

The Chairman confirmed that the item had been the Mayor had agreed to the urgent item, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, to allow the amendments to take place with immediate effect.

 

Councillor Targowska explained that Major applications represented the most significant developments across the Borough and merited consideration in public by a Development Management Panel. Development Management Panels were quasi-judicial.  They had powers and were governed by procedures resembling those of a court of law, and were obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions so as to provide the basis of planning decisions taken by the council.  As part of that process Members were advised by planning professionals; Members of the Panels were not expected to be experts in the field of planning.

 

The Managing Director had tabled an amended recommendation that sought that only those applications falling within the definition of major development, which were recommended for refusal by the Head of Planning, would be automatically considered by the Borough Wide Panel. 

 

Councillor Jones expressed disappointment that after four months of work by the Constitution Review Working Group only one change to the constitution was being presented. The recommendation was also different to that proposed by the Working Group. An urgent paper and amended recommendation on the evening of the meeting seemed like undue haste given the other recommendations had been put back to June. The Working Group did suggest an increase to 15 members but that the Panel would only consider applications with a significant social, environmental or economic impact. To take away all applications for 10 or more that were recommended for refusal from the area panels went against the Conservative manifesto commitment about involving councillors at all levels in planning decisions. She was against the proposal because it reduced the involvement in decisions affecting the local community. If two applications were heard on the same night for different areas of the borough, one set of residents would have further to travel.

 

Councillor Dudley commented that the constitution was a 400 page document; the proposals before Council were just one microcosm. The Working Group had done some fantastic work that provided a good foundation, but further work was needed. The other changes would not come in until the boundary changes in 2019 therefore there was time to make revisions and it was important not to rush the process. The reason the proposals were before council was because certain major planning applications Members would have presumed would go to Panel were being refused by officers. The amended recommendation addressed this issue. Of the major developments refused in 2017/18, 7 of the 12 were done so under officer delegation. Member involvement was needed in such decisions to ensure local communities were represented. He had also received representations on this matter by developers.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that planners fulfilled two roles, firstly they ensured applications reflected the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 262.

263.

Continuation of Meeting

Minutes:

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.

264.

Members' Questions pdf icon PDF 4 KB

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

 

When Oldfield School was proposed to be built on Braywick Park a roundabout on Braywick Road with crossing points was deemed necessary at the entrance.  Now with a busy leisure centre approved for construction and a school in the pipeline why is no roundabout being planned?

 

b)   Councillor C Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways, Transport & Windsor:

 

What are the arrangements for the upcoming Royal Wedding in Windsor and why there has not been wider consultation of ward councillors and the Tourism Development Forum, given the event will affect everybody living in the Royal Borough?

 

c)    Councillor E. Wilson will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams PrincipalMember for Housing:

 

The Local Government Ombudsman has recently upheld a complaint regarding a homelessness application to this Council.  Will the Principal Member for Housing explain how he intends to respond to this decision?

 

d)     Councillor Carroll will ask the following question of CouncillorS Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

 

Could the Lead Member please explain to me the process being followed and action being taken to reinstall the much admired traditional steel railings in Grenfell Park, Boyn Hill, which were recently removed without Lead and Ward Member consultation and which has caused understandable upset amongst many of my residents?  

 

e)     Councillor Bhatti will ask the following question of Councillor Rankin, Lead Member for Economic Development, Property, Communications and Deputy Finance

The Swan plays a vital part in the life and social interaction of the Clewer North community. Please can the lead member give reassurances that all options will be considered in making this site an asset of community value and that the lead member would be happy to discuss the issue with my local residents?

f)      Councillor Brimacombe will ask the following question of CouncillorMcWilliams, Principal Member for Housing: 

 

What is the publication date for the promised 'Affordable Housing' paper and will it address in detail all of the ten questions from RRAG, plus questions (under topics of Money, Products, Policy and Ratio) asked by me for the (cancelled) February Councillor briefing? Specifying to Council any questions that Cllr McWilliams considers will be too difficult for him to answer.

 

g)     Councillor Brimacombe will ask the following question of CouncillorMcWilliams, Principal Member for Housing: 

 

On 4th February 2018 Councillor McWilliams tweeted that he would shortly hold a public meeting on Affordable Housing, which did not take place. The scheduled 19th February Councillor briefing was cancelled. Does Cllr McWilliams have any plans at all to consult with anybody regarding Affordable Housing and if so, then who, when and how, and if not, then why not?

 

h)     Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

 

Oldfield School pupils only got 40% of their 1st choice places with only 2 girls out of 7 going to Newlands.  Why, when  ...  view the full agenda text for item 264.

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Member questions a, c-g and i-m be responded to in writing outside of the meeting.

 

 

b) Councillor C Rayner asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways, Transport & Windsor:

 

What are the arrangements for the upcoming Royal Wedding in Windsor and why there has not been wider consultation of ward councillors and the Tourism Development Forum, given the event will affect everybody living in the Royal Borough?

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that the forthcoming Royal Wedding would help showcase Windsor to the world. He was delighted that Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle had chosen to share their very special day with the Windsor and the world, and by deciding to have a procession through our wonderful town after their wedding service in St George’s Chapel on Saturday 19 May 2018. He was pleased to be able to confirm that the planning for this very large event, perhaps the biggest ever in Windsor, and one that would be under the watchful eyes of millions, watching the event around the world, were progressing very well.

 

The arrangements were being drawn together by the established Ceremonial Events Project Group, which had for many years been the multi-agency planning group that worked to plan and coordinate Royal and State events for Windsor. For the planning of such events, there was always a balance to the process, between finalising arrangements to meet the safety and security requirements, and keeping Members, local residents, businesses and visitors informed of the plans as they became finalised.

 

The work was ongoing but with just over three weeks to go, he was pleased to report arrangements were now well advanced with the council’s partners, which included: police, emergency services, a number of government departments, a range of health services, the Environment Agency, security services, the Royal Household and many others.

 

The multi-agency group was continuing to make the final detailed plans, but he was able to confirm that in addition to the confidential Elected Member Briefing that was issued to all Elected Members a couple of weeks ago, residents and businesses most directly impacted by the arrangements had recently been sent letters setting out the plans as they currently stood, and confirming the best way to stay up to date with any last minute changes or developments.

 

With an event of this size, there would inevitably be some disruption to the town on the day of Rehearsal (Thursday 17th) and on the big day itself, with a number of the special arrangements coming into effect incrementally from the Friday afternoon and evening in some specific areas. The event would provide a legacy of tourism for a long time to come. Whilst these details were correct, Councillor Bicknell re-iterated that as there were still over three weeks to go, some details may change, but the council would keep Members, residents, local businesses and visitors updated through the website, leaflets and local signage.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C Rayner asked why ward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.

265.

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor Dudley

 

This Council:

 

i)  Is concerned that The Pubs Code Adjudicator is failing to tackle the financial unbalance suffered by tied tenants in its borough and around the country.  

ii) Notes that the case of The Barley Mow demonstrates clearly that, in its current format, the secondary legislation is not fit for purpose, as it is clearly unable to offer tied tenants a simple and easy path to severing their tied terms, as was the intention of Parliament.

iii) Requests the Leader of the Council to write to Richard Harrington MP, urging him to take this issue to the Secretary of State, Greg Clark MP, copied to Theresa May MP, so he can take the necessary steps to make the legislation work, as a matter of urgency

 

 

b)   By Councillor Carroll

 

I would like to thank our partner organisations for the critical work they do in providing access and support to victims, and providing crucial education and awareness on domestic violence and abuse.

 

This Council:

 

i)  Continues to robustly adopt a zero tolerance approach to any form  of domestic violence and abuse, and strongly reaffirms our steadfast commitment to tackle domestic violence and abuse through our public health strategy, joint health and well-being strategy, and awareness campaigns;

 

ii)Encourages anybody from any background who is suffering from the  impact of domestic violence and abuse to come forward and get the help  and support they need from the police, the council, health services or  key partner organisations such as DASH, Victim Support or the 24 hour National Domestic Violence Helpline;

 

iii)        Resolves to promote awareness across the Borough to ensure residents understand what constitutes domestic violence and abuse and who they can go to locally to access support.

 

 

c)    By Councillor Beer

 

This Council:

 

i)  Notes that the government has proposed that it confirms its provisional approval of a third Heathrow runway in the coming months.  

 

ii) Agrees urgent Borough publicity including public presentations to empower residents to inform MPs and Ministers of their objections to the inevitable and irreversible impacts on the housing crisis, infrastructure and the quality of life.

 

 

d)   By Councillor Beer

 

This Council:

 

i)  Notes that there is evidence that the progression of the River Thames Scheme is in doubt as several riparian Councils cannot commit to its funding. 

 

ii) Urges the Government to fully fund the essential project as it is totally unjustified to burden a few communities to fund the safe disposal of water from such a vast catchment area.    

 

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Beerintroduced his motion. There was a perception that the only issue with a third runway was noise. People were either not in an area affected by noise or had got used to it. There was therefore a need to energise the public. He accepted that public presentations were probably out of the question but the council should use traditional and social media to get the message across. The Aviation Forum had hoped to get an article in Around the Royal Borough but this had not been successful. A golden opportunity had been missed. Active promotion was needed because Heathrow’s plans would be a disaster for the borough, for example the housing problems would be exacerbated. Councillor Beer requested to amend the motion by removing the words ‘including public presentations’.

 

Councillor Dudley agreed that as much communication with residents as possible was needed.  The National Policy Statement (NPS) was due for adoption in the summer. If approved it would open a six week window for a legal challenge.

 

Councillor Hilton thanked Councillor Beer for bringing the motion to Council and for consistently fighting for residents’ interests on the impact of aircraft noise. He wholeheartedly supported the motion on the third runway and the need to make Members of Parliament, Ministers and residents aware of the consequences of a third runway. The Transport Select Committee had reviewed the NPS and published their findings on 23 March 2018. The Select Committee supported the NPS but this was not a wholehearted endorsement and they had voiced significant reservations that without further work to address concerns raised, there was a risk of successful legal challenge.

 

On air quality the Select Committee had asked the Government to adopt a more stringent interpretation of air quality compliance with some headroom to manage the uncertainty of predicting future air quality compliance. It said Heathrow should be required to show, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that their scheme could be compliant.

The Select Committee recommended that a condition be included in the NPS to the effect that consent would only be granted if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the proposed scheme would: avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from air quality; mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from air quality; and where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life. Given what was known about issues of air quality this was a high hurdle indeed.

On surface access the Select Committee recommended a condition that ensured approval only be granted if the target for no more airport related surface traffic (cars, taxis and trucks travelling to the airport) could be met, or that as a condition of approval capacity be released at the airport after construction, only when the target was met.

The third runway was essentially a cost-plus project with Heathrow being able to recoup costs through Landing Charges, departing passenger charges and aircraft parking charges. All these costs ended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 265.