To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Burbage and Saunders

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Dudley stated that he would not participate in the debate or vote on item 4 (Motion on Notice) but he reserved his right to make representations as appropriate.

Councillors D. Wilson, Kellaway and Love declared personal interests in the items ‘Broadway Car Park’ and ‘York Road Site Proposal’ as members of the Maidenhead Town Partnership Board and the Partnership for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead.

Councillor Stretton declared a personal interest in the items ‘Broadway Car Park’ and ‘York Road Site Proposal’ as a member of the Partnership for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead.

Councillor Hunt stated that she came to the meeting with an open mind therefore the fact she owned a property in Maidenhead town centre had no bearing on the matters to be discussed relating to the items ‘Broadway Car Park’ and ‘York Road Site Proposal.’

Councillor Hill stated that he owned a property in Maidenhead town centre which was rented out. It was not on the map for the York Road Site Proposal but he would leave the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the Broadway Car Park item.

The Mayor has agreed to allow public questions in relation to item 4 only (Motions on Notice). The deadline for receipt of questions is 12noon, Wednesday 24 January 2018. Questions should be submitted to:

democratic.services@rbwm.gov.uk

For further information on public questions, please see Part 2 C9 of the council constitution:

https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/downloads/file/2871/council_constitution

(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)    Ewan Larcombe of Datchet asked the following question of Councillor Targowska, Principal Member for HR, Legal and IT:

Can you please explain in simple terms what Councillor Dudley has done to bring the council and councillors into disrepute?

Councillor Targowska responded that she understood that the question had originally been directed to Councillor Stretton but as Councillor Stretton did not hold a relevant Cabinet or Chairman position as required by the constitution for public questions, it had now been passed to her to answer. The question referred to the motion put forward alleging that Councillor Dudley had brought the council and councillors into disrepute because of statements on Twitter and a letter to the PCC during the week commencing 1/1/18.  Councillor Targowska stated that unfortunately she was unable to make any comment on the motion or give her personal feelings at this stage in the proceedings as the motion had yet to be put forward. She believed that Councillor Stretton would putting the case for her motion to the meeting during the debate.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Larcombe commented that it was indicative of the way that the council operated that there was a rule that meant he could not pose the question to Councillor Stretton. Elected to represent a Maidenhead ward, Councillor Dudley had highlighted an issue that singlehandedly  tarnished the name of Royal Windsor and had attracted global media attention. In his opinion Councillor Dudley not only brought reputational harm to Royal Windsor but the entire borough. Royal Windsor would recover over time but he felt that that an apology was insufficient. He felt that councillors failing to declare a prejudicial interest and trying to defend the indefensible would only prolong the argument, attract further criticism and reinforce the rotten borough image. He asked Councillor Targowska what she though.

Councillor Targowska responded that she was Chairman of the Constitution Sub Committee and highlighted that a full review of the constitution was underway. She welcomed comments on the review either at the meeting in April 2018 when it would be presented, or by direct email.

b)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

In your letter to Commissioner Anthony Stansfeld you state that TVP "...made a verbal commitment to fund 50 per cent" of the £2.5m Windsor security measures. You state, however, that TVP left the full cost to RBWM. Was their verbal commitment given to you personally, and what reasons did TVP give RBWM for subsequently withdrawing their £1.25m verbal offer?

Councillor Dudley responded that RBWM Officers and Members, including himself, were advised at a meeting held in the spring of last year, that Thames Valley Police wanted the support of key partners to install integrated and permanent Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures, following the rapid deployment of the temporary National Barrier Asset immediately after the Westminster attack in March 2017.

Following to the Westminster attacks and others in Europe, TVP and the Met Police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 222.

a)    By Councillor Stretton:

To pass a Motion of No Confidence in the Leader of the Council following events during the week commencing 1/1/18, instigated by statements on Twitter and a letter to the Police & Crime Commissioner by Cllr Simon Dudley, that have brought the council and councillors into disrepute

Councillor Stretton introduced her motion:

‘To pass a Motion of No Confidence in the Leader of the Council following events during the week commencing 1/1/18, instigated by statements on Twitter and a letter to the Police & Crime Commissioner by Cllr Simon Dudley, that have brought the council and councillors into disrepute.’

She had been asked why she was tabling the motion given that the Conservative Group had voted to overwhelmingly support the Leader in a private Conservative meeting the week before and therefore there was little likelihood of success. She had tabled the motion as it was the right thing to do in an open and democratic forum. The Leader had leaked the results of the group vote. Three of the seven dissenters had subsequently left the Conservative Group and the rest had been whipped to support the Leader.

The motion, whilst citing events on twitter and the PCC letter, was not directly related to the subject of homelessness. It related to the fact that the Leader had used council resources including council letter-headed paper and had stated that the views expresses were of himself and his fellow councillors. The letter had given the impression that his personal views were those of the council as a whole and had brought the council into disrepute nationally and internationally. The debate would be about Councillor Dudley’s character and whether councillors had confidence in him to lead the council. The Monitoring Officer had told her that she had informed the Leader that there should not be any attempt to move to a debate about homelessness and the Conservative Group should be advised as such. The recent events were the last in a litany of events from when Councillor Dudley had first become Leader. She hoped that councillors who had supported Councillor Dudley in private would also do so in the public meeting so that residents could hear.

Councillor Jones seconded the motion.

Councillor Dudley made representations before the debate began. He highlighted a copy of the letter that was available via his Twitter account and encouraged all to read it. The intent was very clear to separate the issues of homelessness and anti-social behaviour and to seek action by TVP in relation to anti-social behaviour. He also referred Members to a 30 minute interview with BBC Radio Berkshire which dealt with a number of issues. He categorically disagreed with the motion and believed it had been driven by personal issues.

Councillor Brimacombe stated that the motion was about an excess of judgement and the use and abuse of power. There should be no whitewashing or clinging to party politics or personal patronage. If the councillors heard sufficient evidence, they should support the motion. The council did not routinely publicise private, professional correspondence on its website. The publication of the letter was a deliberate act by the Leader; to do so before the PCC had received it was bad manners. This amounted to a serious error of judgement and gross interference in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

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 the above report

Members considered a reduction in the current 10% contribution towards council tax under the CTS scheme to 8.5% from 1 April 2018.

Councillor S. Rayner explained that if the proposal was approved, it would give people more money in their pocket.  The borough would then have the lowest council tax outside London and one of the highest support levels. Of 72 respondents to the consultation on the proposal, 68% were supportive.

Councillor Dudley highlighted that the proposal would help the most vulnerable of working age. Councillor Werner stated he would support the proposal and highlighted that it had first been suggested by Councillor Jones. Councillor Dudley thanked Councillor Jones for first raising the issue.

Councillor Hunt left the meeting.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council:

i)     Notes the outcome of the consultation exercise undertaken with regard to the proposed change to the CTS scheme.

ii)    Approves Cabinet’s recommendation to reduce the contribution under the CTS scheme from 10% to 8.5% with effect from 1 April 2018.

(Councillor Hunt abstained from the vote)

To consider the above report

Members considered the next steps for a replacement Broadway car park.

Councillor D Evans explained that he had originally intended to seek approval or a capital budget of £20m however having listed to representations made he had taken on board the view that he should seek to conclude negotiations on the preferred option, then come back to the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee and Council to approve the capital budget. Members noted that revised recommendations had been circulated. He proposed the revised recommendations be considered in Part II, with an additional recommendation to minute the decisions in Part I. this was seconded by Councillor Love. The debate in Part I then concluded.

Following the debate in Part II, Members agreed to minute the decisions in Part I:

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

RESOLVED: That Council notes the report and approves the recommendations of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee:

a. Approves that further work be undertaken to conclude Option 3 set out

in the Part 2 Report.

b. Delegate authority to the Executive Director in liaison with the Cabinet

Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead and in conjunction with the Lead Member for Finance to negotiate and implement an agreement for Option 3.

c. If Option 3 proves through negotiation to not be deliverable to progress

Option 2 through a procurement process to be agreed.

d. Finalise a capital budget recommendation for the approval of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee and Council.

e. The decisions be minuted in Part I

38 Councillors voted for the motion: Councillor M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Beer, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bullock, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Diment, Dudley, D. Evans, L. Evans, Gilmore,  Grey, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Jones, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Love, McWilliams, Mills, Quick, Rankin, S. Rayner, Sharma, Sharpe, Smith, Story, Targowska, Walters, D. Wilson, and E. Wilson. 2 Councillors abstained: Da Costa and Werner.

To consider the above report

Members considered a site proposal for York Road.

Councillor Rankin introduced the report by explaining that the proposals would set the standard for regeneration in Maidenhead, bringing the heritage heart to this site as envisaged in the Area Action Plan, bringing new restaurants and bars into the town centre by the riverside, the improvement of the public realm around the town hall as the new open space was integrated, as well as 261 new homes, 78 of which will be affordable. Of the 78, 36 would be shared ownership, 20 would be affordable rent, 14 would be rent to buy. Eight social rent units would also be included.

The council was making small but significant steps to fulfilling one of its strategic ambitions of delivering affordable housing. The plans had been presented at a well-attended public consultation the week before last, and the message Councillor Rankin had taken away from Maidonians was one of positivity and excitement that the rejuvenation of Maidenhead was underway.

If approved, the planning application would be submitted shortly and construction was hoped to start in December, with the first homes occupied in early 2020. As the council owned the site, it was ultimately the master of the destiny of what happened on the site. The council could  decide the density, the level of parking provision, the numbers and composition of affordable housing, the amount of space allocated to public space and heritage, but all these decisions effected the size of the capital receipt that the council could receive.

In the supplementary report Members could see the decisions that the JV Partnership Board had made and the value decisions that these would drive.

The Area Action Plan identified the site as a heritage hub and the council had committed to delivery. Members could see the investment in the Heritage Centre and Desborough suite investments of £1.7m. The council had made the commitment to build a borough for everyone and had made the choice to invest £1.1m in delivering social rent.

At the first public consultation, residents had made it clear that they were concerned about the level of on-site parking provision. The council had invested £2.6m. There were some who had suggest the council was operating as a developer seeking to maximise profit. The investments in heritage and culture, in parking, and in affordable including social rent, showed that this was not the case. Politics was about decisions and there were those who would have the council go further still. Councillor Rankin cautioned against this approach. At the public consultations, most public concern was about wider infrastructure: school places, public parking in the town centre, and leisure provision. The proposed strategy of developing the council’s land holdings would enable the council to deliver the required infrastructure. The long term capital cashflows that demonstrated how the council could meaningfully deliver on the requirements.

Councillor Dudley stated that he had lived in Maidenhead for 25 years and had watched its sad decline. The town was now on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 9-10 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 9-10 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act

To note the appendices to the earlier Part I report

To consider the above report