To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N. Airey, M. Airey, Hilton, Hollingsworth and Smith.

To receive the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 23 February 2016 (Page 7)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2016 be approved.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item to be considered at this meeting (Page 33)

Councillor Werner declared an interest in the Motion on Notice as his wife ran a church service for families.

Councillor C Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Member Question a) as he was a farmer. He left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Kellaway declared an interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he was a member of Maidenhead Town Partnership Board and PRoM.

Councillor S Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as she was a farmer. She left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item

Councillor D. Wilson declared an interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he was a member of Maidenhead Town Partnership Board and PRoM.

Councillor Stretton declared an interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as she was a member of Maidenhead Town Partnership Board and PRoM.

Councillor Hill declared an interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he was a member of Maidenhead Town Partnership Board.

Councillor Love declared an interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he was a member of Maidenhead Town Partnership Board and PRoM

Councillor E. Wilson declared an interest in the Motion on Notice as his wife worked at St Edwards RC School.

Councillor Dr L. Evans declared an interest in item ‘Petition for Debate’ as she was a Parish Councillor for Sunningdale.

Councillor Burbage declared an interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate’ as he was a member of PRoM.

Councillor Ilyas declared an interest in the Motion on Notice as he was a member of Maidenhead Mosque which undertook active youth work.

To receive such communications as the Mayor may desire to place before the Council (Page 35)

The Mayor submitted in writing details of engagements that she and the Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last meeting, which were noted by the Council; the Mayor highlighted the Queen’s 90^th birthday celebrations. Members noted that the borough had presented Her Majesty with four dog coats for her corgis embroidered with the Royal Borough crest. She thanked all officers who had been involved in the preparations.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Burbage for all the work he had put in as Council Leader since 2007 to make the borough a flagship council. Councillor Burbage thanked all Members and officers for their support and looked forward to working with them in the future. Councillor Dudley, on behalf of all Members, thanked Councillor Burbage for his efforts and highlighted a number of achievements including reductions in council tax and opening of new libraries.

Members then held a one minute silence in honour of former Mayor Emrys Richards, who had passed away the previous week.

A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 18 April 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a Full Council meeting (Report to follow)

The petition reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to reconsider its decision to impose parking charges on Sundays in Maidenhead Town Centre.

The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate such petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

a) The Mayor may invite the relevant officer to set out the background to the petition issue.

b) The Lead Petitioner to address the meeting on the petition (5 minutes maximum)

c) The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors present to address the meeting. (Maximum time of 3 minutes each for this purpose)

d) The Mayor to invite the relevant officer to provide any further comment.

e) The Mayor will invite all Members to debate the matter (Rules of Debate as per the Constitution apply)

A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 18 April 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a Full Council meeting.

The petition read as follows:

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to reconsider its decision to impose parking charges on Sundays in Maidenhead Town Centre.

The petition was introduced by the Strategic Director of Operations and Customer Services.  The Strategic Director thanked Marc Jones of the Maidenhead and District Chamber of Commerce for presenting the petition of nearly 3,000 signatures to Council. He explained that a report had been prepared for Council which set out the background to the issue and recommended that Council debated and resolved a way forward. In order to provide some context to the debate, he highlighted that the proposed parking fees were agreed as part of the overall budget setting for 2016/17 and sought to offer parity with other towns where Sunday charges were in place.  

However, it was acknowledged that the quality, availability and charging levels in car parks were important to the overall offer of the town and were linked to its attractiveness and competitiveness. This was relevant in Maidenhead where there was significant change and exciting regeneration activity underway. The new Sunday charges were not introduced on the planned date of 4 April 2016 to enable wider engagement and consultation. Therefore, the petition was very welcome

Marc Jones, Lead Petitioner, raised a number of questions:

·         Why were the parking fees being introduced at this time?

·         Why were residents and stakeholders not consulted?

·         Why was the council jeopardising the fragile signs of recovery in the town?

Mr Jones understood that the council believed the charges would generate £40,000 of revenue but he submitted that proper due diligence had not been undertaken and did not take into account the impact on the town centre. Mr Jones highlighted that this was one of the largest petitions ever submitted to the council, with more signatures received after the deadline. Empirical evidence suggested that charges would affect the High Street. The signs by parking machines were already impacting on businesses; he understood that Sainsbury’s had already experienced a reduction in trade. Maidenhead had an inferior retail offering in comparison to High  Wycombe and Windsor, and lower footfall and more empty premises.  These towns charged for parking on a Sunday but there was no comparison. The Bishops Centre offered free parking on a Sunday; this had impacted the town centre, which the council had underestimated.

Residents used the town centre because it was convenient for shopping and leisure activities on a Sunday. Charges would be an obstacle to this. Most machines did not give change which was another inconvenience.  Mr Jones was of the view that the proposed  charges were a levy on residents and they would go elsewhere. It was not necessarily the cost that would drive people away but the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

No public questions were received.

None received

To receive any petitions presented by Members on behalf of registered electors for the Borough under Rule C.10.

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

No petitions were presented.

To consider the above report (Page 37)

Members considered a recommendation from Cabinet that the borough would, if necessary, be able to implement PSPOs covering the anti-social behaviour (ASB) associated with barbecues being lit in public spaces. In recent years this had been a specific problem at Baths island. The new PSPO would give Community Wardens powers to deal with the problem, rather than having to rely on goodwill.

Councillor Rankin commented that fire damage was often a problem at Baths Island, which was in his ward. Councillor Beer stated his support for the proposal as he had witnessed groups of people overnight fishing on the towpath, cooking the fish and eating them, leaving a mess. He requested the Thames Path be included in the PSPO. Councillor Bathurst commented that he would be happy for the issue to be considered at the Policy Committee. Councillor Cox explained that the proposal would extended the council’s framework for PSPOs; specific areas to be covered would be considered by a PSPO Panel.  

It was proposed by Councillor Cox, seconded by Councillor Rankin, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council:

i.              Approves the extension of the existing Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) framework to enable where appropriate the implementation of PSPOs covering anti-social behaviour (ASB) associated with barbecues being lit in public spaces.

To consider the above report (Page 47)

Council considered approval of the addition of a £680k capital budget to the 2015-16 Operations and Customer Services capital programme as part of the financial mitigations for the Stafferton Way project, subject to approval by Cabinet on 28 April 2016.

Councillor Dudley commented that the new link road had transformed Maidenhead and taken traffic away from the town centre. Inevitably once works began new issues had arisen, for example dealing with the statutory utilities had been more difficult than anticipated. Given the magnitude of the project, once it had started it was important to get it right despite the increase in costs. The project had come in £1.25m over budget  However significant underspends (£445,000) in the Operations and Customer Services directorate in 2015/16 had been identified to mitigate some of the overspend. There was also a projected underspend of £125,000 on the LED Lighting project. Therefore an addition of £680,000 was required to fully fund the project.

Councillor Rayner explained that he had become Lead Member with responsibility for the project in May 2015. The consultant had made 150 design changes due to utilities and unforeseen issues. The road also had been built to accept the Waterways project, which had required design changes. The new road had transformed that part of Maidenhead. Councillor Rayner stated that he did not authorise any extra expenditure. He would be recommending to colleagues that neither Peter Brett Associates nor Balfour Beatty be used for future projects.

Councillor Werner commented that he was disappointed at the overspend and also the lack of detail in the report. He had not had sight of the review referred to at paragraph 2.7. If there had not been problems with the link road project, the underspend in Operations could have been used to undertake other projects such as a road safety scheme in his ward. He would not be able to support the motion due to the lack of information.

Councillor Brimacombe highlighted the need for a review to identify lessons for project management in future. Infrastructure echoed down the years therefore it was important to get it right for future generations.

Councillor Burbage commented that he had previously offered to meet Members of the Opposition to discuss the review findings. Detailed information was available in the Cabinet report for the meeting on 28 April 2016.

Councillor Jones commented that there was little detail about the revised estimates contributing to the £445,000 underspend in Operations. She asked whether there was any impact on other capital projects. She also asked where the funding for the £680,000 shortfall would come from and whether this would affect reserves or future capital projects.  Councillor Burbage commented that the information was available in the report to which he had previously referred. The Mayor suggested that Councillor Jones should come back if she was unable to find the information she desired.

Councillor D. Wilson commented that the project was long overdue; it had been talked about by Berkshire County Council as far back as 1967.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

To consider the above report (Report to follow)

Council considered a number of amendments to the Council Constitution in relation to the following areas:

i.              The framework within which planning enforcement matters can be progressed. Part 6 D3 - Area and Joint Development Control Panels

ii.            The arrangements for the appointments of Strategic Directors and Deputy  Chief Officers of Services Part 8 B– Other Rules of Procedure

iii.           The Chairmanship and Quorum Part 6 D10 – Local Pension Board

Councillor Burbage advised Members that the proposal to add paragraph 9 on page 33 of the agenda was being withdrawn. All other recommendations remained.

Councillor D. Wilson, as Lead Member for Planning, explained that the proposals in relation to enforcement that would see more issues coming through to Development Control Panels. were proposed to improve transparency. The Borough Planning Manager, in consultation with the Lead Member, would be able to deal with urgent matters if necessary. Member training would take place during May 201 to allow for implementation on 1 June 2016.

Councillor Werner stated that he supported the changes relating to enforcement, particularly as issues were often not black and white. He hoped the system would be reviewed after a year or two. He asked whether ongoing cases could be referred to a Panel.

Councillor Lenton, as Chairman of the Berkshire Pension Fund Panel, explained that the government had required the creation of a Pension Board in 2015. For the Berkshire Fund, the Board comprised an Independent Chairman, three employer representatives and three scheme representatives. After a year’s operation it had been decided that there was no need for an Independent Chairman. The proposals would therefore amend the terms of reference.

Councillor Jones highlighted that a typographical error on page 32 (7c) which should read:

·         ‘Notice of dismissal to the Head of Paid Service, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Finance Officer, Director or Deputy Chief Officer must not be given by the dismissor (subject to H6 above) until…….’

Councillor Beer commented that in his view the Pension Board was superfluous and therefore the cost of an Independent Chairman was unnecessary. He was supportive of the enforcement proposals in terms of openness and transparency, however he felt the report should have been considered by the Planning and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel. He suggested a two stage process would be suitable with an outline decision and then a detailed report at a later time. It would be important to ensure sufficient Members received training, including substitutes.

Members noted that the Planning Enforcement Toolkit at page 22 of the report provided details of how the proposals would be implemented.

Councillor Burbage commented that the Lead Member and officers would ensure that Panels would have all the information they needed to make a decision. If Councillor Beer wanted the issue to be discussed at Overview and Scrutiny, he could request this to the Chairman.

Councillor D. Wilson commented that ongoing enforcement cases were currently being dealt with and therefore there was no need to refer them to a Panel.

It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

a)    Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

How is the Council seeking to ensure it can be proactive in protecting residents from noise, odour, pests and other nuisance or public health risks which it can foresee as likely from proposed development or activities, including agricultural operations?

b)   Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Adult Services and Health

How is RBWM supporting the concerns of our rural community pharmacies that the Department of Health review may have unintended adverse consequences on the sustainability of locally accessible and GP support services?

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor D Wilson, Lead Member for Planning

It has become evident that the DCLG's public consultation entitled ‘Technical consultation on implementation of planning changes’ includes proposals to speed up the process which may reduce the ability of the public to influence and Councils to fully control planning applications.  Why has this not been considered by the Planning & Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel?

d)   Question submitted by Councillor Bhatti to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Will the Lead Member please confirm that he will engage with the local community and in particular with any concerned residents in Clewer North when implementing the Prevent strategy?

e)    Question submitted by Councillor Bhatti to Councillor Burbage, Leader of the Council

In my ward, there are many young people who over the holiday periods don't have much to do because of the lack of leisure and entertainment facilities. Would the leader consider the possibility of a multiplex centre in Windsor or a Designer Outlet if the opportunity ever arose?

f)     Question submitted by Councillor E. Wilson to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Will the Lead Member thank all members of the public who took part in the recent Clean for the Queen campaign and say how his officers will be encouraging residents to take part in similar events in the future?

a)    Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

How is the Council seeking to ensure it can be proactive in protecting residents from noise, odour, pests and other nuisance or public health risks which it can foresee as likely from proposed development or activities, including agricultural operations?

Councillor Cox responded that the Environmental Protection Officers worked very closely with colleagues in Development Control and provided pre-application advice where requested for proposed developments that may have an impact as described in the question.  Officers also routinely reviewed planning application lists to identify any proposed development that may have such detrimental impacts and provide expert advice and, where necessary, recommend planning conditions to regulate operations and protect residents accordingly.

Unfortunately, current environmental regulatory frameworks offered limited pro-active scope to deal with such impacts where a site already benefitted from planning permission for agricultural use and where the scale of operation was intensified.  For example, environmental permitting schemes had very high thresholds before they applied.  Poultry farming operations of up to 40,000 birds and pig farming operations of up to 2,000 production pigs could be undertaken without the need for an environmental permit. 

He would of course liaise with the Lead Member for Planning to ensure officers remained vigilant in respect of this matter and that the council sought to lobby appropriate Government departments to request the appropriate regulatory frameworks be reviewed

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Saunders asked how far would the council pursue the necessary changes to planning and environmental rules and regulations to avoid these foreseeable risks being dismissed as irrelevant until after residents had suffered their avoidable consequences?

Councillor Cox confirmed that he had written to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Communities and Local Government to ask them to review the current regulatory and development control frameworks and that the associated thresholds be reviewed and amended in order to provide local authorities pro-active capability to protect their residents and communities from the issues identified that cause huge anxiety and potential impact if realised. He was awaiting a response.

b)   Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Adult Services and Health

How is RBWM supporting the concerns of our rural community pharmacies that the Department of Health review may have unintended adverse consequences on the sustainability of locally accessible and GP support services?

Councillor Coppinger responded that pharmacies were the focus of much attention at the moment. They were a vital part of the provision of Health Services within both the borough and across the whole country. With the pressure on the NHS and specifically GP surgeries, pharmacies were being asked to undertake more services traditionally provided by GPs. Through the Public Health team the council also commissioned services. Pharmacists were trained to a similar level to GPs and this expansion of their services was likely to continue. There was also mention of staff being present in surgeries. At the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

a)    By Councillor Richards:

This Council expresses concern that Ofsted will be given new powers to inspect church premises to assess whether teaching in an out-of-school setting complies with British values and urges a review of this policy.

a)    By Councillor Richards:

Councillor Richards introduced his motion. He stated that he believed in limited government, the right to privacy and freedom of worship. He had also brought the motion as a Christian and a lay church leader on behalf of Christian groups who would be affected locally.  His church represented 600 people of diverse backgrounds. The government proposal was an unprecedented attack on religious freedom and a worrying increase in government power. Never before had government authorities entered churches to assess their teaching of the bible. Councillor Richards felt this was a step towards a fascist or Soviet model where government officials sat in on church services, which was contrary even to the Magna Carta. The proposal was contrary to the meaning of equality. Extremist and intolerant measures should not be the reaction to extremism and intolerance. The church should remain separate from state interference. He questioned what incidents there had been of British Christians being radicalised by churches? The focus had moved from equality of opportunity for all to equality of concern. The Christian church was at the forefront of Big Society; it was in danger of being replaced by ‘Big Brother Society’.

Councillor Richards acknowledged that there were challenges in the modern world but they would not be overcome by drawing one group into the problems of another. It was constantly said that terrorists were not people of faith and therefore this was not really a religious problem at all. He had been accused of being anti other faiths, however some of his closest friends were of other faiths or none at all. The last motion he brought to Council was to support refugees, who would likely have been of another faith. He did not presume to know how the proposals would affect other faiths. Churches were already regulated as they were registered as charities and, where necessary, had safeguarding policies. Church schools were already inspected by Ofsted.

Councillor Bathurst stated that as a fellow Christian he was obligated to support the motion. It was a difficult argument to make because Christianity was in the modern day a minority pursuit. It may not have been the case that everybody’s pursuit or beliefs were being attacked but if the state was allowed to expand without check everybody would suffer sooner or later. Councillor Bathurst felt that the government’s proposals were a classic piece of bureaucratic creep. To a legislator, all the world's problems could be solved by writing more laws. Despite the lack of obvious success of OFSTED in improving school standards, people were now expected to believe that Ofsted was best-qualified to tell non-schools how to run themselves.

For reasons of political correctness, the government was extending inspections to all establishments without mentioning any in particular. The problem was that, once implemented, the very reasonable balance and good judgement that ministers expected would be lost once contact was made with reality.

In some ways, the arguments against the proposals from the government were similar to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.