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

62.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Targowski.

63.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 886 KB

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 27 October 2020 and the extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 23 November 2020.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

It was proposed by Councillor Story, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

 

i)             The minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2020 be approved

ii)            The Part I minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 23 November 2020 be approved

64.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any declarations of interest

Minutes:

None received

65.

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 meeting, which had been limited due to COVID-19. These were noted by Council

66.

Public Questions pdf icon PDF 109 KB

a)     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 what is the Council’s vision for Furze Platt?

 

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

 

The CIFPA Report under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Plan concludes that members were able to circumvent the Council’s approved policies without appropriate challenge from officers.  It also states that the plan was included after consideration at the Members Budget Steering Committee.  Can he advise what challenge was made by officers at this meeting?

 

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with public 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)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Will the Leader of the Council advise what is the Council’s vision for Furze Platt?

 

Written response: The emerging Borough Local Plan sets out the Council’s vision for future development within the whole Royal Borough.  Within the emerging Borough Local Plan there are specific policies relating to areas where it is proposed to focus future growth. Furze Platt is not proposed to be an area of significant growth or change and so there are no specific policies relating to it.  The future vision for the area is for it to be part of a thriving Royal Borough where people can live and work in a safe, healthy and sustainable environment.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson thanked Councillor Johnson for confirming the council had a generic, rather than a specific, vision for Furze Platt and asked if he would outline how this vision would become a reality for residents?

 

Councillor Johnson responded that this would happen through the continued implementation of a range of policies that sought to secure and embed economic recovery from COVID-19, to ensure the most vulnerable in society were protected and to ensure future opportunities, in particular economic opportunity. The broader planning policy framework was also key. It would also be important that the administration continued to attract and retain businesses in the borough, including through promotion of inward investment opportunities and attracting economic growth. The ambitions for Furze Platt would be realised in the short term by the ward councillors playing a constructive part in helping the administration to deliver its policies, for which it had a mandate.

 

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

 

The CIFPA Report under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Plan concludes that members were able to circumvent the Council’s approved policies without appropriate challenge from officers.  It also states that the plan was included after consideration at the Members Budget Steering Committee.  Can he advise what challenge was made by officers at this meeting?

 

Written response: There is no record of discussion of the Clewer and Dedworth Neighbourhood proposals in Budget Steering Group minutes and therefore no record of any challenge by officers.  

  

However, there is no doubt that the Dedworth and Clewer Neighbourhood scheme for roads and footway improvements did not go through the formal prioritisation process which ensures investment in roads maintenance is made based on greatest need. The Clewer and Dedworth proposals circumvented that process to the benefit of one ward. Not only did the roads maintenance avoid the prioritisation process but other schemes relating to works in parks and at a day centre were added to the scheme. It may be that these were approved by the then Managing Director but as detailed in the CIPFA report, the Monitoring Officer agreed that virements from the PAVE scheme, to pay for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

67.

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:

No petitions were submitted.

68.

Order of Business

Minutes:

The Mayor explained that the previous day the council had received a request for a petition to be presented to the council in person. The petition had closed on 30 November 2020 with 1,649 signatures. On 1 December 2020 the council had emailed the lead petitioner asking him how he wished to formally submit the petition. The former Mayor agreed that under the circumstances the lead petitioner should be able to speak for up to 5 minutes at the start of the item ‘Motion on Notice’ which would enable Members to take the petition into consideration when debating the related motion. The Mayor confirmed he was in agreement with the former Mayor’s decision and proposed that the order of business be varied to bring the item ‘Motion on Notice’ forward in the agenda.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as set out in the agenda be varied.

69.

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor Davey

 

This council agrees to provide FREE parking for residents every day, with immediate effect, for a 3 hour period between 10am and 1pm in all RBWM Car Parks within walking distance of retail centres until the end of December 2020.

 

(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:

Mr Brian McCormack, lead petitioner, for the following petition, was invited to speak:

 

‘We the undersigned petition the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to offer free parking for residents over the important Christmas retail period to help boost Windsor footfall’

 

Mr McCormack explained that he had been admitted to hospital with a suspected heart attack the previous day. He was suffering from chronic fatigue as a result of working constantly since 15 June 2020 to keep his business going. He had heard about the removal of the Advantage Card scheme earlier in the year and understood the reasons for doing so.   Just before his petition had closed, Councillor Cannon had announced the Sunday and Wednesday concessions. Once the petition closed, Mr McCormack had sent an email to Councillors Cannon and Rayner. Parking in Maidenhead was already free on Sundays and he felt there should be parity for Windsor.

 

Mr McCormack explained that his business was currently down by 39.7% down on the 52 weeks. He had one of the stronger positions in the town centre but this was no position for any business to be in. He understood that the revenue the council received would have been impacted by a reduction in season tickets but he felt it was unfair to penalise residents who were paying tourist fees for parking. He understood that the Advantage Card discount had been removed until further notice and would be brought back in if possible. It was now half way through December and he accepted that the concession was lost from 1-15 December, but he felt it would be a gesture of goodwill to give a concession for the remainder of the month. He would normally serve between 500-600 customers a week at this time of year but this was not happening because of the pandemic. Saturday and Sunday were equally busy in the town centre so if free parking was being offered on one day then it should be offered on the other one too. Anything would help the retail sector for the last few days, it was important to get Windsor residents shopping in their own town centre.

 

Councillor Davey introduced his motion. He explained he wished to amend his motion, following advice from officers. The amended motion had been costed at 20% of the original motion that had been put forward. The original motion was along the lines of what Mr McCormack was requesting but he understood the financial implications. Councillor Davey read out his amended motion:

 

This Council agrees to extend the Christmas parking for the majority of RBWM car parks with immediate effect for a 3 hour period between 9am and 12pm on Mondays and Tuesdays until the end of the year to boost local retail sales and support RBWM retailers.

 

Councillor Davey felt that he should not have needed to bring the motion or promote the petition so widely. The main concerns were about COVID-19 and keeping people apart, but Sundays were responsible for 18% of revenue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Motion on Notice a) Motion Rejected
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 70.

    Referrals from Other Bodies

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

     

     

    Minutes:

    i)  Asset Disposal & Redevelopment

     

    Members considered the disposal and redevelopment of a council asset.

     

    Councillor Johnson explained that following the service reorganisation of the Family Centres, and to reflect that the existing buildings at Ray Mill Road East were no longer fit for purpose, the report proposed a partial disposal of the two properties to fund investment in much needed affordable housing. The service delivery would be reprioritised to the Pinkneys Green Centre. He thanked the work of Marius Gilmore in fighting for the long term survival of the centre.

     

    Councillor Johnson highlighted the reference to the potential redevelopment opportunity at Ray Mill Road East and explained this was not a driving factor. In fact the car park of the Ray Mill centre would potentially be lost. The real driver had been the service reorganisation and the asset management review. Once the costs of refurbishment had been deducted, the council would also receive a useful capital receipt to reinvest or pay down debt.

     

    Councillor Werner welcomed the move of the Family Centre to Pinkneys Green. He had been a staunch defender throughout the process so had been very pleased. He had held discussions with officers on the layout and design. Following his representations the design brief had been changed to emphasise the need for flexibility. He had no guarantee but he understood this would be taken into account. He suggested that some of the proceeds be used to build a new hall on the site. He was pleased that one of the old houses was going to be kept to generate revenue but he felt the 80% level would not be affordable to most people he knew. He suggested it be divided in a different way to allow for a real social rent.

     

    Councillor Greg Jones commented that he was familiar with the current Family Centre and it was looking very tired. It was also in a poor location with difficult traffic flows. He fully supported the proposals.

     

    Councillor McWilliams explained that he had mentioned during the Cabinet discussion that the involvement of Members and community champions was key, to ensure the most was made of the community development. He hoped all Members had looked at the recommendations in the proposed Housing Strategy.  Councillor McWilliams thanked Marius Gilmore for his bipartisan and constructive approach, which was the best way to deliver for residents.

     

    Councillor Davey commented that he was shocked at the number of references to a former councillor. The report was about the refurbishment of a property for the benefit of the wider community and this should be the focus.

     

    Councillor Carroll commented that he was pleased with progress being made. The council had been seeking from the beginning to refocus the service in line with the evidence base on family hubs.  He thanked Marius Gilmore for engaging on the issue.

     

    Councillor Hill commented that he agreed with Councillor Davey. Although he appreciated the Conservatives were trying to get the former councillor re-elected, he felt it was an appalling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

    71.

    Constitutional Amendments Update - Development Management Panels pdf icon PDF 377 KB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered an update on the procedures for Development Management Panels.

     

    Councillor Coppinger referred Members to the decision taken on 26 May 2020 to create a single Development Management Panel to allow virtual meetings to take place as part of the council’s response to COVID-19. At the time a 6 month review was agreed, with a Working Group being set up. Following a proposal by a Member of the Opposition at the May meeting, he had agreed an amendment to increase the number of Members on the Panel. Unfortunately, despite attempts, the Working Group had not met, for which he apologised to both Members and parishes. Whist there was a strong chance of emerging from the crisis before the summer, the country was in a worse state in terms of infections.

     

    Councillor Coppinger explained that the Panel had met on six occasions, with a seventh meeting scheduled for the following day. It had considered 22 applications; all but three had been in line with officer recommendations. There had been a real improvement in the discussions between Members and Officers before the meetings, meaning a number of issues had been resolved. In terms of public participation, as with all meetings, there had been a massive increase in public attendance. Parish representatives and the public had been able to address the Panel as usual and many had commented that they could now clearly see the presentations. The October 2020 meeting had over 1000 views; this was democracy in action. The only real issue was caused by a misunderstanding by the public and other organisations of the role of Panel Members. Councillors were appointed to make decisions based on national and local planning law; they were not appointed to represent their ward. The notification process to parishes and others and opportunities to speak were the same as before. Excluding Slough and Reading, the borough was the smallest Berkshire authority in area. Only one, West Berkshire, had two Panels before the COVID-19 crisis, but it was 3.5 times the size of the borough. Councillor Coppinger asked ‘Should the single panel carry on indefinitely?’ His answer was no, a review was needed and the Working Group must meet long before that date.

     

    Councillor Reynolds commented that at the May meeting Members had been told the most important safeguard on moving to one panel was that it was time limited and had to finish in December 2020. There was a promise to set up a Working Group in September, but Members were now told this had not been possible. He pointed out that it had been possible to convene six Panel meetings though. Councillor Reynolds had undertaken some research and had struggled to find anyone who had been asked to be a member of the Working Group. His colleagues had predicted the intention never to bring back separate panels. He hoped this was not the case. Some meetings had run to 10pm or 11pm and no one could make good decisions at such a late hour.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Constitutional Amendments Update - DM Panels - Amendment Amendment Rejected
    Constitutional Amendments Update - Development Management Panels Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 72.

    Members' Questions pdf icon PDF 237 KB

    a)     Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance:

     

    The River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) was developed in order to give Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor a similar level of flood protection as that enjoyed for eighteen years by Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton.  My question is when was this Council first aware of the requirement for approximately £50m of partnership funding contribution?

     

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

     

    When were you first aware of the requirement for approximately £50m of partnership funding contribution from RBWM towards the cost of the River Thames Scheme Channel One through Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury?

     

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

     

    Judging from his comments in the local media the lead member seems content with the standard of service now being delivered by Serco. His rosy view is contradicted by reports of difficulties, particularly with assisted collections. What assurances could he give to the most vulnerable residents in the Borough that their collections will return to an acceptable level and when?

     

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

     

    For many years the residents of Cookham have been able to leave their Christmas trees for collection and disposal at a drop-off point in the car park on Cookham Moor. Last year service was withdrawn. Will this service be re-introduced for this Christmas season?

     

    e)  Councillor Knowles will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

     

    During the full council on the 28th July you undertook to provide me with a copy of the report on the trial street side EV charging points and the user information and reports from the residents who benefitted from the free EV for one year offer. When am I likely to get this report?

     

    (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 Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance:

     

    The River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) was developed in order to give Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor a similar level of flood protection as that enjoyed for eighteen years by Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton.  My question is when was this Council first aware of the requirement for approximately £50m of partnership funding contribution?

     

    Written response: Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee on 26 September 2017 considered recommending to Council a future funding commitment to assist in delivery of the River Thames Scheme.  The minutes record that the Council were aware that the Environment Agency had originally asked for £50m contribution.  

     

     Council considered a report on 26th September 2017 and resolved:

    (i)            £10m, split over four years, is added to the capital programme commencing 2020/21 (subject to delivery of the full scheme).

    (ii)           There is an agreement in principle of paying a flood levy of up to £500,000 per annum to the Environment Agency as a contribution to the operating and maintenance costs (subject to new legislation being enacted to make provision for this)

    (iii)         A delegation to the Head of Finance in conjunction with the Lead Member for Finance to develop and introduce a flood levy be approved.

    Discussions about funding continued internally and with the Environment Agency River Thames Programme Board.  Council considered the 2020/21 capital programme on 25th February 2020 and approved a capital programme which includes £10m over four financial years commencing 2020/21.

     

    By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe thanked Councillor Hilton for his precise response, from which he saw that the 22 September 2017  minutes of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee (CRSC) recorded that the council was aware the Environment Agency (EA) had originally asked for a £50m contribution. Councillor Larcombe’s original question asked when the council was first aware of the partnership funding requirement. The CRSC meeting began at 5.30pm. The report included a reference to a funding scheme gap of £228m but no reference to the sum of £50m. The minutes recorded that Councillor Love asked how the figure of £10m had been determined and the Chairman explained that the EA had originally asked for £50m which was beyond the means of the local authority. After debate, the CRSC agreed the recommendation. The Council meeting itself commenced at 7.30pm. The CRSC recommendation was item 10. It was Councillor Larcombe’s observation that the Council was not aware of the £50m or that without the Royal Borough funding, it would not progress. After all these years, he asked who precisely was accountable for the failure of a £640m project?

     

    Councillor Hilton responded that the fact that the council could not contribute £50m had not sunk the project; most of it was going ahead downstream. As far back as 2017, in order to fund the £10m, the council would have needed to set a precept or levy to raise the money over a period of time. The government refused to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

    73.

    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 items 12-13 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

    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 items 12-13 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act

    74.

    Minutes

    To receive the Part II minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 23 November 2020.

    75.

    Referrals from Other Bodies

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