Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online access

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Video Stream: Click here to rewatch the live stream of this meeting on YouTube

Items
No. Item

4.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received.

5.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 424 KB

To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 February 2020, and the Extraordinary meetings held on 18 March 2020 and 26 May 2020.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

 

i)             The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 February 2020 be approved

ii)            The minutes of the extraordinary meetings of the Council held on 18 March 2020 and 26 May 2020 be approved.

6.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor Rayner declared a Personal Interest in the item ‘Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan – Formal Making of the Plan’ as she owned land and property in the ward. She had taken legal advice and had been told she could take part in the debate and vote on the item.

 

Councillor Bhangra declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Appointment of Panel Chairman’ as he was nominated as Chairman of the Licensing Panel, a role which attracted a Special Responsibility Allowance.

 

7.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 79 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 Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last ordinary meeting, which were noted by Council.

 

8.

Public Questions pdf icon PDF 424 KB

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

 

Can the Lead Member advise if the RBWM is still paying interest on LOBO loans and if so what rate of interest is being paid?

 

b)   Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Will the Leader of the Council advise the approximate value of the Royal Borough’s assets including those held within the RBWM Property Company?

 

c)    Maria Evans of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

The council has declared its directly controlled annual carbon footprint is only 0.7% of the Borough’s production emissions; let alone accounting for the Borough’s consumption emissions. What is your strategy to engage with other stakeholders to play their part in reducing the Borough’s footprint to net-zero?

 

d)   Andrew Elder of Eton and Castle ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

2019 was the warmest year on record in Europe; 1.2 degrees above the reference period. 1.5 degrees is the recommended limit to avoid catastrophic climate change. Can you demonstrate that the strategy for the borough will enable actions to be fast enough? And if not, why not?

 

e)    Deborah Mason of of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Can you explain how this represents a consultative and collaborative approach to local democracy when critical documents relating to the Climate Strategy were not made available to the public before the question submission deadline?

 

f)     Fiona Hewer of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Does the Council consider the Phase 1 Habitat Survey conducted by Wild Maidenhead in 2017 a suitable baseline for measuring improvements to biodiversity in the Climate Strategy and, if not, what do you propose? 

 

g)   Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Unmanaged access to sensitive habitats, for example for dog-walking and watersports, is likely to decrease biodiversity. Can the Lead Member reassure me of the Council’s commitment to implementing an Environment and Climate Emergency strategy by giving examples of when and how expert advice on biodiversity protection has taken precedence over such ‘business as usual’ activities?

 

h)   Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Given that the Council has, in declaring the Emergency, recognised the existential threat we face can the Lead Member confirm that commitments or assumptions made before the Emergency was declared will be subject to review and that addressing climate  ...  view the full agenda text for item 8.

Minutes:

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance:

 

Can the Lead Member advise if the RBWM is still paying interest on LOBO loans and if so what rate of interest is being paid?

 

Written response:

 

The Council has the following two LOBO loans outstanding:

 

£5m borrowed from Barclays in 2006 at an interest rate of 4.19% that is due to be repaid in 2066

 

£8m borrowed from Dexia in 2008 at an interest rate of 4.19% that is due to be repaid in 2043

 

Barclays have waived their right to increase the interest rate on their loan, and with interest rates at historically low levels it is not expected Dexia will seek to increase their rate either as the Council would be able to repay the loan and refinance at a lower rate. 

 

These loans form a small proportion of the Council’s borrowing and the Council regularly reviews its borrowing levels and the split between long and short-term borrowing.  The Council seeks to balance the benefits of low interest rates of short-term borrowing and the protection against future interest rate increases of long-term borrowing.

 

The Council’s current borrowing strategy is for any new borrowing to be taken out on a short-term basis to take advantage of low interest rates, and in consultation with its Treasury Management advisors, to seek and review options to increase its proportion of long-term borrowing where this can be obtained at a favourable rate.

 

Mr Wilson had submitted a supplementary question in writing, which was read out by officers: ‘Given that refinancing this debt at short/ medium term interest rates would save the Council around £200,000 per year will he now provide full details of these loans and the external advice received on these loans to date?’

 

Councillor Hilton responded that the council had taken advice on whether or not it would be possible to close these loans out, and it would not be without significant penalty which was why they remained. If that did not answer the question, Councillor Hilton stated that he would speak to the council’s Section 151 officer to see if she interpreted it differently and send a written response if appropriate.

 

Written response provided after the meeting: The two Lender Option Borrower Option debts were discussed with the Council’s Treasury Management advisers, Arlingclose. They commented that at the moment there isn’t a big enough margin between the rate we are currently paying on these loans and the rate at which, we could take out a new loan to make it worthwhile repaying these at the moment. If we were to repay the loans early we would have to pay the banks an upfront payment that was the equivalent value of the interest payments we would have made to them over the course of the loans had they ran to maturity.  An estimate of the impact of repaying the LOBO loans by taking out new fixed-term borrowing at current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Petitions

To receive any petitions presented by Members on behalf of residents.

 

(Any Member submitting a petition has up to 2 minutes to summarise its contents)

Minutes:

No petitions were submitted.

10.

Referrals from other bodies

To consider referrals from other bodies (e.g. Cabinet)

 

Minutes:

i)             Climate Strategy

 

Members considered the council’s draft climate strategy and action plan to allow the document to be published for public consultation.

Councillor Stimson explained that it was a year ago, in June 2019, when the council had declared an environmental and climate emergency. As part of the motion at full Council, the Royal Borough made a commitment to form a cross-party steering group, to develop a draft strategy, and bring it before council a year later. The commitment made as a Council in June 2019 was to achieve a target of net zero carbon emissions in the Borough by 2050, in line with Government policy. This was the minimum commitment. From the number of questions that had been submitted tonight she was aware there was a strong desire for the strategy to be as ambitious as it could be. This was her wish too and the council had committed to publishing an updated trajectory within 6 months of the strategy being approved by full Council.

The latest figures had put the Borough emissions at 670.8 kt CO2. Of that 38% was domestic, 33% was transport, and 28% was industry, commercial and agriculture. When domestic use, the biggest sector, it was gas emissions that were the issue. There were 151,000 residents in the borough living in 59,000 properties, with upwards of 700 being built annually that would need to be taken account of as well. This was the biggest sector to influence and the council would work with government on funding to retrofit homes to decarbonise them.

Councillor Stimson highlighted the areas the strategy covered;

·           Circular economy - how to become more sustainable in the use of resources, from not using them, to reducing waste, encouraging material re-use, increasing recycling, and supporting less resource intensive lifestyles

·           Energy: how to use less energy in buildings and homes, decarbonisation of supply

·           Natural environment: how to look after and improve this part of the Thames Valley and in so doing increase residents’ health and wellbeing.

·           Transport: how to reduce the need for carbon intensive travel by encouraging walking and cycling, investing in digital infrastructure, encouraging sustainable travel, electric vehicle charging points, cycle routes.

This was a true emergency, with the climate changing on a scale and pace that threatened the current way of life and more so that of children and their children. The COVID-19 pandemic had shown how people coudl adapt rapidly, and how the borough was capable of working together with urgency to try to help those more vulnerable.

From her perspective as Lead Member, this had been a hard mountain to climb, and the council was just in the foothills. The execution had not been perfect. A month ago her Cabinet colleagues had trusted her (along with the Director of Place) to strengthen the draft strategy presented to them with the work of four stakeholders. A much stronger document was therefore presented. It was still not perfect. It was, after all, a draft. The council needed to engage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

Constitutional Amendments pdf icon PDF 2 MB

To consider the above report

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered amendments to a number of sections in the council constitution to improve clarity, consistency and transparency, avoid duplication, and ensure efficient use of resources.

 

Councillor Johnson proposed the motions in the report.

 

Councillor Rayner seconded the proposals. She explained that, as Members would be aware, the last full review of the constitution was undertaken during 2018, with a revised version in place from May 2019. As the council had operated under the revised constitution for over a year, it was now an appropriate time to review corporate governance arrangements.

 

In relation to employment functions, the purpose of the amendments to the terms of reference of the Employment and Member Standards Panel was to increase efficiency, largely by removing duplication whilst ensuring appropriate consideration of decisions relating to staffing. The Head of Paid Services already had responsibility for staffing matters within the council. The changes would lead to swifter decision making in response to business needs. The key change was the introduction of a five Member Appointment Committee to appoint Directors. In the case of the Managing Director (Head of Paid Services) Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer) and Monitoring Officer, the Committee would make a recommendation to full Council. Recruitment of Heads of Service would be delegated to the Head of Paid Service. A number of items would be considered for approval by the Head of Paid Service in consultation with finance as appropriate. These included payment of discretionary payments to an employee other than those under a contract of employment. The Head of Paid Service would make Group Leaders aware of amounts in excess of £50,000 and all Members aware of amounts in excess of £100,000. New or significant changes to staffing currently required a Panel decision for groups of five or more employees where the total cost was more than £25,000.

 

Where relevant, data on policies for staff including corporate health and safety, equal opportunities and training and development would be published via the weekly Members’ Update. The annual pay policy statement and proposals for any staff award were already contained in the annual budget papers considered by full Council.  The Trade Unions would be invited annually to a formal meeting to discuss pay with relevant portfolio holders. Any other representations by the Trade Unions would be considered by the Head of Paid Service. The Employment and Member Standards Panel would become a Member Standards Panel going forward.  The Employment Appeals Sub Committee would be a sub committee of the new Appointment Committee.

 

Councillor Rayner explained that in March 2020 the Employment and Member Standards Panel had considered and approved for recommendation to full Council changes to the Members Code of Conduct and complaints process, detailed in Appendices D and E. She drew Members’ attention to the fact that two updates had been issued following publication of the agenda. These changes to the membership arrangements for the Members Standards Sub Committee were approved by the Employment and Member Standards Panel In March but unfortunately were not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Constitutional Amendments - Cllr Jones amendment #1 (Emp Appeal Sub Cttee membership) Amendment Rejected
Constitutional Amendments - Cllr Jones amendment #2 (call-in) Amendment Rejected
Constitutional Amendments - Cllr Jones amendment #3 (O&S Panel Chairman/Vice Chairman) Amendment Rejected
Constitutional Amendments- Cllr Hill Amendment (petition for debate signature level) - closure motion Motion Carried
Constitutional Amendments- Cllr Hill Amendment (petition for debate signature level) Amendment Rejected
Constitutional Amendments - closure motion Motion Carried
Constitutional Amendments Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 12.

    Continuation of Meeting

    Minutes:

    At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A C25.1 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 9.30pm.

     

    Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Coppinger, proposed items 9-12 be voted on as a block, without debate, but this was not supported unanimously.

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

     

    i)             The meeting continue after 9.30pm to consider items 9-12 on the agenda.

    ii)            Member questions would be dealt with by way of written answers.

    iii)          Remaining Member motions would be deferred to the next meeting on 28 July 2020.

     

    13.

    Appointment of Panel Chairman pdf icon PDF 3 KB

    To consider the following appointments:

     

    RECOMMENDATION: That:

     

    i)              Councillor Cannon be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Royal Borough Development Management Panel

    ii)             Councillor Bhangra be appointed as Chairman of the Licensing Panel

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Councillor Johnson highlighted that the appointments proposed would help to spread the talent across the panels on the council.

     

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

     

    RESOLVED: That:

     

    i)             Councillor Cannon be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Royal Borough Development Panel

    ii)            Councillor Bhangra be appointed as the Chairman of the Licensing Panel

    iii)           Councillor Tisi be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Corporate Parenting Forum

    iv)           Councillor Taylor be appointed as Vice Chairman of the Maidenhead Town Forum

     

    (Councillor Bhangra declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and took no part in the debate or vote on the item)

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Appointment of Panel Chairman Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 14.

    Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan - Formal Making of the Plan pdf icon PDF 325 KB

    To consider the above report

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Members considered making the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan as part of the Development Plan for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and for it to be used in decision making for relevant planning applications in the neighbourhood planning area.

     

    Councillor Coppinger explained that the first neighbourhood plan in the borough had begun nine years before. The Plan for Horton and Wraysbury would be the fifth in the borough. The ability for a community to define what happened in the locality was very important. The steering group had produced the Plan on behalf of the two parish councils.  The draft Plan had been submitted to the Inspector, who had recommended a referendum subject to a number of modifications. In October 2019 Cabinet had approved the Plan to go to referendum. The poll took place in January 2020, with 83% of electors casting a vote agreeing that the Plan should be approved. The costs were covered by a government grant.

     

    Councillor Cannon, in seconding the motion, commented on the great deal of work that had been undertaken by the community.

     

    Councillor Bhangra proposed a closure motion that ‘the question be now put to the vote’.

     

    It was proposed by Councillor Bhangra, seconded by Councillor Bateson and:

     

    RESOLVED: That, as per Part 2C 14.11 ii), the question now be put to the vote.

     

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

     

    RESOLVED: ThatCouncil notes the report and:

     

    i)          Makes the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan part of the Development Plan for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and,

    ii)         Delegates authority to the Director of Place in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead to make minor non-material amendments to the neighbourhood plan as necessary prior to its publication.

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan - Closure motion Motion Carried
    Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 15.

    Bank Reconciliation Report pdf icon PDF 182 KB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered actions in relation to unreconciled bank reconciliation entries.

    Councillor Hilton explained that this was an historic issue of bank reconciliation which had been described in the last two external audit ISA260 reports as “unadjusted mis-statements.”

     

    The issue was first reported in 2017 and had prompted action. Processes were set up to enable income received by the bank to be identified, allocated and reconciled to the correct service account more easily. This proactive management of income ensured that the amount of unreconciled income would not grow. The 2017/18 bank reconciliation control audit was carried out in March 2018. The audit, which was on the revised reconciliation process, resulted in a final report awarding the second highest of four audit opinions ‘Substantially complete and generally effective’.

     

    There were two large unreconciled balances of £1,136.953 relating to bank reconciliation entries and £1,152,758 on the Housing Benefit subsidy account respectively. One a debit and the other a credit.

     

    The Finance team and Internal Audit had undertaken significant work to resolve the differences but given the lack of historical records could not go any further. In conclusion the unreconciled entries and housing benefit credits could not be individually matched off and a technical financial adjustment was required to rectify this in the statement of accounts. If approve, the adjustment would be reflected in the 2020-21 accounts but noted by external audit for the 2019-20 external audit report.

     

    Members would note in table 3 that the impact on the council’s accounts was negligible and a positive of £15,800.

     

    Councillor Bond asked whether the Lead Member was confident that the decision was acceptable for audit purposes if one was asked for by the Secretary of State. He asked if any claimants had been left out of pocket. As the report di not detail the root causes, was the council happy that the situation could not happen again.

     

    Councillor W. Da Costa explained that he had spoken to officers and had been told that there were no ongoing unreconciled items. New processes were in place so it should not happen again. This was reassuring. However, he expressed concern that the issue was raised in August 2017 but the credits related to 2017/18 and 2018/19 so whilst it was fortuitous that the amounts were similar, he wondered if the housing benefit subsidy account was about to be raided inappropriately. He asked how Councillor Hilton how he could be assured this was not the case.

     

    Councillor Hilton explained that the work had been ongoing for a long period of time and it was decided it needed to be closed down. The external auditors were involved in that process. He was absolutely comfortable that the reconciliation was appropriate and a small positive balance would be received as a result.

     

    It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Story, and:

    RESOLVED: That Council notes the report and:

     

    i)     Approves the write off of £1,136,953 for the unreconciled bank reconciliation entries.

    ii)    Approves use of £1,136,953 of the £1,152,758  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Bank Reconciliation Report Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 16.

    Urgent Decision Report pdf icon PDF 216 KB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered an urgent decision report for noting only.

     

    Councillor Cannon explained that the report was to bring to the attention of Council the urgent decision made by Cabinet to give 3 hours free car parking to residents with an Advantage Card.

     

    It was proposed by Councillor Cannon, seconded by Councillor Bowden.

    RESOLVED: That in line with Part 3B, Paragraph Section 4b of the Constitution (Urgent Decisions Outside the Budget or Policy Framework) Council notes the urgent decision taken by Cabinet on 12th June 2020

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Urgent Decision Report Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 17.

    Members' Questions

    a)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    At Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel Councillor Johnson said he was “curious” why the opposition had challenged Cabinet’s decision to give Maidenhead United many acres of Braywick Park for zero consideration. How else would he suggest we challenge Cabinet decisions that do not have the required detail to ensure the decision is in the best interests of council and residents?

     

    b)   Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    Why after the COVID-19 Crisis has shown that much office space and some retail space will most likely never be used again and is highly likely to be converted into private dwellings are we as a Borough still proposing to develop Maidenhead Golf Club for housing?

     

    c)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking:

     

    What is the current total of the RBWM River Thames Scheme partnership funding contributions required to ensure that Channel 1 through Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury is progressed?

     

    d)   Councillor Brar will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside.

     

    The Tyndall Climate Centre has produced a report for RBWM. It is available online. It shows a target of approximately 5Mtons of CO2 not 10 Mtons as in the Climate Strategy document. Why was this scientific advice declined and not mentioned in the strategy especially when the RBWM targets go against the Paris Climate agreement of 1.5 degrees warming?

     

    e)    Councillor Baldwin will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor:

     

    Despite concerns voiced by opposition members over many years about the sorry state of corporate governance within RBWM we are still routinely issued with agendas lacking crucial reports. It appears the date of the meeting has become the disclosure deadline, making proper preparation impossible. What assurances can the lead member give us that these long-term deficiencies are being addressed?

     

    f)     Councillor Jones will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    The RBWM 2018/19 Audit issued a ‘qualified’ conclusion with concerns regarding inadequate resourcing of key governance functions: weaknesses in arrangements of financial sustainability and resilience, ultra vires spend, inadequate reports to council and a culture that discouraged individuals to challenge. Concerns echoed by Cipfa and the Peer Review. What impact have these failures had on the council as an organisation?

     

    g)   Councillor Reynolds will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

     

    Currently RBWM only has the capacity to power 1% of our homes via renewable energy. To simply keep pace with other local authorities we need 13X more. How will RBWM do this?

     

    h)   Councillor Del Campo will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

     

    The inspector’s response to the latest version of  ...  view the full agenda text for item 17.

    Minutes:

    As agreed earlier in the meeting, all Member questions (including supplementary questions where submitted) were dealt with by way of written answers provided after the meeting:

     

    a)    Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    At Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel Councillor Johnson said he was “curious” why the opposition had challenged Cabinet’s decision to give Maidenhead United many acres of Braywick Park for zero consideration. How else would he suggest we challenge Cabinet decisions that do not have the required detail to ensure the decision is in the best interests of council and residents?

     

    Written response: tbc

     

    b)   Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    Why after the COVID-19 Crisis has shown that much office space and some retail space will most likely never be used again and is highly likely to be converted into private dwellings are we as a Borough still proposing to develop Maidenhead Golf Club for housing?

     

    Written response: Maidenhead Golf Club is allocated in the emerging Borough Local Plan for 2000 homes (30 % affordable) with supporting infrastructure including a new school and is key to meeting objectively assessed housing need. There is also no evidence yet, that substantial office and retail will be converted into residential, or that even if it was that it would be in the correct place for residential use. Employment and retail space will also be very important for economic recovery.  Housing need and demand in the borough is substantial and new homes are desperately needed to meet that, including affordable housing. The Maidenhead Golf Course site will provide much needed new housing including a significant amount of affordable housing to meet housing need in the Borough in a sustainable location alongside new education and community facilities to support the town. 

     

    A supplementary question was not submitted

     

    c)    Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking:

     

    What is the current total of the RBWM River Thames Scheme partnership funding contributions required to ensure that Channel 1 through Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury is progressed?

     

    Written response: To progress the Outline Business Case for the River Thames Scheme which includes the channel through the Royal Borough contributions of £53m from RBWM will be required together with a commitment to a risk sharing agreement for any potential changes in costs.

     

    £10m (split over four years commencing in 2020/21) of the Royal Borough’s contribution was approved by Council in September 2017 and forms part of the approved budget for 2020/21.

     

    At this stage of the approvals process for the project, the commitment to the financial contributions would require a letter from the Section 151 officer to the Project Sponsoring Board.

     

    Supplementary question: When will the S151 Officer be writing to the Project Sponsoring Board?

     

    Written response: tbc

     

    d)   Councillor Brar asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside.

     

    The Tyndall Climate Centre has produced a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

    18.

    Motions on Notice pdf icon PDF 44 KB

    a)    By Councillor Hill

     

    This Council agrees to reduce the number of signatures required for a petition to be debated at Full Council from 1500 to 1000 in the interests of democracy by allowing residents to more easily get direct access to their elected representatives on issues of importance to them.

     

    b)   By Councillor Werner

    This Council;

     i) Offers a vote of thanks to the residents of the Royal Borough, the vast majority of whom, whilst facing very difficult personal sacrifices and restrictions to liberty, have diligently followed both letter and the spirit of the emergency legislation brought in to protect public health during the Covid-19 global pandemic;

     ii) Acknowledges the extraordinary courage and commitment to community shown by many thousands of residents, individually, through neighbourhood groups and with our charitable partner organisations, throughout this terrible time;

    iii) Also, publicly recognises the skill, dedication and tenacity with which our officers have co-ordinated these efforts and the Council’s own activities, for the benefit of all.

     

     

    Minutes:

    As agreed earlier in the meeting, all remaining motions were deferred to the next scheduled meeting on 28 July 2020.

     

    Motion a) by Councillor Hill had been considered as an amendment to the Constitutional Amendments report earlier on the agenda.

     

    Motions b) and c) would be deferred to the next scheduled meeting.