To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Luxton, McWilliams and Muir.

To receive the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 8 February 2022 and the Budget meeting of the Council held on 22 February 2022.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)               The minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 8 February 2022 be approved, subject to the following amendment:

p. 54 to read: Councillor Walters explained that, in his opinion, thousands of dwellings had been submitted to the Inspector that were neither required nor needed…….

ii)             The minutes of the Budget meeting of the Council held on 22 February 2022 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

In relation to the Member question he had submitted, Councillor Singh stated that he was a Trustee of the No. 22 Maidenhead Counselling Service which was located at the 4 Marlow Road Community Centre. He also knew a number of the trustees personally.

In relation to the item ‘Schools Capital Allocation’ Councillor Baskerville stated that he was a LA Governor at Alwyn Infants School which had a joint governing body with Courthouse Junior School.

To receive such communications as the Mayor may desire to place before the Council

The Mayor had submitted in writing details of engagements that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last ordinary meeting. These were noted by Council.

On behalf of the council the Mayor congratulated Housing Solutions for retaining the highest possible grades for governance and financial viability following the completion of an in-depth assessment by the regulator earlier in the year.

The Mayor announced that the Garden in Bloom competition would be launched the following day.

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead:

Will the Lead Member advise what steps are being taken to make sure RBWM cemeteries are properly maintained?

b)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, & Sport & Leisure:

It's nearly a year since RBWM purchased Cedar Tree Guest House in Windsor for temporary accommodation.  What progress has been made in creating this new facility?

c)    Sarah Walker of Clewer East ward will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate & Residents Services, Culture & Heritage, & Windsor:

How is the efficiency of the RBWM ‘Report it’ system measured across the Borough? Please could the performance levels be reported to residents on a regular basis in order to indicate the service levels provided in terms of issues raised, issues resolved and speed of resolution. 

d)    Sarah Walker of Clewer East ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead:

Are you fully satisfied that previous issues with ongoing contracts such as grass cutting and refuse collection are now resolved and that contracts are being well managed and monitored by RBWM? What process is in place to ensure service levels to residents will not drop again, particularly in light of the proposed Council Tax increase? 

e)    Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Health, Mental Health, Children's Services and Transformation:

The NHS has done a fantastic job and continues to do so during this very tough pandemic.  St Mark’s is a key local NHS site and residents are keen to understand more the NHS plans.  Will the Cabinet Member and Leader of the Council with NHS leaders agree to meet with me to discuss this policy imperative further?

f)     Hari Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

I believe that Council’s budget shows a clear, strong and responsible framework, with prudent and smart management of its finances. However, the suffocating influence of inflation, supply chain disruption, Russia’s invasion on Ukraine, legacy of COVID and Brexit leaving great exposure to economic shocks.

Has Council got sound finances and sufficient reserves to face unexpected challenges in the coming year?

g)    Hari Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Deputy Chairman of Cabinet & Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation:

Mental Health problems don’t define who you are, but it needs great attention. Latest studies shows that an alarming 1 in 4 people in England will experience depression, fear and anxiety.

What steps and actions have been taken by our council to address those issues?

h)    John Affleck (not a resident of the borough) will ask the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 74.

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead:

Will the Lead Member advise what steps are being taken to make sure RBWM cemeteries are properly maintained?

Written response: Work is ongoing with the service provider to ensure they have the correct resources and equipment to deliver the services outlined in the grounds maintenance contract. Regular contract monitoring is carried out, with joint inspections of sites in the borough, including cemeteries included in the contract management, to ensure that work is delivered to the correct standard and that key performance indicators are met. Additional staff have been employed on the contract to make sure that the work is completed.

By way of a supplementary question, Ed Wilson thanked Councillor Coppinger for the response but commented that he had had heard similar things before; he would like to know what new things he was going to do to ensure cemeteries were properly looked after.

Councillor Coppinger responded that one of the key things would be to work with members of the public in helping the council to maintain graves. This was usually a person who had a concern as they had a relative buried at the site, but he knew there were many people who wished to help. He asked that volunteers work with officers to ensure coordination and also with the local ward councillors, to ensure there was no duplication of effort and no one who wanted to help got missed out.

b)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, & Sport & Leisure:

It's nearly a year since RBWM purchased Cedar Tree Guest House in Windsor for temporary accommodation.  What progress has been made in creating this new facility?

Written response: Thank you for your question, Mr Wilson.  The council took the decision originally to acquire the property, Cedar Tree Guest House, in order to create eight individual units to enable us to discharge people from temporary accommodation into affordable homes and a planning application to that effect has been submitted.  

However, with the substantial increase in construction costs over recent months and changes to building regulations, we are currently reviewing those proposals to ensure that the plans still represent value for money. The outcome of the review will be coming before Cabinet in May 2022 for a decision.

By way of a supplementary question, Ed Wilson commented that residents had seen the development going on for over a year and they just wanted to know one way or another what was actually happening. He asked who would communicate the outcome of the Cabinet meeting in May to residents and how would this be achieved.

Councillor Johnson, on behalf of Councillor McWilliams, responded that a report would be going to Cabinet in May which would conclude a review into the property proposal. He would work closely with Councillor McWilliams and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

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).

No petitions were submitted.

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

SCHOOLS CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS 2022-23

Members considered a referral from Cabinet to approve a number of capital budget additions.

Councillor Hilton stated he was pleased to present the report which increased spending on five borough schools. In February, Council had approved the capital budget for improvements to the school estate. The final allocation figure of £1.268m was announced after the February budget meeting which meant Council was now asked to increase the capital budget by £498,000.

Following the preparation of a bid by the Sustainability Team, Property Services and Achieving for Children, the council had been successful in a £1.567m bid for capital funding from the public sector decarbonisation fund. The grant would replace oil fired boilers with lower carbon alternatives and other sustainability improvements on site at five schools in the borough. Councillor Hilton referred Members to table 1 on page 95 which detailed the funding available.  Officers would consider appropriate use of the released funds for projects at other schools.  Cabinet had already delegated authority to amend the list of agreed school condition allocation schemes to the Director of Children’s Services and the relevant Cabinet Member.

Councillor Werner commented that the proposals for investment in schools were obviously to be welcomed. In his 30 years on the council he had seen how well negotiated agreements with developers could add funding to under-resourced schools. S106 agreements must consistently focus on additional provision for school expansion, modernisation to increase fuel efficiency, additional cycle storage and more recreational and educational opportunities in the school playground. CIL receipts could also be used to decarbonise schools. The council should be taking advantage of both, and he requested more effort on the planning front to generate income from S106 and CIL.

Councillor L. Jones asked if up to date surveys had been undertaken to ensure that funding was directed to the places it was most needed. If that was happening, any such funding was a very good idea.

Councillor Knowles commented that the school condition allowance for maintained schools was ringfenced. It always came out late each year and councils had to guess, based on the previous year’s formula, but it was a simple adjustment. School condition reports provided evidence in the audit process.

Councillor Singh commented that the government was bringing in legislation to bring ratings up to category C in private rented accommodation. He believed that quite a few of the schools in the borough would be below category C and he therefore asked if the same requirement would be added for schools.

Councillor Stimson commented that she was not sure if schools used the same EPC rating. The council had won some funding to undertake surveys in all schools to enable the identification of those with greatest need. Some would have heat pumps, and some would have air source; all would have improved insulation and solar panels. After the work was done, the schoolchildren would be engaged to discuss decarbonisation and encourage behaviour change.  The estimated carbon saving was approximately 185 tonnes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To consider the above report

Members considered a review of the Development Management Committee structure.

Adrien Waite, Head of Planning, explained that the review followed a report in June 2021 that had recommended a return to two Committees, but had also highlighted concerns about resourcing and consistency of decision-making. The Member resolution at the time requested a review back to Council by June 2022. Over the review period, there had been 18 scheduled meetings; two of which were cancelled due to a lack of business and six convened to discuss just one item. The Head of Planning therefore stated that the committee business could be handled with fewer meetings, with no detrimental impact on decision-making. This would also free up resources to be used elsewhere. A single committee also minimised risks around decision-making. The Corporate Plan highlighted the importance of the most efficient use of resources and the proposal supported other objectives in the plan as it would free up resources to work on meeting targets.

Councillor Haseler commented that, as Members had heard from Mr Waite, the Member resolution following the debate the previous year was to operate with two committees but also requested the Head of Planning to bring a report reviewing these arrangements back to full Council.

Following the operation of two committees it was clear this was having a significant impact on Planning, Democratic Services and Legal Officers and was not an efficient use of Council resources. Councillor Haseler commented that during the period that he had chaired the single committee, his experience was that it had worked incredibly well. The committee comprising of Members from across the borough made defensible determinations based on material planning considerations, taking into account information gleaned from the officers’ report, statutory consultees, public speakers, ward members, parish councillors, site visits, the debate during the planning meeting, planning officers present at the meeting and advice from the legal officer when appropriate. Decisions made by the single committee were consistent and defensible.

Members, when sitting on the planning committee, represented the local planning authority, not their ward, village or town. They were duty bound to make defensible decisions based on material planning considerations. There was no evidence to suggest a single committee comprising Members from across the borough were incapable of making sound planning decisions for an application outside their ward, village or town.

Councillor Haseler suggested Members consider a number of points:

·       Cookham to Waltham St Lawrence was 9 miles; both locations were covered by the Maidenhead committee

·       Cox Green to Clewer was 8 miles; Clewer was covered by the Windsor committee

·       Ascot to Clewer was roughly the same distance and both locations were covered by the Windsor committee.

Councillor Haseler stated that he could not see the difference between a Cookham Member determining an application in Waltham St Lawrence versus a Clewer Member determining an application in Cox Green. He did recognise the optics to residents when a Member from another area was involved in the decision making of a local application. However, he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To consider the following appointment:

RECOMMENDATION: That Councillor Hunt be appointed as Chairman of the Maidenhead Development Management Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

Members considered the appointment of Chairman of Maidenhead Development Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

Councillor Johnson proposed Councillor Hunt. He hoped council would support the proposal.

Councillor Haseler commented that Councillor Hunt was a very experienced and her local knowledge was beyond question.

Councillor Baldwin commented that he believed it to be an excellent nomination.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor Hunt be appointed as Chairman of the Maidenhead Development Management Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

a)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

When you get an email from a grandmother concerned about the health of her grandchild, you have to ask the question: What can RBWM do to ensure 5G Masts are not positioned outside schools?

b)    Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead:

The former cafe at Kidwell's Park which has been discussed for nearly 4 years. Are there plans to bring this back into use as a useful public amenity? Please can you explain in detail what the plan is?

c)    Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

Signs have gone up recently to remove the free parking at four Marlow Road used by the community centre and local charity organisation. This will impact users of the community facilities. Please can you explain the rationale for this change and why were ward Councillors not informed? 

d)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

In the recently adopted Borough Local Plan flood policy NR1 supersedes previous BLP flood policy F1 - which limited residential extension covered floor area in flood zones to an additional 30 sq m maximum.  How does new policy NR1 similarly limit flood plain development?

(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).

a)    Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

When you get an email from a grandmother concerned about the health of her grandchild, you have to ask the question: What can RBWM do to ensure 5G Masts are not positioned outside schools?

Written response: The Local Planning Authority has a duty to determine applications submitted to it and is required to do so in accordance with adopted planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF sets out that installations should accord with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and prevents authorities from setting different or alternative health safeguards.

RBWM can do nothing to prevent the installation of telecommunications infrastructure in the vicinity of schools as there would be no issue with the principle or safety of such an installation under the planning policy framework.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey commented that the Town and Country Planning Act, which superseded policy, looked for a balance of opinion. It had been used by residents in Brighton to prevent a mast going up outside a school; the judicial review was permitted because the council had failed to address the health impacts of the proposal. ICNIRP pointed to Ofcom; Ofcom pointed to Public Health England (PHE). Nobody wanted the hot potato. PHE had recognised that some studies had shown ongoing health impacts at higher than usual levels of magnetic field exposures. Where there was a will, there was a way. In the UK, Belgium, Russia, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, California, Australia and Germany, local councils were showing caution, many adopting the ‘Precautionary Principle’. There were steps that could be taken to protect young people. Councillor Davey asked if Councillor Haseler would work with him to find the first step.

Councillor Haseler responded that the erection of masts was governed by policy as detailed in the written response. He was unsure what working with Councillor Davey would achieve or what he was after. Each case was decided on its own merits based on the policy. Councillor Haseler agreed to speak to Councillor Davey outside the meeting.

b) Councillor Singh asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead:

The former cafe at Kidwell's Park which has been discussed for nearly 4 years. Are there plans to bring this back into use as a useful public amenity? Please can you explain in detail what the plan is?

Written response:The former café building at Kidwells Park is being looked at in conjunction with the public tennis courts provided in the park to examine the best option for the area. There have been discussions with the Lawn Tennis Association to look at possible options for the tennis courts to improve the offer to users of the facilities here. This may have impacts on the building. There is also an option to do a tendering exercise to ask for expressions of interest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

a)    By Councillor Cannon:

This Council:

i)               Requests that Cabinet write to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Thames Valley Police (TVP) seeking support in creating a joint RBWM campaign highlighting the issue of Drink/Drug Driving, supporting our zero tolerance environment, to enhance road safety for our residents.

ii)              Requests Cabinet to invite TVP and the PCC to work with us in holding a Roads Safety Summit on these and other RBWM Road Safety issues.

(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).

Councillor Cannon introduced his motion. He explained that the government had launched a call for evidence around drug drivers completing a rehabilitation course before they returned to driving after a ban. This would bring the consequences into line with drink driving.  The administration wished to reinforce its zero-tolerance stance on antisocial and dangerous offences being committed on borough roads. National statistics showed that drink drive deaths had fallen by over 80% between 1979-2015. However there had been an increase in drug-related activities. There were 12,000 convictions in 2019, of which 44% were by re-offenders. Apocryphal evidence was that the borough, as much of society, had an issue with cannabis misuse as well as other drugs. The risk to road users and others could not be tolerated in the borough. The council wished to work with the police and others to get the message out to the wider community, including those committing such offences. Councillor Cannon had proposed the motion to demonstrate that all accepted the seriousness of the issue and the council’s support of the police in dealing with it.

Councillor Haseler explained that he had served as a police officer for 30 years, mainly in traffic and roads policing, dealing with these types of offences, many road deaths and acting as Family Liaison Officer to bereaved families. Drink and drug driving were incredibly serious matters, causing death and serious injury on roads each and every year. A very worrying trend was the increase of incidents involving drug drivers. Some police forces were reporting double the number of drug driving arrests to drink driving arrests. Drugs, whether they were prescribed or recreational, legal or illegal, could have a significant and varied effect on an individual’s ability to drive safely. Drugs such as cannabis could result in a driver’s reaction time being slowed, meaning they were less aware, they drove slowly, and were less able to respond to hazards in adequate time. Drugs such as cocaine, however, had a different and incredibly dangerous effect, leading to the driver becoming more erratic resulting in increased risk-taking behaviour and a reduction in the ability to accurately judge situations.

The council must raise the level of awareness of how serious drug and drink driving was. A joint campaign with Thames Valley Police was needed to educate drivers about the dangers and consequences of driving whilst under the influence of drugs, accompanied with robust enforcement. Whilst for many years drink driving had been rightfully acknowledged as being socially unacceptable, it was clear that drug driving had not. Councillor Haseler asked how many people had been out walking, cycling or sat in a queue of traffic only to get a strong waft of cannabis from a passing vehicle. This was wholly unacceptable, anti-social and incredibly dangerous, and it must be dealt with robustly to improve safety for anyone using borough roads.

There were many other road safety matters that would benefit from being discussed at a road safety summit, including but not restricted to: collisions and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.