Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online access

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Video Stream: Click here to watch this meeting on YouTube

Items
No. Item

41.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Taylor.

42.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 331 KB

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 28 July 2020, and the Extraordinary meetings of the Council held on 28 September 2020 and 14 October 2020.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

 

i)             The minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2020 be approved, subject to the following amendment:

 

·         P. 40 to read ‘ Councillor Shelim agreed that there was a need to promote local businesses and look at how the town centres could receive increased footfall…….’

 

ii)            The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 28 September 2020 be approved

iii)          The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 14 October 2020 be approved

43.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillors Johnson, Bhangra, Cannon and Carroll stated that with regard to the Members’ Allowances Scheme, they had each made it known on social media that they were predisposed to vote against any increases in Member Allowances.  However they confirmed they would not make up their mind on the decision until they had heard all the debate on the item.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed there was no need for any councillor to declare an interest in relation to the Members’ Allowances item.

44.

Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 78 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 meeting, which had been limited due to COVID-19. These were noted by Council

45.

Public Questions pdf icon PDF 344 KB

a)    Sunil Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

The council's response to Covid-19 has been very good but cases have risen and what are we doing to buck the trend and deal with a second wave?

  

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

 

What is the Council’s vision for Old Windsor?

 

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

 

The recent CIPFA Report commissioned by RBWM (under 3.14) said that “expenditure avoided a prioritisation process to the benefit of one ward”.  Is this statement correct?

 

d)   Deborah Ludford of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Council has declared a Climate Emergency and states in its Environment and Climate strategy ‘the quality of life and the role of the natural environment in creating great places is a critical part of the success of the borough economy, and to our residents’ health and wellbeing’.  Surely this is inconsistent with plans to build on the golf course?

 

e)    Deborah Ludford of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Biodiversity is under threat with 1 million species facing extinction.  The golf course is rich in wildlife habitats, providing homes for protected and endangered species such as slow worms, bats, hedgehogs and badgers.  How can our council justify the destruction of these habitats when we know continued biodiversity loss threatens the wellbeing of everyone?

 

f)     Tina Quadrino of Pinkneys Green ward will ask the following question of CouncillorCoppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

Building on brownfield land is more sustainable than building on greenfield sites, with buildings recycled wherever possible to reduce carbon emissions. With the RBWM environment and climate strategy in mind, what is the council doing to make sure this is prioritised in our borough, particularly in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic which will leave many more business premises vacant?

 

g)   Tara Crist of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

Like the River Thames, the creation of a Great Park in Maidenhead would provide a major draw to people looking to live and visit here, bringing economic prosperity, as well as providing a healthier environment. Surely the short term gain from developing the golf course is not in the long term economic or environmental interest of our town?

 

h)   Mark Loader of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Will the planned development of Maidenhead Golf Course result in the removal of established trees? If so, is this consistent  ...  view the full agenda text for item 45.

Minutes:

a)    Sunil Sharma of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

The council's response to Covid-19 has been very good but cases have risen and what are we doing to buck the trend and deal with a second wave?

  

Written response: Thank you for your question.  It is true that the borough enjoyed a long period when cases of Covid-19 were low over the summer.  Since the beginning of September, however, we have seen a rapid increase in the number of cases in the borough, largely driven through community transmission, and this increase has been mirrored nationally.  Evidence suggests that the increase in infection is predominately due to household to household transmission, rather than within specific high risk settings. 

 

The Royal Borough is currently rated at level 1 of the Government’s alert system and whilst the rise in our number of cases has slightly abated, the potential for underlying infection remains extremely high.  We are keeping the situation under constant review and any decisions on further restriction will be based on data, the expert advice of our public health professionals and liaison with government.

 

What we are doing, and this is our constant focus, is urging everyone to consider their actions, follow the guidance, and understand the risks around transmission to prevent the further spread of the virus within our community.  Everyone has a role to play in this.  Our comprehensive communications and engagement activity is focused on these five key messages:

 

1.    Wash your hands regularly

2.    Wear a face covering where appropriate

3.    Keep space between yourself and those not in your household – this is particularly important if you have visitors or if you visit other homes.

4.    Do not meet in a group of more than six, indoors or outdoors

5.    If you have symptoms, self-isolate and get a test.

 

We are also acutely aware of the critical importance of our local businesses and the vital need for them to be supported at all times. Hence why myself and Cllr Johnson have been making vigorous representations to Government on improved financial support packages, particularly should cases continue to rise and any future classification is needed.  I have also been speaking with DHSC colleagues over the need for improved local test and trace support and capacity.  We will continue to ensure these critical issues are understood as part of our local plan.

 

Mr Sharma did not attend the meeting and had not submitted a supplementary question.

 

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

 

What is the Council’s vision for Old Windsor?

 

Written response: The emerging Borough Local Plan sets out the Council’s vision for future development within the whole Royal Borough.  Old Windsor is planned to play an important role as a local centre, continuing to meet the day to day needs of its local population.  In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

46.

Petitions

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

 

(Notice of the petition must be given to the Head of Governance not later than noon on the last working day prior to the meeting. A Member submitting a Petition may speak for no more than 2 minutes to summarise the contents of the Petition).

Minutes:

Councillor Coppinger presented the following petition on behalf of Abigail Tinson, lead petitioner:

 

We the undersigned petition the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to Create Cycle Lanes Around Maidenhead For Safety, Health and Pollution Benefits

 

Councillor Coppinger explained that he was delighted to present a petition on behalf of many residents of whom 785 had signed the petition. Since lockdown began and now a new phase of COVID had begun, an incredible demand for cycling had occurred, many people were taking the plunge and trying out cycling for the first time or since they were young, and of course they were also introducing their children to cycling. One of the main reasons there had been more cycling was because of quieter roads making it easier for people to cycle. To make sure people could continue to cycle cycling lanes needed to be introduced and not just for the athlete but for the average family. This would mean less injuries caused by cars and reassurance for all road users that there was a designated road space for cyclists.

 

With the development of the new Braywick Leisure Centre this was a perfect time to invest in cycling lanes. Maidenhead train station now had an extremely large bike locking area which meant that more cyclists were expected. Councillor Coppinger thanked Abigail Tinson who had been the driving or ‘cycling’ force behind the petition

 

 

47.

Referrals from other bodies

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

 

Minutes:

Members’ Allowances Scheme

 

Members considered recommendations by the Independent Remuneration Panel on the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

 

Councillor Johnson introduced the report and highlighted that the recommendations came from the council’s Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP); they were not the recommendations of his administration. He proposed that Members debate all the recommendations and then vote on them collectively. This was seconded by Councillor Rayner.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that anything in the report that had the semblance of increasing costs should be rejected.

 

Councillor Hilton stated that given the financial situation and COVID, council staff had not received any increase in pay therefore the recommendations made no sense. He had no desire for his own allowances to be increased.

 

Councillor Jones agreed that in light of the financial situation of the council and what residents and staff were seeing at the moment, there were a number of recommendations she could not agree with. She asked whether deferral was an option.

 

The Monitoring Officer advised that if the item were deferred, the recommendations from the IRP would expire. It would involve considerable council resources to start the review process all over again.

 

Councillor Jones proposed amendments to each of the 23 recommendations, with the following comments, details of which were circulated to all councillors:

 

1.    No, leave basic allowance as is. Given the financial situation of the council and the economy at the moment this was not the time for an increase. If the situation changed within the next 4 years then there was the option to revisit the recommendations.

2.    Yes

3.    Agree the basis for the Leader SRA @ 3 times basic 

4.    Agree  maintain at 55% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

5.    Agree maintain at 50% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

6.    Agree maintain at 25% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

7.    Agree be reset at 20% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

8.    Agree

9.    Agree

10.Agree maintain at 20% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

11.Agree

12.Agree

13.Agree but reword to 25% of Leaders SRA to be split proportionately but on agreed rate as per note for 1

14.Agree

15.Agree

16.Agree

17.Agree

18.Agree

19.Agree

20.Agree

21.Agree

22. a) Agree – but deferred for 21/22 and brought back to council each year for decision on whether to go ahead dependent on situation b) Agree c) Agree d) Agree e) Agree

23. Agree apart from including Audit Panel to be implemented from 28 October 2020 due to only having had 1 meeting.

 

Councillor Jones conclude that she was aware of the number of hours (at least 30 hours per week) that were carried out by Members and how this may be a barrier for some to be able to put themselves forward as councillors but her view was that this was not the time to address that issue.

 

Councillor Hill seconded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

48.

Political Balance pdf icon PDF 230 KB

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered the political balance on the council.

 

Councillor Werner explained that he supported the paper which was required given the recent change. He understood it was not for debate at the meeting, but he commented that he would be looking for all panels to have an odd number of members. In the example of the Constitution Sub Committee this had a membership of 4 which meant the Conservative group had a majority of 2 seats, whereas if it had a membership of 3 the Conservative Group would have a majority of 1. He requested that consideration be given by Councillor Johnson to increase the membership to 5 to allow both Opposition Groups to be represented.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that the review was required given the recent change in party membership. He responded to Councillor Werner’s request to say that he was not minded to agree at the current time.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council notes the report and approves the amended political balance for the council as detailed in Tables 1 and 2.

 

49.

Members' Questions pdf icon PDF 149 KB

a)     Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

With reports of thousands of plots of land across the UK with existing planning permission but no activity by builders, could you tell us how many homes have been given planning permission in RBWM that haven't started building yet?

 

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

 

Residents and businesses in my Ward have been seriously affected by flooding three times since the Jubilee River opened in 2002.  You announced in August that the River Thames Scheme Channel 1 was stalled due to lack of funding.  Furthermore maintenance of the local land drainage infrastructure is almost non-existent.  Can you explain precisely how we got into this position?


(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with Member questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances.
The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

 

Minutes:

a)     Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

With reports of thousands of plots of land across the UK with existing planning permission but no activity by builders, could you tell us how many homes have been given planning permission in RBWM that haven't started building yet?

 

Written response: The planning regime has very limited influence over the rate at which developers choose to build out planning permissions. However, The Council publishes annually an Authority Monitoring Report which sets out this information. In 2018/19 there were 785 net new dwellings granted planning permission which was a significant increase from the previous year when 344 net new dwellings were granted permission. As of 31 March 2019 there were 1,558 outstanding, unimplemented housing commitments.  This figure can vary year on year due to it taking into account large permissions which may have only recently been granted permission.

 

The net completions figures for each year show a more realistic picture of the rate of dwelling completions within the Borough.  Over the last ten years there has been a marked increase in the rate of housing completions each year in the Borough. In 2010/11 there were only 190 net completions.  There was a significant rise in 2014/15 when 514 dwellings were completed and the upward trend continued to 2018/19 when 705 net dwellings were completed.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey thanked Councillor Coppinger for the clear response and commented that the number of 2000 homes felt familiar. He felt confident that the public questioners were not so confident with the replies from the Lead Members earlier in the meeting. He asked how could anyone argue that a builder could do more for biodiversity than nature itself. The BLP Inspector had questioned the government predictions of 16,000 versus 14,500. How this would be played out could be seen on YouTube on 9 December. He suggested that AL21 be moved to please his residents. On AL13 (the golf course) he suggested building ten homes at a cost of £1m each, and selling them for £5m. This would sort out the deficit whilst retaining the majority of the golf course and maximising biodiversity. If each property was hard wired there would be no need for 5G to disrupt nature.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that he had got quite lost and did not see the relevance of 5G. He was happy to wait for the inspector’s decision; he felt that it would be exactly where the council wanted it to be. He thought that all of the things put forward would be accepted by the Inspector.

 

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

 

Residents and businesses in my Ward have been seriously affected by flooding three times since the Jubilee River opened in 2002.  You announced in August that the River Thames Scheme Channel 1 was stalled due to lack of funding.  Furthermore maintenance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

50.

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor McWilliams

Recognising the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights statement on racism & xenophobia: "Prejudice or hostility towards a person's race, colour, language, nationality, or national or ethnic origin…Intolerant discourse in the media or from politicians can lead to increased racist sentiments towards migrants and other minorities, including in the form of scapegoating," ?this Council resolves to: 

i)             Collect high-quality diversity data including conducting annual workplace surveys to analyse progress being made against Equality Objectives (2018 - 2022), including how well the organisation and Members reflect the demographic makeup of RBWM and the UK, and to identify steps to improve any disparity; findings will be reviewed and scrutinised at Corporate O&S and by members of the public. 

ii)             Introduce mandatory unconscious bias training for councillors and officers, and encourage teaching and learning about Britain’s colonial past and slavery; the Members' Code of Conduct will be amended to include a requirement to complete an annual training session. 

iii)           Write to the Secretary of State for Education asking for a more ambitious national educational standard on issues of race and gender equality, and inviting him to attend an RBWM-hosted Gender & Race Equality Conference, where residents and employers can talk and share ideas on the importance of having high-quality diversity data; creating an organisation open to all; identifying the challenges and celebrating the achievements of people of colour in RBWM.

 

 

b)   By Councillor Werner:

 

Following the profound disappointment many residents have experienced with service delivery shortcomings across a range of contracts awarded to external partners by recent administrations, it is long overdue time that the burgeoning evidence supporting an in-house delivery model is given more serious and sustained consideration. 

This Council:

i)     Will abandon its preference, quoted in the Principles of Commissioning, to seek external market solutions. 

ii)    Will, for each delivery model analysis going forward, undertake a serious study of an in-house solution and publish the results. 

iii)   Will carry out a retrospective study on all active outsourced contracts to compare their value to an in-house delivery model and publish the results. 

 

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

Minutes:

Motion a

Councillor McWilliams introduced his motion. He explained that it felt a long time since he, along with Councillors Carroll, W. Da Costa and Tisi, got together to put aside party political differences to put together a motion that set out practical steps to address the public debate around race and racism. The public debate on the issue often included reflections on the country’s history, the structures within public institutions and relations with different cultures and communities. When traversing this huge tapestry of issues it was all too easy to engage in debate about the very fabric of society and creating practical steps to advance change was sometimes more challenging.

The motion tackled this hugely important matter soberly and with clear positive outcomes in mind. Collecting high quality diversity data to compare to local demographics would enable the council to ask meaningful questions on whether there were any perceived or actual barriers to people from diverse backgrounds applying for roles. It may be that there was no issue but if there were perceived or actual barriers they could be tackled by having a greater understanding of the data. The council already collected some data; it was hoped the motion would take this to the next stage.

Engaging in regular equality and diversity training was a standard part of corporate and public institution life. There was no reason that these same standards should not be applied to councillors. Members were required to undertake training on a number of issues and ensuring any potential barriers to opportunity were addressed was hugely significant. It was also important to understand the country’s history in all its complexity, as a nation with a history dating back millennia, there were some dark chapters as well as inspirational ones. Slavery was a stain on the country’s history yet it was the Royal Navy and the British government that put an end to the slave trade. The history of empire was also complex and countless academic tomes had sought to understand its full impact. The motion asked all to encourage the fullest possible understanding of the nation’s history.

Councillor McWilliams hoped that all would support the motion to take practical steps to ensure the council was responding reasonably and with due consideration to concerns expressed around race and racism in the recent public debate.

Councillor W. Da Costa explained that he wanted tohold up a mirror of best practice. The fight for justice and equality went on from one generation to the next. Today it was the turn of this generation and the council to push further back the boundaries of inequality and injustice. Racism existed; structural inequalities existed. A rudimentary comparison of the ethnicities of councillors with ONS data for RBWM and surrounding councils indicated, amongst other things, that Black people were not just massively underrepresented at Council but the situation was getting worse.  

 

This motion being presented was propitious as the Lawrence Report entitled, “An Avoidable Crisis” had been published earlier in the day,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Motion a Motion Carried
Motion b Motion Rejected
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  •