To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Burbage, Gilmore, Hollingsworth, Jones, Saunders and Sharp.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Diment declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Golf Club’ as she was a member of the club. She took no part in the debate or vote on the item.

Councillor Brimacombe declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Golf Club’ as he had property and business interests in the area. He made representations on the item, then took no part in the debate or vote on the item.

To consider the recommendation that Councillor D. Wilson be appointed as Chairman, and Cllr Burbage be appointed as Vice Chairman, of the Maidenhead Development Management Panel for the rest of the municipal year.

In introducing the item, Councillor Dudley thanked Councillor D. Wilson on behalf of the council and residents, for his fantastic public service during the period he was Lead Member for Planning. He also added his personal thanks.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor D. Wilson be appointed as Chairman, and Councillor Burbage be appointed as Vice Chairman, of the Maidenhead Development Management Panel for the remainder of the municipal year.

To be detailed following close of deadline for receipt of questions (5pm on 20 October 2017)

 (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)

The Monitoring Officer explained that this was an Extraordinary Full Council meeting to deal with the business specified in the agenda. The Mayor had in his discretion, and to support the council’s transparency agenda, allowed public questions to be submitted on the Maidenhead Golf Club item and extended the time allowed for public questions given the number submitted.

As detailed in the constitution, there were a number of reasons why a submitted question could be rejected. These generally covered questions that were defamatory, frivolous or required the disclosure of confidential or exempt information. In this instance, three questions had been rejected as they would have required the disclosure of exempt information. The questions centred on commercially sensitive information which fell within the category of the ‘financial and business affairs’ of a particular organisation, in this case the council as well as a third party. This would include information relating to a contract which could be the subject of future legal challenge or judicial proceedings. 

Dealing with the questions that had been accepted for the meeting, these questions had been considered by the Monitoring Officer in conjunction with the relevant officers. Verbal responses would be provided at the meeting by the most appropriate Cabinet Member, not necessarily the Member to whom the question was originally submitted. This was allowed under the constitution.  The Members would answer as fully as they possibly could but subject to not falling within the category of exempt information. This would also apply to the substantive debate by Members on item 5. 

Given the fact that the Mayor had already allowed extended time to cover all of the public questions, any supplementary questions on this occasion would need to be dealt with by way of a written answer.  

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

The Maidenhead Golf Course ‘vision’ document states that "...notable species likely to be associated with the Site will be maintained and potentially enhanced". Ecosystems are usually sensitive to an increase in any one particular species - so which particular species does RBWM envisage being ‘enhanced’ here and does RBWM see any risk in upsetting Maidenhead's ecosystem balance?

Councillor Coppinger responded that the Vision Document related to maintaining and enhancing the habitats used by protected and notable species. This approach was in line with national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework which stated local planning authorities should: “set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure.” The NPPF also stated “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a series of principles....” The council would follow this approach with the site.

By way of  a supplementary question, Mr Hill referred to a DEFRA document entitled ‘UK Biodiversity Indicators 2017’. The UK was a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity. One of the first measured goals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 201.

To consider the above report

Members considered the emerging masterplan options for the site, the procurement route and approval of a capital budget for the acquisition of residential or commercial properties that would benefit future access to the site.

Councillor Brimacombe had declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item therefore he made representations before the main debate. Councillor Brimacombe commented that the Leader of the Council had spoken proudly of the ambition of the Administration and at 2,000 dwellings the enterprise must surely earn the right to be called ambitious. Ambition was not a neutral concept, success was judged in hindsight and could be widely praised for its vision and achievement. Equally failure could be criticised as recklessness, over-reaching and ill-considered judgement. Members should certainly be inspired by ambition but not seduced by ambition. He advised Members to proceed with extreme caution and be aware that failure would rightly be condemned. It was also important to avoid believing that complex problems could ever be solved by simple solutions. This was very much a real-life issue that would touch the lives of many of the residents of the borough. It was not just a cash-cow with a few inconvenient details.

Councillor Brimacombe highlighted a number of questions which he believed Members should be satisfied of with answers: What was actually driving the level of housing need? Whose housing needs would be satisfied when it was built? It was important to be clear what 30% affordable housing actually meant. Would an 18 year old Janet or John in Maidenhead today truly be able to live near their parents in ten years’ time in their affordable house? Would any of the properties be able to be purchased with a household income of even say £50,000 per year? If so would the capital element be given away to the first buyers such that the next generation lost out as they did with the sale of council houses? In short was this a renewable asset that reached down to include the hard­working young of subsequent generations or was this a one-time give-away? Who was it, specifically, that would be able to afford the affordable?

Councillor Brimacombe continued that it had been his experience on the council that when he had been asked to support a general principle or a ‘direction of travel’, and then subsequently the detail disclosed went to a place that he did not agree with, the answer he had been given was that he had voted for the issue. Councillors often found themselves in a ratchet mechanism, doors were locked and bolted behind them at each decision stage, there were no exits or escape routes. This was not his commercial experience where the level of commitment was generally commensurate with the detail offered and there were real go and no-go decisions at various stages. He cautioned Members to be comfortable with what they voted for, as they did not yet know the detail and may not be able to say no at a later point.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

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 7 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 7 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

To note the Part II appendices to the earlier Part I report.