To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Targowski and Walters.

To receive the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 24 September and 23 October 2019.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             The minutes of the meeting held on 24 September be approved, subject to an amendment to page 24 to record Councillor Stimson’s response to the supplementary question g) as ‘Why don’t you just ask them yourself?’.

ii)            The minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2019 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Werner declared a Personal Interest in motion e) as he worked for Guide Dogs for the Blind who were currently running a campaign on fireworks.

Councillors Werner, Bateson and Cannon declared Personal Interests in motion a) as members of the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority.

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, which were noted by Council.

The Mayor welcomed Councillor G Jones, as this was his first full Council meeting following the Riverside by-election.

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

Will the Lead Member advise if he has received any proposals from members that safeguard the future of the Dedworth Sensory Garden?

b)   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 meet with me and Dedworth residents who would like to display large remembrance poppies along Dedworth Rd and Maidenhead Road in years to come?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put the supplementary question)

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

Will the Lead Member advise if he has received any proposals from members that safeguard the future of the Dedworth Sensory Garden?

Councillor Carroll responded that he could confirm that he had received no proposals from Members that would safeguard the future of the Dedworth Sensory Garden.

However, he could confirm that, following an approach from Councillor Price, the Director of Adults, Health and Commissioning had met with her on site to discuss what options there were available for the council to help.  Regrettably, the conclusion of the meeting was that there was nothing that the council could do.  However, Councillor Price was advised to contact the council’s delivery partners, such as Volker Highways and Tivoli, who may be able to support the local community to reopen the garden with practical help.  He understood that some practical help had been provided and that there had been some wider interest from the local community to see the garden reopened and then maintained.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson stated that he was disappointed that there were no formal proposals on the table. A group of residents was looking to form a charity. Would the Lead Member commit to meeting residents and potential trustees to discuss a way forward.

Councillor Carroll responded that he would be delighted to do so.

b)   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 meet with me and Dedworth residents who would like to display large remembrance poppies along Dedworth Rd and Maidenhead Road in years to come?

Councillor Johnson responded that the Royal Borough had been, and would continue to be, committed to events and initiatives which supported Remembrance Day.

The council had previously worked with residents and other organisations to display large poppies on the highway and was very happy to continue to do so. There appeared to be differing arrangements in different localities with some providing their own poppies and others being provided and displayed by the Royal Borough.

In order to ensure that there was no miscommunication or misunderstanding in future years a short policy would be developed led by the museum and arts team. He would be happy to meet with any interested party.

Mr Wilson confirmed that he did not have a supplementary question.

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

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

No petitions were presented.

Councillor Werner indicated he would in future have a petition to present relating to speeding outside his daughter’s school. The Leader had already indicated his support. Councillor Johnson commented that he had spoken to officers and asked them to undertake a speed survey in the area.

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

None for this meeting

None for this meeting

To consider the above report

Members considered appointment of the S151 Officer.

Councillor Hilton explained that the constitution required full Council approval of the appointment of the Section 151 officer. The proposed candidate, Adele Taylor, had extensive experience. Her appointment would bring greater intellectual capability to the management team. Alongside the management of the council’s finances, she would be responsible for Revenues and Benefits, Libraries and Resident Services, ICT, HR, Corporate projects and would also oversee the audit function and the pension fund.  Members noted Adele Taylor’s experience as detailed in the appendix.

Councillor Rayner commented that she had been a member of the interview panel; all had agreed that Adele would be a strong addition to the council. She was confident that Ms Taylor would embrace the council’s culture and would be open to discussions with Councillors and residents.

Councillor Werner stated that he supported the proposal but was concerned at the comment that Ms Taylor would embrace the council’s culture given the recent criticisms by CIPFA on the financial culture of the organisation.

Councillor Hilton responded that the council was already on the process of changing its culture. Financial reporting was already more clear and transparent than in the past. He would look to Adele Taylor to carry on down that road towards better practice.

Councillor Rayner highlighted that there had already been a change in culture with a new Leader and Managing Director.

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Rayner, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and appoints:

i)          Adele Taylor as the Council’s Section 151 Officer following her appointment to the role of Director of Resources.

To consider the above report

Members consideredmaking the Old Windsor Neighbourhood Plan part of the Development Plan for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and for it to be used in decision making for relevant planning applications in the neighbourhood plan area.

Councillor Coppinger commented that the council had and continued to support neighbourhood plans. There were currently 10 in progress across the borough. Old Windsor was the fourth to reach this stage. The NPPF gave local communities direct powers to ensure sustainable development where it was needed. The Group had undertaken a series of consultations on the plan and developed evidence to support its proposals. The independent examiner had agreed it could move to referendum with some minor modifications.

The referendum had taken place on 10 October 2019. Of 763 votes, 709 had voted to approve the plan. He therefore asked Council to accept the result and formally make the plan part of the development plan for the borough.

Councillor L. Jones commented that neighbourhood plans were truly community-led. She thanked the Neighbourhood Plan Group for producing a plan that fully reflected the views of residents. She particularly thanked Jane Dawson, Chairman of the Parish council, for her efforts.

Councillor Hilton commented that it was an incredible task for local people to bring forward a document that stood the test of the Planning Inspector. It would be essential for all Development Management Panel members to understand the plan when considering applications in Old Windsor.

Councillor Bateson commented that it was amazing that every area of the borough was involved in neighbourhood planning.

Councillor Jones requested that the second recommendation include consultation with the Neighbourhood Plan Group. Councillor Coppinger accepted the amendment.

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Jones, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and:

i)          That the Council make the Old Windsor Neighbourhood Plan part of the Development Plan for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead; and

ii)         Delegates authority to the Executive Director, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning and the Old Windsor Neighbourhood Plan Group, to make minor, non-material, amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan prior to its publication.

To consider the above report

Members considered amendments to the terms of reference for the School Improvement Forum.

Councillor Carroll explained that since he had become Lead Member in May he had focussed on the importance of every child, regardless of background or social circumstances, being able to access the best possible education. The School Improvement Forum, which he chaired, allowed for additional scrutiny in local schools and helped to identify how the council could best support schools in achieving better outcomes. He wished to refocus the Forum to make its key priority about disadvantaged children and how to remove barriers restricting optimal attainment. The current terms of reference focussed on Ofsted ratings, however 94% of borough schools were now rated Good or Outstanding; none were considered inadequate.  He wished to refocus the forum on disadvantaged children. He had discussed the proposal with Councillor Del Campo, the opposition representative on the forum, and confirmed that the changes would not mean other items could not be brought to the Forum. The idea was to set a clear priority and vision.

Councillor Del Campo thanked Councillor Carroll for the commitment to enable the forum to do other things. A focus on disadvantaged pupils was important but the 6% of schools not considered Good or Outstanding should not be forgotten; in addition other groups such as Gifted and Talented pupils also needed support.

Councillor Bhangra commented on his ward work alongside Councillor Carroll to support disadvantaged children.

Councillor Knowles commented that it was a fabulous idea to bring the terms of reference up to date. One of the key drivers was poverty. It would therefore be helpful if the forum could develop a whole support mechanism. The forum could also be a useful way of allocating additional SEND funding around the borough in consultation with headteachers.

Councillor Tisi stated that she was pleased with the changes. She highlighted that a number of schools had not been inspected for up to 10 years therefore it would be important to leave the option open if any slipped down the rankings. She also liked the fact that the forum met regularly.

Councillor Sharpe commented that it was wholly commendable to focus resources on supporting disadvantaged children to have the best start in life.

Councillor Coppinger commented that he was also a member of the Forum. As a former Chair of Governors at a primary school he had been pleased with the opportunity for political leaders to meet with educational leaders in the borough.

Councillor Davey asked who created the Inclusion Charter Mark referred to in the terms of reference.

Councillor Carroll commented that he was passionate about high performance. If needed, the forum would provide the time to address performance issues. Discussions over the Charter Mark had begun. The Corporate Parenting Forum already brought in Children in Care to get their views and he hoped this model could be developed for the School Improvement Forum.  He explained that the Schools Forum also brought headteachers together with the Director of Children’s Services,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

To consider the above report

Members considered approval of a policy to apply the provisions of the Care Act around costs where the Royal Borough became responsible for funding people in care homes who had previously funded their own care costs or had them paid by the NHS.

Councillor Carroll explained that adult social care operated on the basis of ability to pay therefore there was a significant element of means testing. The increasing demographic burden on adult social care was a national challenge. This was a positive challenge as it meant people were living longer, it should be celebrated but there was a need to ensure the system was equitable.

The borough had a statutory responsibility to meet the eligible care needs of adults including those who moved into care homes in the borough and subsequently ran out of money. The cost was usually then more than the council would pay for people with similar needs. The council would always look to negotiate down the costs but usually the council would exercise its discretion to allow a person to remain in their current care home.

The proposal, consistent with other local authorities, was to set a personal budget for accommodation in a suitable place with a view to only fund to that level or lower. The wellbeing principle would always apply in all cases. If medical evidence confirmed that moving an individual would have detrimental and significant impacts then the individual would be allowed to remain even if costs were higher.  This would ensure all were treated equitably and ensure sufficient resources for all eligible residents.

Councillor Coppinger highlighted that the borough had more care homes beds per head of population than any other authority. New care homes were told that they needed to ensure an individual could afford the accommodation for the rest of their life however some did not in the knowledge that there would always be someone who picked up the cost in the end. The proposals ensured equity for all.

Councillor Davey commented that if the cost was £1,000 a week to provide care, 1,329 beds equated to £64m a year. The council needed to learn from its neighbours in Slough using 30% of the beds for the same population however the culture in some families there was also to keep elderly people in the family home.  Councillor Davey suggested that an alternative would be to pay families to host an older person at £1,000 month. In a perfect world this would save £50m and the mother could be at home for the children, who would feel more loved and there would be less chance they would get into bother. The old person would feel loved and would add value to the family, for example helping with homework.

Councillor Carroll explained that the council was required to source care for those unable to pay under the means tested threshold. The council commissioned care from providers at some of the most competitive unit costs in the country. The report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

To consider the above report

Members considered an update on the delivery of the Treasury Management Strategy approved by Council on 26 February 2019.

Councillor Hilton highlighted a typographical error in the report summary, section 2c which should refer to 2019/20. He asked Members to note the details of long term debt in Appendix C and the borrowing requirements on page 172. The table showed money held on behalf of the Local Enterprise Partnership; these were included in the calculation of debt. Investments were shown in Appendix B and included deposits with the Property Company, credit facilities and money market deposits. Arlingclose had recommended to continue to use short term borrowing to allow the markets to settle following the election but to take longer term borrowing to cover the £61.5m reported as the borrowing requirement and to do so before the end of February 2020. The operational boundary for debt had been confirmed as £159m. The authorised limit was £181m. Both remained unchanged.

Councillor Hilton explained that the council currently used the straight line method for calculating MRP. However the annuity method was very similar to repayment of a mortgage where the MRP was charged to the end of the asset’s expected life. The charges went up over time. As there was a plan to pay the debt off early this would not be an issue. This method was increasingly common in local authorities.

Councillor Jones asked what impact changes to the MRP would have on the revenue budget. She also asked for an explanation of paragraph 4.1.8.

Councillor W. Da Costa stated that he broadly agreed with the strategy but had a few questions. In relation to the £14.3m – £16m on deposit and the maximum amount that could be deposited with any particular bank was now reduced to £5m, how much money had been moved to get maximum deposits in banks to £5m per bank? Given also that the previous minimum credit rating was BBB+, assuming an average of £15m deposits, had the interest income received therefore dropped and, if so by how much?

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that, with regard to the Minimum Revenue Provision, if the change meant the council charged more costs in future years than now, it seemed not as prudent as charging it now. What difference would changing to a less prudent method have and what would the benefit be? Did the limits and constraints also apply to RBWM Trading Companies? By changing asset lives, or using a different internal rate of return, the council could manipulate the amount of money it charged to the budget, to make it look better.  He asked for assurance that any changes in asset lives and internal rates of return would be first scrutinised by the Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel. If this could be done, he requested that the motion be amended.

Councillor Hilton responded that the proposal reduced the impact on the MRP in the early years and had a positive impact on the revenue budget; this would grow over  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

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

Unauthorised construction of raised earth bunds on flood plain are a problem in my Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury Ward.  These embankments inhibit overland flood flows, take up flood storage capacity and raise flood levels.  The simultaneous neglect of the ancient land drainage infrastructure exacerbates flooding.  As lead local flood authority what action is RBWM taking to remedy the issues?

b)   Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

What is the total cost of the Borough Local Plan to date please?

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

Where there are broken/uneven pathways, lack of dropped kerbs/tactile paving, residents with disabilities, and indeed the elderly, are deterred from venturing out, thus increasing the incidence of loneliness, isolation, and physical inactivity. Will the Lead Member consider prioritising repairs/improvements where there are clusters of such residents in line with the RBWM Strategic Priority of Health, Skilled and Independent residents? 

d)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Lead Member for Housing, Communications and Youth Engagement:

What funding has cabinet allocated to support rough sleepers over the Christmas period and into the New Year around the Borough and how might we work better with community groups and voluntary organisations to raise awareness and sign post provision to maximise resources for all? 

e)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

With RBWM in a very serious financial situation is it now time to make use of the skills of all councillors, across parties, rather than simply relying on the Conservative Administration trying to go it alone?

f)      Councillor Davies will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

Nationally 30,000 children - UK resident but EU nationals - may not receive settled status, despite being entitled to it, due to “irregular family contexts”. Of these, 5,000 are children in care. Are there any children in our care whose settled status is uncertain for this reason? And if so, what practical and legal support are they receiving?

g)   Councillor L. Jones will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

The finance update is showing an estimated £3.61m forecast overspend at the end of the financial year. This is the ‘net figure’ after ‘saving mitigations’ have already been implemented. What assurances can the Lead Member give council that this figure can be mitigated and will not continue to rise?

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

Given the recent tragic deaths of 2 Oldfield Ward Residents when are we going to see the pedestrian crossing built on Braywick Road and safety upgrades to the 2 crossings near Oldfield School on Bray  ...  view the full agenda text for item 71.

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

Unauthorised construction of raised earth bunds on flood plain are a problem in my Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury Ward.  These embankments inhibit overland flood flows, take up flood storage capacity and raise flood levels.  The simultaneous neglect of the ancient land drainage infrastructure exacerbates flooding.  As lead local flood authority what action is RBWM taking to remedy the issues?

Councillor Cannon, as relevant Lead Member, responded that from a planning perspective the council was not aware of any unauthorised bunds in the Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury area. There were sites in the area that had bunds but these were either lawful through planning permission or by virtue of S171B of the Town and Country Planning Act i.e. they were immune from enforcement action.

There was a site in Datchet that had piles of wood that were stored as part of an unauthorised timber processing site, to which Councillor Larcombe may have been referring. These were not strictly bunds but their removal was required by an extant enforcement notice to which the owner had failed to comply. This offence, i.e. failure to comply with the terms of the enforcement notice, had been referred to the Council’s legal team to pursue prosecution.

If there were other sites in the area with alleged unauthorised bunding, Councillor Cannon asked Members to report them to the Planning Enforcement team so that the matter can be formally investigated.

With regard to the land drainage infrastructure, actions being progressed included recommencing an annual weed spraying programme on the Wraysbury Drain in the Spring 2020; guidance to be issued on riparian responsibilities relating to the ancient infrastructure, on conclusion of the legal work; where the watercourse was impeded and there was restriction to flow, subject to legislation, undertake enforcement action using the council’s powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991; and to continue working with the local community.  With regard to the ‘Ardmore’ site at Hythe End, the planning enforcement notice for removal of the hardstanding, including reinstatement of the ditch, had a deadline of Christmas for compliance.  The council would instruct legal to issue a Land Drainage enforcement notice if further ditch restoration works were needed.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that the Flood and Water Management act 2010 identified the responsibilities of different types of flooding. As a unitary authority the borough was the Lead Local Flood Authority with overall responsibility. He realised his ward was a remote and minor outpost but he believed the council should do more to ensure proper maintenance. The emerging Borough Local Plan stated that ‘the de-culverting and promotion of natural water systems should be encouraged’. He asked for confirmation that these issues would get proper consideration in conjunction with the climate change adaptation strategy.

Councillor Cannon responded that if issues were reported to the council they would be addressed. He disagreed with the comments about remoteness, but it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

a)    By Councillor Cannon

As a member of Royal Berkshire Fire Authority I bring this motion to the Council to demonstrate our commitment to the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service motion to ensure the safety of RBWM buildings and residents from the risks of fires.

This Council:

i)       Acknowledges that sprinklers and other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) save lives, protect property, reduce the impact of fire on the environment, reduce interruption to business and improve safety for individuals in the community in general and firefighters. In recognising these benefits support the National Fire Chief’s Council position on sprinklers by writing to Central Government to express support for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings.

ii)      Commit to installation of sprinklers or other AFSS within its own building stock when planning for and constructing new buildings or as a retrofitted solution when undertaking major refurbishments of existing buildings.

iii)     Through the planning application or building control process, promote and support the installation of sprinklers or other AFSS for all new or refurbished buildings and particularly those that present the most significant risk to the public and firefighters.

b)  By Councillor Taylor

Following the declaration of a climate emergency this year, along with the spells of record breaking hot weather, I ask the council to commit to addressing the responsibilities it has to residents during this extreme type of weather.

This Council:

i)             Ensures that correct and helpful information is provided via the council’s communications channels and libraries to assist people during periods of hot weather.

ii)            Liaises with other support groups / charities to see what help can be offered to those who are most vulnerable in the Borough.

iii)           Establishes a Heat Mitigation Research Working Group to discuss what responsibilities the council may have moving forwards to tackle the inevitable changes to a wider range of issues including building regulations, responsibilities for existing housing stock and general heat relief.

c)    By Councillor Davey

The Police tell me one of the main reasons young people start getting into trouble is limited parental support after school.

This Council:

i)             Recognises many 15-18 year olds could benefit from community support after school for approximately 3 hours a day.

ii)            Commits to working harder to find solutions to give our youth the best possible start in life.

d)   By Councillor Del Campo

According to a recent freedom of information request (number 74334, November 2019), there are currently 766 empty homes in the Royal Borough. The same request shows that no Empty Dwelling Management Orders have been issued in the last five years. Bringing these empty homes back into use could avoid the need to build on several green-belt sites in the borough.

This Council resolves to:

i)             Promote the grants and support available to owners of empty residential properties to bring them back into use

ii)            Use all reasonable powers to bring empty residential properties back into use

iii)           Write to the inspector of the borough  ...  view the full agenda text for item 72.

Motion a)

Councillor Cannon introduced his motion. He explained that in the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority Annual Plan 2019 – 2020, the Fire Authority had committed to:

• Promote and influence the fitting of sprinklers in all buildings where appropriate.

• Engage with local authorities and encourage the retrofitting of sprinklers where it supported both occupants and firefighter safety.

• Continue to work with building developers and designers to introduce sprinklers as a part of an alternative design package; ensuring the appropriate levels of fire safety are maintained.

In support of these objectives Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) proactively endorsed the installation of sprinklers systems in educational, domestic, industrial, commercial and residential premises. Currently, under the Building Regulations in England sprinklers should be fitted in schools, warehouse premises0f 20,000m², buildings over 30m high and single and multi-storey shops over 2000m².

On behalf of the UK fire and rescue service, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) had published a clear position on sprinklers and Automatic Water Suppression Systems (AWSS) with a view to save lives, property and ensuring residents and firefighters were as safe as possible.  In addition to lobbying for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings, Fire Authority members had been asked to put the motion to their councils for adoption.

Councillor Cannon amended recommendation iii to replace the words ‘the planning application or building control processes’ with ‘building regulations’.

Councillor Larcombe raised concerns about the costs of the proposal and how enforceable it would be. He was also concerned it did not refer to buildings with flammable cladding.

Councillor Werner stated his support for the motion, with the amendment.

Councillor Hill commented that he had undertaken fire risk assessments therefore he knew them to be very lengthy. He was concerned that fire officers did not visit private landlord premises. He felt an inspection process should be introduced to approve and certify the installation of sprinklers and AWSS.

Councillor Bateson commented that it was important to recognise the role sprinklers played. They were the most effective way to extinguish a fire before the fire service arrived. They saved lives, protected fire fighters and reduced damage to properties. The report from the Fire Chiefs Council had highlighted that when suppression systems operated, they were 99% effective at containing or extinguishing the fire.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council:

i)       Acknowledges that sprinklers and other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) save lives, protect property, reduce the impact of fire on the environment, reduce interruption to business and improve safety for individuals in the community in general and firefighters. In recognising these benefits support the National Fire Chief’s Council position on sprinklers by writing to Central Government to express support for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings.

ii)     Commit to installation of sprinklers or other AFSS within its own building stock  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.