Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online access

Contact: Karen Shepherd  01628 796529

Video Stream: Click here to re-watch the live stream of this meeting on YouTube

Items
No. Item

19.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence

Minutes:

None received.

20.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 431 KB

To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 23 June 2020.

Minutes:

Councillor Baldwin requested the meeting be told the reason given by the Mayor for not accepting an urgent motion submitted by Councillor Brar. The Mayor agreed to circulate the details to all Members the following day.

 

Councillor Knowles proposed an amendment to the minutes to refer to the fact that the Mayor had told Councillor Hill to leave the meeting. He commented that the constitution required a vote to be taken to remove a Member. The Managing Director explained that a vote had not been necessary as Councillor Hill had left the meeting of his own accord. However, Members were able to amend the minutes as they saw fit. Councillor Davey seconded the amendment, commenting that it should also be added in that he had been removed from the meeting.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2020 be approved, subject to the addition of the following at the appropriate point:

 

·         ‘Councillor Hill was ejected from the meeting by the Mayor for poor behaviour’

·         ‘Councillor Davey was ejected from the meeting by the Mayor for poor behaviour’

 

Councillor Baldwin raised a point of order with the Mayor that during a named vote, Members should only state whether they were ‘for’ or ‘against’ the proposal, or ‘abstaining’. No other comment should be made. The Mayor agreed and stated that all should comply with this for future votes.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Minutes amendment Amendment Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 21.

    Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

    To receive any declarations of interest

    Minutes:

    Councillor S Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Joint Central and East Berkshire Minerals and Waste Plan’ as her family owned land that would be affected by the proposals in the plan. She left the meeting for the duration of the debate and vote on the item.

    22.

    Mayor's Communications pdf icon PDF 56 KB

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

    Minutes:

    The Mayor had submitted in writing details of engagements that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last meeting, which had been limited due to COVID-19. These were noted by Council.

    23.

    Public Questions pdf icon PDF 757 KB

    a)    Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    Does the Leader of the Council believe he owes a fiduciary duty to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in relation to the latter’s powers under Schedule 1, Sub-Paragraph 2(5)(c) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and, if so, will he urgently write to the Ministry to disclose fully the findings of the CIPFA investigation?

      

    b)   Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking

     

    Would the Lead Member confirm the current legal and contractual basis for parking enforcement within self-administered Residents’ Parking Zones and whether it is the Council’s intention to withdraw enforcement in those streets that decline to become designated as Council-administered schemes? If so, when?

     

    c)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor

     

    Will the Lead Member provide details of the demise of the Legacy Leisure Trust and outline the governance arrangements of Leisure Focus.

     

    d)   Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    For the sake of transparency will the Royal Borough provide the terms of reference for the review of financial governance that it requested from CIPFA?

    e)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council.

    Why were Members not informed in the Council report of July 2019 that surveyors Knight Frank had, in March 2019, given an Existing Use Value (EUV) for the Nicholson Shopping Centre (excluding hope value) of £18m?

    f)     Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of  Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

    During any pre-application meetings for major developments, is it standard protocol for officers to advise applicants that the approved tall building policy in the Maidenhead Area Action Plan (para 3.40) limits maximum building heights to 12 storeys in order “to respect the size and compact nature of Maidenhead and respect visibility from the surrounding countryside to the existing level”?

     

    (The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutesto deal with public questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances.

    The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting.

    The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

    Minutes:

    a)    Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    Does the Leader of the Council believe he owes a fiduciary duty to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in relation to the latter’s powers under Schedule 1, Sub-Paragraph 2(5)(c) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and, if so, will he urgently write to the Ministry to disclose fully the findings of the CIPFA investigation?

     

    Written response: The review of financial governance that was undertaken by CIPFA and the results of that review are publicly available on our website and therefore available for anyone who wishes to view the information contained within it.

      

    Mr Bermange stated that he did not have a supplementary question, but would contact Councillor Johnson offline.

     

    b)   Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking

     

    Would the Lead Member confirm the current legal and contractual basis for parking enforcement within self-administered Residents’ Parking Zones and whether it is the Council’s intention to withdraw enforcement in those streets that decline to become designated as Council-administered schemes? If so, when?

     

    Written response: The Parking Principal will be writing to all administrators of self-administered schemes during July and August advising of the 2 options which are available from April 1 2021.

     

    These options are:

    1.       Become a council administered scheme and apply the relevant permit fees

    2.       Request the removal of the scheme, remove the permit parking restriction and for enforcement to cease

     

    Self-administered schemes form part of the Traffic Regulation Order relating to a particular area. The same order and conditions also apply to Royal Borough administered schemes. The difference between self-administered and Royal Borough schemes is that permission is granted by the Royal Borough to the administrator of self-administered schemes to set local scheme rules including the number of permits permitted per household.

     

    In the Traffic Regulation Order the definition of permit includes the wording “any other body with Councils approval and permission”. This definition is applicable and covers self-administered schemes.

     

    By way of a supplementary question, Mr Bermange thanked the Lead Member for taking the time to provide his comprehensive answer, which provided some much-needed clarity.

     

    Having spoken with a number of residents who served as administrators for their streets Mr Bermange commented that, whilst some had fully constituted associations to assist decision making others, such the one in Laburnham Road, Boyn Hill, had only informal arrangements.

     

    Mr Bermange asked if the Lead Member could therefore commit to providing council assistance to those schemes in consulting and holding referenda, where required, and would he also consider extending the opportunity to decide on the future of schemes to those currently under council control too?

     

    Councillor Cannon responded that all schemes, at any stage, were subject to residents’ consent. If the majority of any residents in a scheme wished to change it, that just had to be brought to the attention of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

    24.

    Petitions

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

     

    (Notice of the petition must have been given to the Head of Governance not later than noon on the last working day prior to the meeting. A Member submitting a Petition may speak for no more than 2 minutes to summarise the contents of the Petition).

    Minutes:

    Councillor Brar explained that under Part 7G, 24 of the constitution, the lead petitioner had asked her to present the petition to the Head of Service via the Petitions Officer:

     

    Urgently introduce traffic calming measures and upgrade existing crossing point to a controlled crossing at Maidenhead Road near the railway bridge, introduce a new controlled crossing point on Switchback Road adjacent to the shops and reduce speed limit and install cameras/calming measures

     

    This would be the last full Council for several months and this matter was too urgent to delay unnecessarily.  She called upon the Head of Service to convene the earliest possible meeting including the Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure, the lead petitioner, herself and the two ward Councillors, so that an agreement could be reached.

     

    That 2205 residents from across the borough had signed was testament to the impact that the death of Max Simmons had upon us all.  It was not possible to undo the tragic events of 21 of December 2019, nor could a beloved son be returned to a grieving family. However, the council could act with all urgency to ensure that on or before the first anniversary of his death, the safety improvements called for had been completed. The council had recently been mired in controversy and scandal.  Members had been assured that fresh starts were to be made and new leaves would be turned good. Councillor Brar suggested that this should be an early example of what could be achieved when all pulled together: residents, officers, opposition councillors, majority councillors, lead members and all the way up to the Leader of the Council himself.

     

    25.

    Referrals from other bodies

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

    Minutes:

    2019/20 Annual Reports from the Overview and Scrutiny Panels

     

    Members considered the annual reports of the four Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

     

    Councillor Werner commented that he had raised an issue at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel the previous day that scrutiny was failing to achieve all it could do. He saw from the reports that administration control of the Panels was absolute; the choice of Chairman was whipped and the agenda was completely controlled by the Chairman so that any issues the opposition wanted to raise were squashed. The report from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel did not include the opposition’s constant requests for close monitoring of the budget. As it was the opposition in previous meetings that had challenged the finances of the council, it seemed important to give the opposition the ability to insist on items appearing on agenda. Apart from a couple of notable exceptions, scrutiny was not working well. He would like to see a root and branch review of the scrutiny process and how the independence of the Panels could be secured going forward.

     

    Councillor Davey highlighted a number of sections from the constitution:

     

    ·         A7.3 The Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Panels shall invite representations for inclusion within the Work Programme from the groups in A7.2 within 60 days of Annual Council. 

    ·         A7.2 In setting the Work Programme the Overview and Scrutiny Panels shall take into account the wishes of members & residents.

     

    Councillor Davey questioned whether the current year’s Chairmen (Councillors Hunt, Bowden and Targowski) had invited representations for inclusion as the new year had started on 26 May 2020. Councillor Singh had reached out to Members across the floor for representation on 6 July 2020. He was aware of an announcement to residents the previous year and had been assured it would be done as a generic announcement by the Communications team.

     

    Councillor Davey felt that residents would like to be reassured that the scrutiny panels, especially the Chairmen, did actually know and had read the rules in Part 4 of the constitution. They were after all paid for their service, the Vice Chairmen received no remuneration. It would be good to know that they were being professional in their approach and addressing the various points that had been raised.

     

    Councillor Jones commented that Overview and Scrutiny Panels were able to instigate in-depth investigations into policy and performance issues. Topics were chosen in consultation with officers, partners and members of the public, with the view of making recommendations on a particular policy or service area. They had a scope, terms of reference, a final report and a response from Cabinet. The report from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel under ‘Topics Scrutinised’ just provided a link to the meetings of the Panel. The lack of scrutiny of topics was a concern of Councillor Jones. She would like to see a page on the website listing the scrutiny reviews and their outcomes. Haringey council had a very good template.

    Councillor Price welcomed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

    26.

    Constitutional Amendments - Audit and Governance Committee pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered a proposal that the audit oversight functions currently undertaken by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel be transferred to a separate Audit and Governance Committee.

     

    Councillor Price commented that she supported the proposal. She asked what were the necessary skills of the Chairman and Vice Chairman?

     

    Councillor Johnson responded that the core skills were financial ones, with the ability to robustly and accurately challenge and without fear or favour, hold the council to account, and also to propose and initiate suggestions to strengthen the council’s overall position of robust governance. It was for exactly this reason that his recommendation included a Vice Chairman who was a leading member of the opposition.

     

    Councillor Bond commented that CIPFA had recommended the potential of an independent Chairman, however he acknowledged that getting in that sort of expertise would be a challenge. Other authorities with a separate audit function had Chairmen appointed from the majority party. The proposal was part of wider changes. The financial controls covered governance and people so for example an officer capital programme board had been established.  He believed the council now had the right people in place in the roles of S151 officer and Head of Finance.

     

    Councillor Jones commented that she had been part of the Constitution Review Working Group and had at that time spoken against merging the audit functions with Overview and Scrutiny. She had also been advocating the return to a separate committee for some time. She was therefore pleased with the proposal. She commented that the final recommendation read as though the Monitoring Officer could update the constitution when they wished and how they wished and she felt that the wording should be tightened.

     

    Councillor Johnson confirmed that the delegation referred expressly to the changes detailed in the report and he was therefore happy for the recommendation to be amended to clarify this point.

     

    Councillor Price commented that she had been unable to find the completed Equality Impact Assessment on the website. The Managing Director confirmed that it had been published to the website and a link would be sent to Councillor Price.

     

    Councillor Rayner commented that she felt it was a great idea to separate the audit function out. The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel was doing  a fantastic job but the workload was very heavy.

     

    Councillor Johnson referred to the CIPFA report; it had been clear that this was one of their key recommendations. His personal view was that, in hindsight, it was perhaps not the best thing to have removed a separate Audit Committee.

     

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

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the report and:

     

    i)          Approves amendments to the constitution detailed in Appendix A to establish an Audit and Governance Committee.

    ii)         Appoints Councillor Bateson as Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee and Councillor L. Jones as Vice Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

    iii)       Meeting dates for the remainder  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

    27.

    Community Governance Review - Windsor Town Council pdf icon PDF 630 KB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered approval of a Terms of Reference for a Community Governance Review for the unparished areas of Windsor.

     

    Councillor Rayner explained that the area of Windsor in question included part of Eton and Castel, part of Old Windsor, Clewer & Dedworth East and Clewer East. The total electorate was 22,493. An e-petition to undertake a review had been started in September 2019. To require a council to undertake a review required a petition by 7.5% of the electorate of the area. At its close, the e-petition had 36% of the necessary 7.5% of signatures, but hard copy signatures had yet to be submitted. The council recognised there was an appetite for a review to take place therefore it was proposed that a Working Group be established to submit final recommendations to full Council by July 2021.

     

    Councillor Johnson commented that it gave him great pleasure to second the report. At the end of May he had given a very firm statement of intent that such a report would be brought forward. It would be improper of him to load the device by giving his own views on the merits of the proposition but he looked forward to seeing the recommendations from the Working Group. He confirmed that the Working Group would be chaired by Councillor Shelim. He understood that the time scales were longer than some may have wished, if possible the council would look to compress them.

     

    Councillor Wisdom Da Costa stated that he was honoured to speak wholeheartedly in favour of the motion to set up a governance review with the ambition to create a Windsor Town Council. The campaign had been led by a steering group of local residents from across the whole town, from the town centre, to the ancient boroughs of Clewer, Dedworth and Spital, all united by a common ambition to bring more localised representation to the historic town. 

     

    Town or parish councils were the tier of local government that were closest to the electorate. In total there were some 10,000 parish or town councils in England alone. Windsor had a proud history of local representation since 1172 when a council was formed to discuss matters arising between the town and the crown, this representative body stood in various forms until the Local Government Act of 1972. This Act replaced Cookham Rural District CouncilEton Urban District Council, Windsor Borough Council and Windsor Rural District Council. Of the many towns within RBWM, now only central Maidenhead and the whole of Windsor were left without town or parish representation. The council must address the inequality of democracy.

     

    Most parish councils lacked the capacity to undertake the provision of public services and therefore concerned themselves with local environmental, community and amenity issues. In 2018 the National Association of Local Councils submitted a report entitled ‘Points of Light’. Should the motion be successful, he suggested all members of the governance review committee familiarise themselves with the report, as it highlighted the work Parish and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

    28.

    Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Minerals & Waste Plan - Proposed Submission pdf icon PDF 23 MB

    To consider the above report

    Minutes:

    Members considered approval of the Proposed Submission Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan.

     

    Councillor Coppinger explained that it had been some years since work had commenced on the plan, but it was now ready for the final stage. It did not form part of the Borough Local Plan but it was critical to the council’s ability to meet future demand for building.

     

    Councillor Coppinger commented that the council was on track with the responses to the Inspector on the Borough Local Plan and he was confident that in the Autumn the final stage of examination in public would take place, possibly in a virtual capacity, with adoption by next spring or summer.

     

    The council was required to produce a Minerals and Waste Plan. The council had been working with neighbouring authorities to produce a joint plan supported by Hampshire Council. The plans had been through four rounds of public consultation. A further round of consultation was now required on the proposed final submission, for six weeks from 3 September 2020. The plan would run until 2036. It did not override the normal planning process which could still override or change a future application.

     

    Within the borough a number of sites were promoted for sand and gravel and two had been assessed for allocation. These were Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry. Several others had been rejected including Ham Island and Bray Village; Water Oakley had already received planning approval. It was unfortunate that two areas, Bray and Horton/Wraysbury, because of geological factors would always be the ‘go to’ places for sand and gravel. This did not meet the expected requirement so the plan proposed a broader process called an ‘area of search’ across the whole area of the plan so that other suitable sites could be brought forward over time.

     

    Councillor Coppinger explained that waste was equally as important, and three sites had been identified:

     

    ·         Berkyn Manor for recovery of dry recyclables

    ·         Horton Brook for aggregate recycling

    ·         Stubbings compound for green waste transfer

     

    Star Works in Knowl Hill, albeit in Wokingham, was put forward but had not been allocated although of course it could be put forward in future via a planning application.  There were other possible options going forward such as industrial estates. It was also recommended that the sites are reserved for waste so that they could not be used for anything else.  The last proposal was to take an operator’s previous performance into account when future applications were made. All four authorities would be running the process in parallel and it was expected that the final plan would be submitted to the Secretary of State towards the end of the year, followed by an examination in public and adoption in Spring 2021.

     

    Councillor Werner highlighted that the Hindhay quarry in Pinkneys Green was on the safeguarding list for waste processing and concrete crushing. The noise and dust created was very antisocial. The number of lorries travelling to the site also affected local residents. Complaints were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Minerals and Waste Plan Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 29.

    Members' Questions pdf icon PDF 234 KB

    a)     Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor

     

    What procedural changes will be made to ensure that Members are able to put their questions (including a supplementary if required) and receive answers at Council Meetings?

     

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

     

    When did the Flood Liaison Group last report to the Council?

     

    c)     Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    On Saturday 14th March 2020 at the Weir Opening you gave a public commitment that the Waterways project would be completed.A4 Underpass, Chapel Arches access and boat storage,  Chapel Arches lowering the hard invert, Library Boat Launching Ramp & GWR Sewer Crossing are yet to be scheduled. Can you inform council when these matters will be addressed.

     

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

     

    With finances under incredible pressure, if all the projects in Maidenhead town centre were generating CIL and 106 revenues, what would the future revenues for those properties given planning permission be? Also the Nicholson Centre, should it be given permission?

     

    e)     Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

     

    How much extra is it costing RBWM each month to go back to weekly bin collections and how does this fit with the aims of the climate strategy?

     

    f)      Councillor L. Jones will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor:


    Can the Lead Member clarify the role of the ‘Chair’ of Full Council (the Mayor) in ensuring ‘full and effective debate and decision making by the Council with the overriding aim of promoting confidence in the council by the public.’ 

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

     

    In 2019 the then Leader of the Council announced a trial of streetside EV charging points involving 3 units which were to be placed on Alma Road in Windsor along with a number of free trial EV for use by residents. When can we expect the results of this trial to be published?

    h)        Councillor Bond will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council.

    Will the pension fund governance review mentioned in the CIPFA report and 2019/20 audit plan be made available in advance of an action plan (as has happened with the CIPFA report itself) to help RBWM’s Pension Fund committees comply with s106 (1) (b) of the LGPS (Amendment) Regulations 2015 to “ensure the effective and efficient governance … of the Scheme”?

    (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  ...  view the full agenda text for item 29.

    Minutes:

    a)  Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor

     

    What procedural changes will be made to ensure that Members are able to put their questions (including a supplementary if required) and receive answers at Council Meetings?

     

    Written response: At the last Council meeting in June 2020, Members debated a number of changes to the constitution, including amendments to procedural rules at full Council. It was agreed that all Member questions would be dealt with by way of a written answer, published the day before the meeting. Written responses allow for fuller answers to be given as they are not time limited, and for more questions to be dealt with in an efficient way, assisting agenda management.

     

    Publication of the written response in advance also gives the questioner significant time in advance of the meeting to review the response and consider a suitable supplementary question; time that was not previously available when questions were answered in person at the meeting. The right to ask a supplementary question remains, with the caveat that a maximum time of 30 minutes is available for supplementary questions to be dealt with. Any supplementary questions not dealt with after 30 minutes will be dealt with by way of a written response. All written responses will be published alongside the minutes of the meeting so a full public record is maintained. In exceptional circumstances, the Mayor retains the right to extend the time period.

     

    However, Members do not need to wait until a full Council meeting to ask a question of a Lead Member. I, along with my Cabinet colleagues, am happy to receive questions from Members from across the political spectrum at any time on my portfolio areas.

     

    In response Councillor Larcombe commented that he only brought questions to full Council to get straight, honest answers put to Members

     

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

     

    When did the Flood Liaison Group last report to the Council?

     

    Written response: The Terms of Reference for the Flood Liaison Group were refreshed and unanimously approved at their meeting on 31st July 2019. The Terms of Reference do not include any provision to report to Council.

     

    By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that there was a channel in Wraysbury that had not had water running in it properly for over a year because it was filled with builders’ rubble. He had reported it a year ago but nothing had been done. On the basis that the council had a Flood

    Liaison Group meeting in a couple of weeks’ time he would save his questions for the Chairman of that meeting.

     

    c)     Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

     

    On Saturday 14th March 2020 at the Weir Opening you gave a public commitment that the Waterways project would be completed., A4 Underpass, Chapel Arches access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

    30.

    Motions on Notice

    a)    By Councillor Werner

    This Council;

     i) Offers a vote of thanks to the residents of the Royal Borough, the vast majority of whom, whilst facing very difficult personal sacrifices and restrictions to liberty, have diligently followed both letter and the spirit of the emergency legislation brought in to protect public health during the Covid-19 global pandemic;

     ii) Acknowledges the extraordinary courage and commitment to community shown by many thousands of residents, individually, through neighbourhood groups and with our charitable partner organisations, throughout this terrible time;

    iii) Also, publicly recognises the skill, dedication and tenacity with which our officers have co-ordinated these efforts and the Council’s own activities, for the benefit of all.

    b)   By Councillor McWilliams

     

    This Council:

     

    i)       Commits to upholding the highest standards of public office

    ii)      Encourages all Members, officers and residents alike to avoid unkind, rude and personal attacks and comments against anyone

    iii)     Given recent global events, recognises the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights’ statement on racism & xenophobia: 

     

    "Prejudice or hostility towards a person's race, colour, language, nationality, or national or ethnic origin. While some communities are particularly vulnerable, any ethnic group can be the target of racism. Intolerant discourse in the media or from politicians can lead to increased racist sentiments towards migrants and other minorities, including in the form of scapegoating."

     

    c)    By Councillor Knowles

     

    As a council we’ve had a very disrupted schedule of meetings this year due to Covid 19. Recent meetings have demonstrated that there is too little time in the current schedule of full Council meetings leading to frustration and overlong meetings. When you have too much business to fit into a meeting it makes sense to have more meetings.

     

    This Council amends the calendar of council meetings to establish monthly full Council meetings from this meeting forward until further notice. If there is insufficient business to transact those monthly meetings may be cancelled if required.

     

    d)   By Councillor Taylor

     

    This Council:

     

    i)          Recognises the need to promote local businesses and think of inventive ways to help them as well as bringing much needed footfall into our Town Centres. 

    ii)         Agrees the possibility of a new Artisan Street Market will be pursued, with the view to holding quarterly if successful.  This will include local businesses from around the borough.

    iii)      If successful, we will extend this idea to Windsor, with the view to create a unique shopping experience in each town centre. 

     

    e)    By Councillor Sharpe

     

    This Council has no confidence in the Chairman of the Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

     

    (A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

     

    Minutes:

    Motion a)

    Councillor Werner introduced his motion. He hoped that it would be debated in the same spirit shown by residents in their response to the COVID-19 crisis: no thought of political advantage, personal prestige or winning and losing. There was much the council could learn from their example. From every corner of the borough there had been a surge in volunteerism and offers of help: personal, financial and material. New organisations had sprouted up at every level. In his own ward he had seen many examples of generosity and neighbourly support and he was sure this was the case across the borough. If all that Members did was consider the past, this would be a betrayal of that selflessness. The challenge was to harness and nurture this spirit of community and build on the hard work of officers. It was an opportunity to open every aspect of council policy to newcomers. If the legacy of COVID-19 was allowed to be a body count, recriminations and scapegoating the council would have failed to learn the lesson. He asked the Leader of the Council to second the motion. He had been shown an amendment, which he was happy to accept.

    The amendment to recommendation iii) was confirmed as:

    Also publicly recognises the skill, dedication, professionalism, and tenacity with which our officers, partners including Optalis and Achieving for Children, those across the wider health and social care sector, teachers, and other public bodies, including the police, army and various response units, have co-ordinated these efforts for the benefit of all of our residents, businesses and visitors alike. 

    Councillor Johnson thanked Councillor Werner for putting forward the motion and reaching across the political divide to seek consensus. He thanked all Members for their support, dedication, tenacity, hard work, endurance and approachability during the COVID-19 crisis. All councillors had stepped up to play a leadership role in their respective communities. He also thanked all officers, partners and volunteers. To capture that legacy would be one positive out of an awful situation. The council’s attention must now turn to recovery and rebuilding the borough both in economic and societal perspective. In his role as Lead Member for economic development he stated that it was vital the council did all it could to secure people’s jobs and create new opportunities.

    Councillor Baldwin welcomed the note of genuine shared interest and co-operation for the benefit of residents. His own small role was mostly around directing traffic in and out of Queen Street.  One morning he had met with the Leader of the Council who had been very welcoming and supportive of the efforts on behalf of Foodshare Maidenhead.  The council had seen thousands of acts of selflessness, courage and fortitude by community leaders in the many organisations.

    Councillor Davey stated that he would like to support the motion and simply asked people to be kind to each other, especially as the new normal for most people, with traffic flow back to 70-80% pre-COVID-19, was to head for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Motion c Motion Rejected
    Motion d Motion Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  •