Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Guildhall, Windsor. View directions

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Audio-recording: To listen, click here or to download and listen later, right click and save as an mp3

Items
No. Item

64.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bhatti, Bowden, Bullock, Burbage, Cox, Pryer, Rankin, Richards, Stretton and Walters.

65.

Order of Business

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda, be amended.

 

66.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 237 KB

To receive the Part I minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 25 September 2018 and 5 November 2018.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

 

i)             The Part I minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2018 be approved, subject to the following amendment:

 

·         P.24 to read: ‘The Homelessness Strategy Update and Allocations Policy would be presented to cabinet in November 2018 before going to public consultation.’

 

ii)            The minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 5 November 2018 be approved.

 

Councillor E. Wilson requested that the statement relating to claims of asbestos made by the council following the meeting on 25 September 2018 be appended to the minutes to provide context.

67.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor Werner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Appointments to Berkshire Fire and Rescue Authority’ as he was being proposed as the council’s representative. He would leave the chamber for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

 

Councillors Bicknell, Alexander and Bateson declared Disclosable Pecuniary interest in the item ‘Appointments to Berkshire Fire and Rescue Authority’ as current council representatives. They would leave the chamber for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

 

Councillors Bateson and Hilton declared Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in the item ‘Members’ Allowance Scheme – Proposed Amendments’ as the SRA they received as Principal Members would be affected by the proposals. They would remain in the chamber but take no part in the debate or vote.

 

Councillor C Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Long Term Empty Homes Premium’ as he was trustee of a trust that had held an empty home for a number of years. He left the chamber for the duration of the debate and vote on the item.

 

68.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 97 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 the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last meeting, which were noted by Council.

 

69.

Member Question A

Minutes:

a)    Councillor Lenton asked the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

 

Please confirm the date by which the refurbishment of the flood relief channel, known as the Wraysbury Drain, was due to be completed together with the then predicted cost; the date on which the work is now expected to be completed; the latest estimate of the cost; and the reasons for the continued slippages in time and cost.

 

Councillor M Airey responded that in 2014 the Royal Borough commissioned a study of the Wraysbury Drain and completed work which emerged from the study in September to November 2015. These works included ditch clearance (over 30 skip loads) and re-grading the drain at a number of locations along the Wraysbury and Horton Drains. The costs of this work (approximately £125,000) were contained within the approved budget with the remaining funding (£25,000) carried forward to complete further works as there is an ongoing need, as residents are aware, for maintenance and improvement of the drain.

 

The Royal Borough had been in dialogue with Wraysbury Parish Council and, more latterly, a residents group (Wraysbury Drain Action Group) to respond to concerns about lack of water and maintenance of the ditch. A full update had been provided to these groups. Lack of water in the drain and the negative ecology and wildlife impacts was a complex issue and was very difficult to resolve as the upstream flow issues were affected by development and changes to the area, a number of which were outside the Royal Borough control.

 

In addition, the lack of access to private land to inspect and undertake works had frustrated the speed at which the Royal Borough could respond. He was pleased to advise that the agreed focus of activity currently was to repair the weir adjacent to and to the south side of the railway line and some 150m upstream from the Station Road Bridge which would assist in managing the water levels in the immediate vicinity of Wraysbury. Access to the land was secured through legal means and a site visit had been conducted the previous week. Works would now be ordered for completion by Spring 2019. In parallel with this work a further programme of clearance and maintenance by the Royal Borough would be conducted in conjunction with private owners.

 

Councillor M Airey stated that he would respond in writing to those residents who had contacted him directly about the issue, copying in the parish council.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Lenton stated that he hoped the works would be complete within the lifetime of the current council.

 

Councillor M Airey responded that he would work with officers and residents to accelerate the programme as much as possible to undertake the works by May 2019.

 

70.

Public Questions

None received

Minutes:

No public questions had been received.

71.

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:

Councillor Quick presented a petition on behalf of residents of Springfield Road in Clewer East. The petition was in objection to the application for an off licence to sell alcohol between 6pm-11pm, seven days a week at 113-117 Springfield Road. Councillor Quick explained that there a convenience store already selling alcohol, but it closed at 8pm. Apart from four small businesses the rest of the road and the surrounding nine roads leading onto it were residential roads. The petition addressed the licensing issues of crime and disorder, public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and that there was no need for an off licence in the area.

72.

Panel Memberships

To consider the following appointments:

 

RECOMMENDATION: That:

 

i)              Councillor Quick be appointed as Chairman of the Tourism Development Forum for the remainder of the municipal year.

ii)             Councillor Bowden be appointed as the Chairman of the Windsor Town Forum for the remainder of the municipal year

Minutes:

Members considered two appointments.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

 

i) Councillor Quick be appointed as Chairman of the Tourism

Development Forum for the remainder of the municipal year.

ii) Councillor Bowden be appointed as the Chairman of the Windsor Town Forum for the remainder of the municipal year

 

 

73.

Appointments to Berkshire Fire and Rescue Authority pdf icon PDF 328 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered appointments to the Berkshire Fire and Rescue Authority.

 

Councillor Dudley explained that the borough had the ability to nominate three representatives; these were currently Councillors Bateson, Alexander and Bicknell (who was also Finance Chair). Following an exchange of correspondence with the Authority and legal analysis it had been determined that the appointments should be politically balanced.  Two local authorities had chosen not to adopt political balance (Bracknell Forest and Reading) but all other Berkshire authorities had decided to do so. The borough would proceed to achieve political balance. The role came with an allowance of £2,200 per annum.

 

Councillor Dudley explained that the next meeting of the Fire Authority was scheduled for February 2019 therefore he proposed an amendment to the recommendation to amend the representative from 28 February 2019. Following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition the proposal was for Councillor Werner to be appointed as the third representative. Councillor Dudley thanked Councillor Bicknell, who would be standing down to make way for Councillor Werner, for his contribution to the Fire Authority on behalf of the borough.

 

Councillor Jones stated that she was delighted that political balance would be achieved. Councillor Werner had previously been a representative on the Fire Authority; it was important that someone with experience took the position.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council approves the appointment of Councillor Werner as the Council’s third representative on the Fire Authority from 28 February 2019.

 

Councillors Bicknell, Bateson, Alexander and Werner left the chamber for the duration of the debate and voting on the item

74.

Members' Allowances Scheme - Proposed Amendments pdf icon PDF 427 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered amendments to the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

 

Councillor Dudley explained that the report was being brought to Council following the changes to the constitution already agreed for May 2019, and the proposal made at Council in September 2018 to reduce the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for Principal Members. All proposals needed to be formally considered and recommended by the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) before being considered by Full Council.

 

Councillor Dudley referred Members to tables 2 and 3 in the report which set out the financial implications: an in-year saving of £5,867 and, from May 2019, an overall saving, already represented in the Medium Term Financial Plan, of £98,442 per annum. He highlighted that recommendation ix proposed that the ICT allowance be deleted but that Members would all receive the necessary hardware to access documentation within a secure environment. This was particularly important as Members were Data Controllers under the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

Councillor Brimacombe welcomed the direction of travel. He referred Members to the minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2019, at which he had put forward a motion for the proposals to be accelerated. He was therefore in the position that he was not against the proposals but may need to abstain.

 

Councillor Beer commented that the proposal relating to ICT was discriminatory to older people who struggled with electronic communication. He would struggle if he was faced with the prospect of all communications being sent on an iPad.

 

Councillor Hill stated that he was in a similar position to Councillor Brimacombe; He would suggest a suitable date to bring in the changes would be 31 December 2019. He had tried to use an iPad for council work but had experienced difficulties from a personal perspective as he was dyslexic. He routinely went to Democratic Services for paper copies of reports. In particular reports for Development Management panels were needed in hard copy for many Members.

 

Councillor Jones noted that Members would be able to receive hard copies if there was a medical reason but she felt that it did not help Members undertake their role if large documents were only available electronically.

 

Councillor E. Wilson highlighted that the report detailed savings of £119,000 per annum, which was a substantial sum of money to be put back into frontline services.

 

Councillor Dudley confirmed that all Members could continue to request hard copy agenda.

 

Councillor Bicknell reiterated his support for the proposals which were about saving money to use on frontline services for residents.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: ThatFull Council notes the report and agrees proposals detailed in Appendix A by the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP):

 

i)             The SRA paid to a Principal Member (£12,215) be reduced to the level currently received by a Deputy Lead Member (£2,443); implementation to be backdated to 25 September 2018.

 

ii)            SRAs for Deputy Lead Members and Principal Members be deleted from the scheme from May 2019.

 

iii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

75.

Changes to the Council Constitution pdf icon PDF 384 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered recommendations from the Planning and Housing Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Panel.

 

Councillor Kellaway, Chairman of the O&S Panel, introduced the report. He explained that four years previously the council had started a pilot scheme to allow Neighbourhood Plan representatives to speak at Development Management Panels. Four years on duplication was occurring as parish councils also had the right to speak. It was therefore recommended that the pilot be concluded. He highlighted that Village Design Statements (VDS) were not planning documents and were therefore not on the same level as Neighbourhood Plans. Cookham had a VDS but was about to embark on a Neighbourhood Plan process. The final recommendation was for mandatory training for regulatory panels. This would be particularly important as there would be new councillors in May 2019.

 

Councillor Jones commented a number of training sessions should be offered in different locations.

 

Councillor Bateson commented that once a Neighbourhood Plan had been to referendum and then adopted by the council, it was put on the shelf under the Borough Local Plan. Effectively there was no Neighbourhood Plan at this stage as it was in the hands of the council. In Ascot and the Sunnings a Neighbourhood Development Group had been created after the plan had been adopted, but this was totally different to a Neighbourhood Plan group as it was arranged by residents.

 

Councillor S Rayner asked for confirmation that residents would continue to have the right to speak at Development Management Panel meetings.

 

Councillor E. Wilson stated that it was an excellent report however he had one reservation in relation to the parished and unparished areas. Two models were being proposed, one which allowed elected accountable people to speak and one where unelected and unaccountable people would be able to speak (even if they were doing good work). It felt like a quasi-parish council would be created in the unparished areas of Windsor and Maidenhead.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that the Cookham VDS had preceded the introduction of Neighbourhood Plans. A VDS was a supplementary planning document with clear legal status but was subordinate to the Borough Local Plan and the NPPF and therefore could only be defined as guidance. In contrast a Neighbourhood Plan, provided it did not conflict with the Borough Local Plan on strategic matters, had weight and could therefore define policies. Cookham Parish Council and the Cookham Society were now looking at a Neighbourhood Plan, which would subsume the VDS. He was personally grateful to the Cookham Society for their strong and productive guardianship approach to planning issues in Cookham. It had a substantial membership across the parish but would respect the rights of the parish council to speak at Development Management panels alongside residents.

 

Councillor Hunt commented that paragraph 2.12 of the report was incorrect as the Hurley and Walthams Neighbourhood Plan steering group had been made up of parish councillors, local people, and people from the village associations.

 

Councillor Kellaway confirmed that members of the public would continue to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

Update to Planning Enforcement Policy pdf icon PDF 344 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered an updated Enforcement policy.

 

Councillor Coppinger stated that the borough had one of the busiest planning enforcement teams in the southeast if not the whole country. Fortunately the council had been able to increase the number of officers in the team so it was now fully staffed. The policy was being updated for the following reasons:

 

·         To comply with legislation

·         To ensure resources were directed to highest priority areas

·         To align with the Parish Charter

·         To manage resident expectations

·         To improve communications

 

A customer guidance document had been published and officers had committed to meet with parish councils to discuss enforcement, share knowledge and improve transparency.

 

Councillor Werner commented that a large proportion of his ward work related to enforcement. Some people pushed the regulations to the extreme. Residents were a very good monitor but did not always feel they received the correct support. A lot of developers tested the bubble therefore he suggested the council should have a zero-tolerance approach. He asked if the changes proposed allowed for this type of approach.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that as a previous Lead Member for Planning he remembered the joy of planning enforcement in the way Councillor Werner had identified. Through mischief, negligence or innocence a consented development was not always progressed in the way consent was intended. Generally speaking architects and planning consultants adopted a simple approach that it was not a big deal and in the event of a complaint and an enforcement order being implemented an appeal would take place. Inspectors at appeal tended to adopt a common sense approach and generally were loathed to propose enforcement when in their opinion there was no public harm.  That common sense factor affected judgement further up the line because planning officers had to take this into account and not issue enforcement notices if there was a rational and reasonable conclusion that the notice would fail at appeal and costs would be awarded. Form a financial point of view he hoped that a common sense approach prevailed.

 

Councillor Beer commented that the problem was that members of the public did not know if their matter was still being considered or if it had been ditched. Therefore improved communication should be considered with ward councillors and those interested if there were insufficient grounds or a notice would be open to challenge.

 

Councillor M. Airey commented that he supported Councillor Saunders’ direction.  A key part of the report was to provide greater education to residents on what to expect and how enforcement was conducted.

 

Councillor Coppinger commented that if an enforcement issue was happening in your area it was the most important issue to you however the council had to prioritise, therefore communications and managing expectations were critical.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor M. Airey and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and:

 

i)          Replaces the Planning Enforcement Policy (January 2016) with the appended RBWM Planning Enforcement Policy (December 2018) with immediate effect.

77.

Long Term Empty Homes Premium pdf icon PDF 135 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered increasing the Long Term Empty Property Premium from 50% to 100% in line with the new legislation.

 

Councillor S Rayner explained that the Local Government Finance Act of 2012 allowed councils to charge up to 150% of the relevant Council Tax on a property where it had been empty and unfurnished for 2 years or more. The borough chose to implement this change from April 2013. On 1 November 2018 the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act received Royal Assent to increase this further. The Act also allowed further increases in 2020/21. Implementation from 2019 would realise an additional £190,000 of income per annum for the council.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that up and down the country there was a substantial amount of homes not being utilised. In the borough the proportion was relatively modest but nonetheless existed in the hundreds. It was important that the council played its part in keeping the market liquid. A clear financial incentive to keep properties empty for a minimum period was needed, therefore it would be consistent with national legislation and other local authorities to set an appropriate level. This was a sensible modest fiscal lever the council should apply.

 

Councillor Hill stated his support for the paper as homes should be occupied. However he felt the report focussed on the financial element rather than the need to bring houses back into use. Other local authorities nearby were reducing their Objectively Assessed Need (OAN). He hoped the Leader would take note and reduce the number in the borough, therefore taking up less Green Belt.

 

Councillor Hollingsworth asked if the council had thought about making the costs punitive to encourage more homes to be brought back into use.

 

Councillor Werner stated his support for the proposals. When the Liberal Democrats had been in power they had done a lot of work on empty homes. He had read in the local paper that there were 1300 empty homes in the borough, which was more than Slough. He asked why the charge was not being increased to 150%.

 

Councillor Beer commented that he fully supported the proposals. However he questioned the definition of ‘empty and unfurnished’ properties as there were probably a large number of properties left furnished after the occupant died. Additionally some properties in the borough were furnished and only occupied for a couple of weeks each year, for example over Royal Ascot.

 

Councillor Lenton commented that he did not feel the report included a proper analysis including what proportion of properties were affected and in which areas. He also questioned the definition of unfurnished. He felt the report should be withdrawn.

 

Councillor Brimacombe agreed the principle was correct but detail was missing; he therefore supported councillor Lenton’s proposal for the report to be withdrawn.

 

Councillor Dudley commented that it had been a good debate. The ratio of median house prices to earnings was 12.5 times in the borough. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

Members' Questions

a)    Councillor Lenton will ask the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

 

Please confirm the date by which the refurbishment of the flood relief channel, known as the Wraysbury Drain, was due to be completed together with the then predicted cost; the date on which the work is now expected to be completed; the latest estimate of the cost; and the reasons for the continued slippages in time and cost.

 

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

 

There are weight restrictions through the village of Horton. Please can you confirm the number of prosecutions in the last year by the Council for vehicles driving through the village over the weight limit?

 

c)    Councillor C Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services

 

Horton has problems with cars being parked for weeks on grass verges alongside the public highway. It is believed they may have been left by parking companies offering parking for travellers using Heathrow Airport. What can the council do to prevent these grass verges been used for commercial parking?

 

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

 

We know that the Narrative cafe in Maidenhead library closed due to the perceived uneconomic rent required by the Council, who now has no income at all in its budget from such a facility. So could you please inform Council of any efforts to secure a replacement cafe for the library at the market rent demanded?

 

e)    Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

 

As has been widely reported the Budget is overspent by at least £7.4m. I recall the budget being presented to Council with immense confidence by the Lead Member and my concerns about it being speculative robustly dismissed.  In this member-led Authority is anyone now going to stand up and say sorry, I got it wrong?

 

f)        Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Targowska, Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT:

 

The sudden departure of the Borough’s former Managing Director without a proper explanation is unacceptable. The line manager for the MD is the Leader of the Council, so will there be any accountability allocated to either party for this fractured working relationship?

 

g)      Councillor McWilliams will ask the following question of Councillor M. Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

 

Why was there no public consultation on the new Homelessness Strategy before it was adopted and who made that decision, since it was previously announced that one would be held?

 

h)     Councillor McWilliams will ask the following question of Councillor M. Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

 

What safeguards are in place to prevent the enforcement powers within the recently adopted Support Before Enforcement paper, specifically fines and threat of prosecution, being used on vulnerable residents?

 

i)        Councillor Majeed will ask the following question  ...  view the full agenda text for item 78.

Minutes:

a)    C

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

 

There are weight restrictions through the village of Horton. Please can you confirm the number of prosecutions in the last year by the Council for vehicles driving through the village over the weight limit?

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that responsibility for the enforcement of moving traffic offences within the Royal Borough rested with Thames Valley Police, which included the contravention of weight limits. Therefore, there had been no prosecutions by the council. Thames Valley Police had been requested to provide information of any prosecutions which they had pursued.

 

However, contraventions of the weight restriction had been reported to the borough by residents, Ward Members and the Parish Council who were keen to provide support and deliver measures within the control of the council. For example, existing signage had been upgraded to improve visibility of the restriction and to discourage the abuse. Concerns were also regularly raised with the Community Wardens as part of their routine patrols and community meetings; the wardens sought to work with business and the community to resolve the issue.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C Rayner stated that he had been a parish councillor since 2003 and a ward councillor since 2005. Each time he had contacted the police about who was responsible he had received the response that it was the council’s responsibility. Borough trading standards officers had told him they did not have the capacity to enforce the limit. He asked the Lead Member to write to Thames valley Police to clarify the situation.

 

Councillor Bicknell responded that he would do so.

 

c)    Councillor C Rayner asked the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services

 

Horton has problems with cars being parked for weeks on grass verges alongside the public highway. It is believed they may have been left by parking companies offering parking for travellers using Heathrow Airport. What can the council do to prevent these grass verges been used for commercial parking?

 

Councillor M Airey responded that concerns relating to long-stay parking on verges in Horton and Datchet had been raised previously by the residents and Members (including the former Councillor Grey) and were understood by officers. A residents’ parking scheme was introduced in Horton Road, Datchet to remove this parking and enforcement was now in place to ensure that residents were not disadvantaged.

 

In addition, a scheme had been agreed to introduce new double yellow lines in Horton Road (between the existing residents’ parking scheme and Welley Road) which would be implemented in January 2019 to further manage this indiscriminate parking. Officers were not aware of any further areas in this vicinity which require investigation to introduce additional measures. However, the Ward Member was very welcome to discuss areas for further investigation. Where the council had received indication that landowners were letting out land unlawfully for airport parking the enforcement team had investigated.

 

By way of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

79.

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor Coppinger:

 

This Council:

 

i) Agrees with the general principles of the Plastic Free Communities scheme namely to:

 

·         Lead by example in removing single-use plastic items from council premises as has already been agreed by the Sustainability Panel on 18 September 2018

·         Encourage plastic free initiatives such as Maidenhead Challenging Plastic, promote the Plastic Free Windsor and Plastic Free Maidenhead campaigns and support campaign events.

·         Encourage all businesses within the Borough to become plastic free.

    

ii) Work towards becoming a Plastic Free Council, including but not limited to:

 

·         Ceasing to use or to permit the use of single-use plastics in properties and open spaces under the management of the council.

·         Seeking to minimize the use of single use plastics in any future contracts.

 

iii) Reduce the use of plastic drinks bottles by:

 

·         Working with an external supplier to trial at least one reverse vending machine in the Borough

·         Supporting the work of Refill to enable all residents and visitors to refill their reusable water bottles across the Borough and to increase the supply of fresh drinking water within the Borough.

 

 

b)   By Councillor Jones:

 

Plastic Free Windsor and Plastic Free Maidenhead are part of 'Surfers against Sewage', a national organisation. They are a community group set up to encourage our own communities to become plastic free. As a Council we can play a huge part in enabling these organisations and working with them towards one aim. Reducing plastics in our community.

 

This Council:

 

i)     Agrees with the general principles of the Plastic Free Communities scheme namely to:

·         Lead by example in removing single-use plastic items from Council premises.

·         Encourage plastic free initiatives locally, promote the Plastic Free Windsor and Plastic Free Maidenhead campaigns and support campaign events.

       ii) Work towards becoming a Plastic Free Council, including but not limited to:

·         Changes its own practices by removing single-use plastics.

·         Ceasing to use or to permit the use of single-use plastics in properties and open spaces under the management of the Council.

·         Seeking to minimise the use of single use plastics in any future contracts.

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Coppinger introduced his motion. He explained that both he and Councillor Jones were passionate about reducing the amount of plastic used in the borough. This was the reason two similar motions had been put forward. He had agreed with Councillor Jones to combine the two motions; he would present the motion and Councillor Jones would second the proposal. He therefore proposed an amendment to recommendation i, second bullet point, to read:

·         Encourage plastic free initiatives such as Maidenhead Challenging Plastic, promote the Plastic Free Windsor and Plastic Free Maidenhead campaigns, appoint a Member of the council to each of the Plastic Free Steering committees and support campaign events.

Councillor Coppinger explained that when the Prime Minister announced the government’s environmental strategy in January two Maidenhead ladies, Tricia Buck and Donna Stimson formed Maidenhead Challenging Plastics with a view to leaving Maidenhead in an environmentally better place than they had found it. The group had expanded with many more people joining. They had discussed this initiative with Gail Tudor of Surfers Against Sewage and also considered joining Plastic Free Communities but plastic free was not realistic because there was a need for some plastic, reducing the amount was the important thing.

The group had met monthly since May and were working across a number of fronts:

·      Setting Refill up whereby shops and restaurants agree to fill water bottles. They would have a Refill logo in their window to show that they were part of the scheme.

·      Litter picking with Councillors, but not just litter picking but separating recycling from rubbish and taking recycling to Stafferton Way to ensure the maximum amount was recycled.

·      A blog called ‘Maidenhead Matters’ sharing both their tips and those of Green Redeem's Reduce Reuse Recycle scheme. Residents can share their ideas and also report areas which need litter picking.

·      A community section which was running a schools competition called Litter Art that had gone out to all primary schools thanks to CouncilIor Natasha Airey.

·      Working with Green Redeem whereby 25 schools would be given Deposit Return Scheme machines, so called ‘reversed vending machines’. For every bottle received the school received 5p with a ceiling of £2000.

 

Kuldeep Ahir of Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce had asked Councillor Coppinger to mention that the following night the Chamber was holding a meeting at the ‘3’ offices to share knowledge with businesses to help them become plastic free and to support businesses with plastic free alternative products. Councillor Coppinger commented that if all these people could do something, it was about time the council did, hence the reason for the joint motion.

 

Councillor Jones welcomed the motion and was delighted to second it with the amendment as stated; she understood that this meant her motion would fall away. There was a cross-party interest in how single use plastics affected all environments. Plastic free communities were part of Surfers Against Sewage. The Crown Estate was an established supporter of Surfers Against Sewage, in fact they were one of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

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.

 

 

81.

Minutes

To receive the Part II minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 September 2018