To receive any apologies for absence

None received.

To receive the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 23 April and 21 May 2019.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meetings held on 23 April 2019 and 21 May 2019 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Heathrow – The Royal Borough position and ongoing engagement’ as her husband’s family trust land was part of the area for the Heathrow project. She left the room for the duration of the debate and vote on the item.

Councillor Knowles declared a personal interest in motion 10c as he was an armed forces veteran and Vice Chairman of the Windsor and District Royal British Legion.

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 meeting, which were noted by Council.

Councillor Dudley congratulated all recipients in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list, in particular former Councillor Derek Wilson, who had received an MBE.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be amended.

To consider the above report

Councillor Shelim introduced the report. He explained that during 2018 the council had undertaken a full review of the constitution. This involved a cross-party working group presenting recommendations to full Council. Following a wide variety of recommendations, changes were agreed at the full Council meeting in June 2018, for implementation in May 2019.

One of the agreed changes was to remove the opportunity for a member of the public to ask a supplementary question under the item ‘Public Questions. Following a public question on the proposed change at the full Council meeting in April 2019, the then Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT (former Councillor Lisa Targowska) suggested that the decision be reviewed and a report be brought to full Council on 25 June 2019. Subsequent to that announcement, on 28 May 2019, the council received an e-petition on the subject containing 397 signatories, requesting that the council ‘rescind their decision to ban supplementary public questions at council meetings. The recommendation in the report was therefore to reinstate the right for members of the public to ask supplementary questions.

Councillor Werner commented that he welcomed the well-thought through reversal of the previous decision by the Conservative council to stop supplementary questions. He questioned why the change was also not being also proposed for Member questions.

Councillor Jones stated that she supported the recommendation but would also like to see the reversal of the decisions to remove Member supplementary questions. There was often a need for clarification regarding an answer; removing them hindered transparency.

Councillor Dudley explained that the original reason to remove supplementary questions was to ensure Members were able to answer questions in full; there had been a number of occasions when members of the public were sent written responses to their supplementary question as the Member did not have the information to hand at the meeting to be able to respond in full. He was happy for the reinstatement to apply to both members of the public and Councillors.

Councillor Hill commented that he supported the proposals; Lead Members should be on top of their game and able to answer supplementary questions.

Councillor W. Da Costa welcomed both changes. He thanked Andrew Hill who had raised the issue in the first place and helped the public understand the ramifications.

Councillor Shelim agreed to amend the recommendations to include the reinstatement of supplementary questions for Councillors as well as members of the public. However, he highlighted that Councillors did not have to wait until a full Council meeting to ask a Lead Member a question.

It was confirmed that when supplementary questions were responded to in writing, the response was added as an addendum to the minutes of the meeting shown on the council website.

It was proposed by Councillor Shelim, seconded by Councillor Dudley and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council notes the report and:

i)             Agrees to reinstate the opportunity for members of the public to ask supplementary questions under the item ‘Public Questions’.

ii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

a)    Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy and Housing:

Given that the Council considers Maidenhead Town Moor to be, “ ...a haven for wildlife and part of the Council’s aim to preserve biodiversity in the Borough” (RBWM website), will the Lead Member make a commitment to give environmental and ecological impact concerns top priority in any decision making regarding the proposed link road at this site?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply. No supplementary questions shall be raised)

a)    Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy and Housing:

Given that the Council considers Maidenhead Town Moor to be ’…a haven for wildlife and part of the Councils aim to preserve biodiversity in the Borough’. Will the Lead Member make a commitment to give environmental and ecological impact concerns top priority in any decision making regarding the proposed link road at this site ?

Councillor Johnson responded that no decision had been made on whether the link road would be progressed; it was still a work in progress. The council was currently considering the concept and whether it would be beneficial to the town and its residents. The issue had been raised with him by Councillors Carroll and Bhangra.

If the scheme were to be advanced, it would require a robust planning consent and a full environmental impact assessment, including wildlife and biodiversity. The council was investing £50m over four years in highways and the link road may or may not be part of this investment.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Bermange thanked the Lead Member for the encouraging answer. He understood there were a number of statutory obligations council had to adhere to in relation to biodiversity; he was pleased the council would follow these. He asked the Lead Member whether the council would be prepared to go beyond what was statutorily necessary? The Maidenhead Town Moor was part of the Greenway, which was identified as a green corridor by many groups. He asked whether any decision could be deferred until a local nature recovery map was in place?

Councillor Johnson responded that the council would consider going beyond the statutory minimum. The biodiversity and habitats of the borough were very precious to everyone in the council. If the council decided to progress with the scheme, he would be happy to meet with Mr Bermange and discuss the issue further.

Councillor Clark introduced his motion. He began by thanking the administration for the creation of a Cabinet position for Sustainability. The motion he proposed was possibly the most important motion ever put to the council.

The science was clear and unambiguous in relation to climate change; data and direct observation showed the climate was changing and action was required urgently to limit the rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had highlighted the impacts of an increase in temperature in excess of 1.5 degrees. In 2015 the UK had signed the Paris Agreement with 178 other countries to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees, which was widely acknowledged as the tipping point which must not be exceeded. The results of global warming were clear including extreme weather patterns and rising sea levels. The detrimental impact of single use plastics was also clear. It was therefore right and proper that the council should debate the issue and declare a climate emergency.

The motion chimed with the recent government announcement that the UK would set a target to become a net zero carbon contributor by 2050. This would make the UK the first G7 country to do so; the Royal Borough was keen to ensure the UK led the way. To deliver the target would necessitate changes in the borough that would require additional resources and powers from the national government. Delivery of a net zero carbon target was not a political issue but a welfare one. The action plan would need cross-party support. The council had already achieved much including energy use reduction, investment in solar energy and a ban on single use plastics.

The proposed working group would need to look at current usage and identify appropriate targets and to lobby for further funding to accelerate targets. It would be important to lead by example and he therefore hoped all councillors would support the motion.

Councillor Dudley seconded the motion. He thanked all the residents who had lead the initiative to get the council to debate the issue. He had been asked by a resident during campaigning whether or not, if he were re-elected, he would vote to declare a climate emergency. He had stated that he would. It would be important to get cross-party agreement, it was too large an issue for political silos. To meet the targets would require changes in lifestyle; for example 15% of people in the UK took 70% of the international flights. He was grateful that the Prime Minister, who was the constituency MP, had brought forward the legislation in the last month of her prime ministership to set the zero emission target for the UK.

Councillor Davies commented that a number of councillors had signed the e-petition relating to declaring a climate emergency therefore she proposed an amendment to the motion to change the target of ‘2050’ to ‘2030’. She was delighted that the debate was taking place at her first full Council meeting. This was a unique opportunity to set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

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)

Councillor Hill submitted two petitions. The first petition, signed by 317 people, requested a safe pedestrian crossing be built at the Stafferton Link / Forelease Road Junction and Oldfield / Bray Road Junctions. He had met with officers from the highways team earlier that day, who would look into what options were possible. This was a safe walking route to school but the Stafferton Link road had been so successful people had difficulty crossing. He requested the petition be referred to Cabinet.

The second petition, signed by 90 people, requested an upgrade to the zebra crossing on Stafferton Way due to very real safety concerns. Pedestrians were crossing on a hill and a bend therefore it was difficult to see. There had been numerous close calls. With a new leisure centre there would be more people crossing therefore it needed attention.  He requested the petition be referred to Cabinet.

To consider the above report

Councillor Johnson introduced the report. He highlighted to Members that recommendation i) had two options for consideration.

Councillor Hilton commented that he still found it difficult to believe that the Airport National Planning statement that promoted a third runway at Heathrow had been approved when there were so many negatives. Heathrow expansion would generate greater congestion, put more strain on housing in the surrounding area, generate more noise and air pollution and be challenged to meet the government’s own air quality standards.

There were two distinct processes to approving a third runway; firstly the DCO where the consultation process had started. He was delighted that the Borough would make representation to the Planning Inspectorate. The second was the airspace change required to manage the routing of aircraft safely in an out of Heathrow. The Future Airspace strategy set out how Performance Based Navigation, which used GPS systems to accurately fly aircraft on flightpaths should be used to create new capacity in the air. In 2014 Heathrow ran westerly PBN departure trials that saw aircraft flying over Ascot as if on rails concentrating noise on the ground and causing public outrage. As a result, those trials were terminated earlier than planned.

Following that debacle, in early 2015 Heathrow formed its Community Noise Forum and as the council’s representative Councillor Hilton now visited Heathrow more frequently than when he flew around the world on business. The represented community groups had formed themselves into a cohesive whole and could speak with one voice. They had been active in seeking facts and had established that so far, because of widespread public outrage, no airport around the world had successfully implemented PBN.

The government’s objective was to reduce the number of people significantly affected by noise. With PBN this would be easy to achieve by planning a limited number of departure and arrival routes that would concentrate noise on fewer people but would greatly increase their annoyance levels and attendant health risks. These routes could overfly any ward in the Borough and, if approved, were certain to seriously impact Eton, Windsor, Ascot and the south.

Heathrow proposed multiple departure routes to allow for respite but work carried out by Anderson Acoustics showed that noise needed to be reduced by 9dBm or 8 times before people recognised the change. Heathrow had not demonstrated that this could be achieved.

Heathrow relied upon the Survey of Noise Attitudes which arrived at the conclusion that annoyance started at 54 dBm whereas the WHO in their latest report said it was 45dbm or 8 times less.  He was pleased that following presentations and discussions the recently formed Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise would be undertaking research to form their own conclusions.  When he had met with the DfT they would not commit to work until after the DCO decision had been made.

Although the CAA would approve airspace change associated with a third runway it would be the DCO that agreed environmental and noise envelopes that, through some criteria,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

a)    Councillor McWilliams will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Culture, Communities and Windsor:

Will you commit to supporting the expansion of the Cox Green Community Centre car park, as per the recent petition which gathered almost 500 signatures from local residents?

b)   Councillor McWilliams will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy and Housing

Will you commit to supporting the resurfacing of Cox Green Lane as part of our commitment to spend £50m on our roads?

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

The Wraysbury Drain is over two miles of ancient and legally protected watercourse that has gone dry. How much RBWM money has been spent on maintaining this channel without actually fixing the problem?

d)   Councillor Bond will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

What process was followed when deciding to combine the Lead Member for Children’s Services role with the Adult Services and Health portfolios, and will he undertake to publish the results of the ‘local test of assurance’ to demonstrate ‘the focus on outcomes for children and young people will not be weakened or diluted’, as per the Department for Education guidance?

e)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

In last year’s budget there was a line “CC52 Clewer & Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvements £350,000”. On enquiring how this money was invested officers tell me that £386,943 was spent so there appears to have been a £36,943 or 11% overspend. How was this overspend allowed to happen and can you ensure us that you will not overspend again this year?

(The Member responding has up to two minutes to address Council. No supplementary question shall be raised)

a)    Councillor McWilliams asked the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Culture, Communities and Windsor:

Will you commit to supporting the expansion of the Cox Green Community Centre car park, as per the recent petition which gathered almost 500 signatures from local residents?

Councillor Rayner responded that the car park was not part of the Royal Borough estate; it was part of the school site. Although it was recognised as a popular local community centre and youth centre, it was therefore not appropriate for the council to provide funding. In April 2018 officers looked at the options to expand the car park. Since then the school had built 16 more car park spaces which had alleviated pressure at peak times. A figure of £20,000 has been identified in this year’s capital budget to enable a detailed feasibility and design study to take place.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor McWilliams asked whether,  following the £20,000 allocated, Councillor Rayner would commit to reconvening the round table to discuss future options.

Councillor Rayner responded that the council would always consider new ideas; following the results of the feasibility the council would determine the next steps.

b)   Councillor McWilliams asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy and Housing

Will you commit to supporting the resurfacing of Cox Green Lane as part of our commitment to spend £50m on our roads?

Councillor Johnson responded that the council had committed to investment in infrastructure and would invest £50m over four years to deliver infrastructure before housing and development. In addition, the council had recently introduced further investment to fix potholes within 24 hours.

With respect to the specifics of Cox Green Lane, the road resurfacing programme for 2019/20 had already been approved. However, he had requested that this road would be added to the reserve programme and resurfaced as soon as possible.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor McWilliams explained that he and Councillor Haseler had committed to the people of Cox Green to push to expand the resurfacing programme, he therefore asked the Lead Member if he would come on a tour of the ward to see other roads

Councillor Johnson responded that he would be delighted to join ward councillors on a tour.

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

The Wraysbury Drain is over two miles of ancient and legally protected watercourse that has gone dry. How much RBWM money has been spent on maintaining this channel without actually fixing the problem?

Councillor Cannon responded that in 2014 the Royal Borough commissioned a study of the Wraysbury Drain, and completed work which emerged from the study during 2015. The works included essential ditch clearance and regrading at a number of locations along the Wraysbury and Horton Drains, including the dive centre and The Splash. 

The contractor completed 12 weeks work on both the Horton and Wraysbury Drains between September and November 2015. Sections were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A C25.1 of the council’s constitution, the Chairman called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 10.00pm.

Upon being put to the vote, those present voted in favour of the meeting continuing.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the meeting continue after 10.00pm to

conclude the outstanding business on the agenda.

a)    By Councillor Taylor

This council agrees that the reasons for the chosen site of the Vicus Way car park have been superseded by the ongoing regeneration of Maidenhead town centre and the site would be better utilised for a mixed development of commercial premises and housing.

b)   By Councillor Baldwin:

Homelessness cannot be tolerated or ignored.  The Council’s partners tell us that concentrating their clients in accessible locations better allows them to receive the services they need and makes the transition from the street to emergency accommodation easier for all concerned.  We must create a seamless path from the street to full re-integration.  A small step can be taken today.

This council allows the Brett Foundation to permanently site its bus/dormitory outside the roller gates of John West House, without charge.

c)    By Councillor Knowles

This council will support, facilitate and promote an Armed Forces day event on Armed Forces day 2020.

d)   By Councillor Clark

This Council: 

i) Declares an environmental and climate emergency; whilst noting the council’s achievements in reducing its environmental impacts including reducing its energy consumption by 21% and the ambitious ongoing targets to further reduce energy consumption by 10% within four years, adopted in the Energy and Water Strategy 2019-2023; 

ii) Welcomes the Government’s commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and calls on them to provide additional powers and resources to ensure the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead can help deliver on national targets; and

iii) Will establish a Cross-Party Working Group to undertake an in-depth review of the council’s current carbon footprint and to formulate, consult and agree on a net Zero Carbon Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead by 2050 Strategy in consultation with local stakeholders and partners with a draft strategy to be brought before Full Council within 12 months.

Motion a)

Councillor Taylor introduced her motion. She stated that she regretted having to bring the motion given the earlier discussions on climate change however the parking issue was real. There was a need for spaces; the question was where.

Parking was a huge issue throughout the borough.  However, this car park would not solve the issue of commuters parking in residential streets. Many did this to avoid paying for parking in the first place. When the residents fought Vicus, the digital boards which used to show empty parking spaces said on average 1488 spaces were available each day across the town.  Perhaps a better question to ask was if these business spaces were still empty after 10am were they ever being used?

The routes in Oldfield were struggling to cope as it was and whilst the planned improvements to the roundabouts on Stafferton Way/A308 and Oldfield Road/A4 junction were welcome, she questioned whether this was enough to cope with the increase of traffic due.  Could the area cope with an extra 1000 car movements a day?  Possibly it could. However, could it cope with an extra 7000 car movements a day? 

Councillor Taylor explained that this was potentially what could happen as  currently around 3061 residential units were either under construction, approved by planning or proposed within St Mary’s and Oldfield. Whilst the council considered each individual planning application on its merits, it needed to remember that there was always a cumulative effect. 

Vicus Way was in constant use by HGVs and the current roundabout was impossible for them to navigate safely.  Once the nearby developments were complete, traffic would increase substantially along the link road and throughout the area.  The proposed correction works that Redrow would undertake on the junction were not enough to ensure the safety of both car users and pedestrians if the car park went ahead.

Pedestrian safety was a grave concern here as the route that commuters would need to take from Vicus to the station included two zebra crossings and three pedestrian crossings.  Much had been made of the Queen Street right hand turn closure being implemented to ensure the safety of pedestrians.  Councillor Taylor therefore suggested that the parking should be put in the town centre where the council could provide safe crossings and traffic control measures to ensure pedestrian safety.

The Maidenhead Forum was advised that originally the replacement Broadway car park was going to be 1300 spaces.  However it was thought the bulk would be too great and therefore reduced to 1000.  Within the regeneration of the town centre there was the opportunity to design a car park that fitted and complemented the area, whilst providing all the car park spaces needed.  The regeneration would not happen over-night and the council must get it right, doing all it could to keep and encourage people into the town.  Commuters who could be delayed on trains might stop for a meal in a restaurant or pick up a last minute gift. So  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

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 item 13 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act

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 13 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To note the Part II appendix to the earlier Part I report.