To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Haseler, L. Jones, Knowles and Sharp.

Councillor Taylor attended virtually and took no part in the vote on any item.

To receive the minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 26 April 2022 and the Annual Meeting of the Council held on 24 May 2022.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)               The minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 26 April 2022 be approved.

ii)             The minutes of the Annual meeting of the Council held on 24 May 2022 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

In relation to Motion on Notice h) the following Councillors declared that they were landlords in the private rented sector: Councillors Baldwin, Brar, Clark, Hill, Hunt, Rayner, Shelim, Singh. Councillors Singh and Brar also stated that they were licence holders. Councillor Shelim stated that he was also involved in the Windsor Homeless Project.

In relation to item 7v Capital Budget Additions, Councillor Shelim stated that he owned a property near Cavalry Crescent. He came to the meeting with an open mind. Councillor Bowden stated that his daughter had previously lived in Cavalry Crescent.

Councillor Luxton proposed a motion to amend the order of business, to debate Motions on Notice h) and b) before all other Motions on Notice. She stated that the agenda was very full, and the issues contained in these two motions were related to the interests of residents. They had already been delayed from the July meeting and should not be delayed further.

Councillor Baldwin commented that he felt the case could be made that all the Motions on Notice were related to the interest of residents.

It was proposed by Councillor Luxton, seconded by Councillor Bhangra, and:

RESOLVED: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be amended to enable Members to debate Motions on Notice h) and b) before all other Motions on Notice.

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

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

On behalf of the Council the Mayor placed on record her sincere thanks to the large number of council officers, volunteers, and partner organisations who worked so hard to ensure that the arrangements for all the events and activities held in the Royal Borough to mark the sad passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II went so smoothly. For Members in particular, the arrangements for the announcement of the King and on the day of the funeral were exemplary, and were the result of many hours of hard work and planning. Although under sad circumstances, due to the hard work and dedication of those involved in the planning and delivery of the funeral plans, residents, visitors to Windsor and those watching across the world had a positive experience of a truly unique and historical event.

The Mayor then explained that this would be the last meeting attended by Duncan Sharkey as Chief Executive. He had been in the role since early 2019. The Mayor thanked him, on behalf of Members and residents, for his dedicated service to the borough over the last 3 and a half years, and wished him well in his new role, initially at Somerset County Council and from next year leading the new Somerset Council.

The Mayor invited Group Leaders to speak.

Councillor Johnson stated on behalf of the council and the administration his sincere thanks for Duncan’s hard work, dedication and loyalty to the borough. He had ably steered the council through the pandemic and had worked to change the culture of the organisation for the better. Councillor Johnson commented that he had been taken aback by the feedback from staff since news of Duncan’s departure; he was clearly held in very high esteem. It was with deep regret that Duncan was leaving, but he understood that it was a fantastic opportunity at Somerset that could not be turned down.

Councillor Werner echoed the comments, stating that Duncan had been an outstanding chief executive, and he would particularly like to pick out his work on reforming the governance and culture. It was Duncan who had called in CIPFA when he felt there was something not quite right.  It was a brave decision and the right one. On culture he had certainly created the right environment for officers to feel they could say no to councillors when they felt something was not right.  Councillor Werner recalled the interviews at which Duncan had been head and shoulders above the other candidates. Councillor Werner was deeply saddened by the move, as he had been looking forward to working with Duncan after May 2023, however he could see the clear opportunity of setting up a council from scratch that Somerset presented.

Councillor Hill spoke on behalf of Councillor L. Jones. Councillor L. Jones had asked him to say it had been a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

a)    Hari Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport:

If you have a pure electric car and live in the borough you can get a free parking permit, which is a hugely popular scheme. Can I ask the Cabinet Member how many residents have taken advantage of this and what action this council is taking to create more charging points?

b)    Hari Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, and Sport & Leisure:

As I see cranes and diggers everywhere in the borough, building more homes for our children and grandchildren which is wonderful news for our residents and their children who can live close to their elderly parents, how many developments have agreed to build 30% social and affordable homes to buy or rent, or are paying Council Infrastructure Levy?

c)    Lars Swann of Clewer and Dedworth East ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Given the state of the high street in Windsor and the fact that there are now too many hospitality businesses in Windsor Town Centre, what plans do the council have to improve the town centre in particularly the area around the Windsor Yards Area in their own right, or in partnership with 3rd parties?

d)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Asset Management & Commercialisation, Finance, & Ascot:

Can you advise if Royal Borough made a bid for funding via the UK Community Renewal Fund and what was the outcome of the bid?

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

Can you explain the value generated by the Council's development of its former properties in St Ives Rd, Maidenhead?

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to 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).

a)    Hari Sharma of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport:

If you have a pure electric car and live in the borough you can get a free parking permit, which is a hugely popular scheme. Can I ask the Cabinet Member how many residents have taken advantage of this and what action this council is taking to create more charging points?

Written Response: At the end of June 2022, there were 76 permits issued for use within resident parking zones and 393 permits issued for off-street car parks.  As set out in our Corporate Plan we will be developing an Electric Vehicle Implementation Plan, which we expect to consult on later this year.  This will set out the plans to deliver more electric vehicle charging points to meet growing demand and our commitments to take action to tackle climate change.  This will build on the pilot project of 29 new chargers delivered in Windsor and Maidenhead as well as new charging facilities being delivered within the new Vicus Way Car Park. 

Note: Vicus Way Car Park is a long stay contract parking car park that is only open from 6am to 8pm. A parking permit will not enable you to use these charging points.

By way of a supplementary question, Hari Sharma commented that only half a million electric cars were on the road; just 1.2% of 45million cars in the UK. He asked what measures and initiatives were being considered for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide to improve air quality in the borough.

As Councillor Haseler was not present at the meeting, the Mayor advised that a written response would be provided.

b)    Hari Sharma of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, and Sport & Leisure:

As I see cranes and diggers everywhere in the borough, building more homes for our children and grandchildren which is wonderful news for our residents and their children who can live close to their elderly parents, how many developments have agreed to build 30% social and affordable homes to buy or rent, or are paying Council Infrastructure Levy?

Written Response: The Borough Local Plan was adopted on the 8th February 2022 and updated the development plan for the Borough. The objective of policy HO3 is to secure 30% affordable homes on most major residential developments (those containing more than 10 or more units). 40% is sought in some circumstances such as on greenfield sites up to 500 dwellings.? The definition of affordable homes includes social rented, affordable rented and intermediate tenures (such as shared ownership or low cost home ownership).? The evidence in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment shows that there is a high need (45%) for social rented homes and all qualifying schemes since February will need to provide this. The Housing Strategy 2021-26 outlines our clear ambition to give more local people the opportunity to stay in the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

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

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

The Mayor submitted a petition. She explained that the petition had been arranged by Amelie Orlando, aged 7, an active member of the Sunningdale community. The petition raised the concern of an abandoned residential property in Sunningdale. Amelie set out to speak with local residents about her concerns regarding the 30 plus year’s derelict building being both an eyesore in the village she lived in and also an opportunity for community action as a nature conservation area with managed access for the local community to learn more about local flora and fauna. 

Amelie met with over 150 local residents, door to door, and secured almost 170 signatures with the support of some local businesses. She would like to gather further support in a plan of action from the council to transform the derelict land and dilapidated house into a community project. 

The Mayor agreed the petition would be submitted to the relevant Head of Service.

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

2021/22 ANNUAL REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANELS

Members considered the 2021/22 annual reports from the Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

Councillor Clark, Chairman of the Corporate O&S Panel, introduced the item. The Panels were required to submit an annual report on their workings and to make recommendations for future work programmes.

Councillor Price commented that she accepted that different Chairmen would have different styles to running the panels but if the substance was looked at, as revealed in the reports, there was a wide range of what had been achieved and the work capacity. Councillor Price was concerned that the reports were noted every year but in most cases nothing changed. She asked how the learnings from the recommendations could be taken forward. She hoped this would happen under the new structure, but she felt it all depended on the style of the Chairman. She encouraged training to be provided where relevant to improve the quality of output from the panels.

Councillor Werner commented there was another year of scrutiny failing. In his view it all came down to chairmanship. At the last Corporate scrutiny meeting, one of the Conservative councillors made accusations about the origin of a leak; he was allowed to say it again and again and again and yet he was not even a member of the scrutiny panel. This demonstrated weak chairmanship. Councillor Werner commented that at most meetings of Corporate scrutiny he asked the question on an item if the panel could spend time working out what could be learnt from the mistake so it would not be repeated.  Each time there was an excuse why this could not be done. Councillor Werner felt this was another example of weak chairmanship. The worst example was when the chairman forgot their role and defended the administration. There was also a situation that four months into the year the People Overview and Scrutiny Panel still did not have a work programme. Councillor Werner concluded that until Opposition councillors chaired scrutiny, or at least administration councillors who believed in scrutiny, there would not be any improvement

Councillor Davey commented that the Infrastructure report showed very little had been achieved in the last year. He hoped whoever was the chair for Place Overview and Scrutiny came with a desire to question decisions made by Cabinet. Essentially waving things through by failing to question them was not a good policy position but one that seemed favoured by the administration. It was definitely not appreciated by residents, as had been demonstrated at Audit and Governance Committee the previous week.

Councillor Clark commented that he was sure all councillors took overview and scrutiny seriously. He felt that Councillor Werner’s comments had not been related to the recommendation under consideration. It was correct that Members had the right to fully express their opinions at Overview and Scrutiny.  If debate was dogmatically or swiftly closed down, he felt that the processes would be damaged. He reminded Members of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 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 9.30pm. Upon being put to the vote, those present voted in favour of the meeting continuing.

The meeting adjourned for 5 minutes, restarting at 9.47pm.

To consider the above report

Members considered Capital expenditure required to pay an overage sum that was due to the vendor of the land at Thriftwood, Ockwells Road, Cox Green, which the Council purchased in 2016 and formed part of the contractual agreement of sale.

Councillor Hilton introduced the report. He explained that in 2016 the council purchased at auction Thriftwood Farm, Ockwells Road, Cox Green. The total cost of the project was £813,500 comprising:

·       Purchase price £725,000 which was a modest £8,700 an acre

·       Auction Fee £750

·       Stamp Duty £25,750

·       Legal / agent fees £12,000

·       Initial Site Works £50,000

The agreement for sale included an overage clause that would be triggered by any planning application relating to the land. The land was designated as agricultural land, but it was purchased by the council to be added to Ockwells Park as Public Open Space. To achieve the Public Open Space status, an application for change of use was required which meant that at the time of purchase the council was aware that the overage clause would be triggered and further payments required, however, this was not included in the report to Council in August 2016.

At that time the council could have reached an amicable agreement on the overage with the vendor and paid it up front, or it could have registered the liability in the contracts directory which was periodically reviewed. In this pre- CIPFA financial governance era, neither option had been adopted. Councillor Hilton had been informed that an application for a change of use was made in 2017 but at the time neither the vendor nor the council recognised the significance.

However, in 2021, the vendor approached the council to seek payment and an independent expert valuer was jointly appointed to complete the revised valuation and overage calculation. Throughout this process advice was sought from Legal Services to ensure the council met it contractual obligations. To avoid any further interest payments the balances due were paid as soon as the valuation work was completed, and the overage and interest payments were confirmed.

Councillor Hilton explained that urgency powers were used as it was not practicable to convene a full meeting of the Council and as there was no elected Chairman of the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel, the Mayor was asked to give consent in accordance with the requirements of the constitution.

The purchase of the 86 hectares of land at Thriftwood matched the published shortfall in natural and semi-natural greenspace of 85 hectares in Maidenhead. Councillor Hilton emphasised that it was at the time and remained a sound strategic decision which at the time had been welcomed by all.

A sensible decision had been taken to move Part II of the report into Part I. This disclosed the value of the virement of capital funds within the approved capital programme from CC60 Hostile Vehicle Mitigations Measures to CX36 Purchase of land at Thriftwood. To cover the overall payment, interest and the council’s share of the expert surveyor’s fee the virement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

To consider the above report

Members considered an updated political balance for the council.

Councillor Johnson proposed the motion as detailed in the report.

Councillor Larcombe highlighted that he had submitted a Motion on Notice at item 13a in relation to political balance. As an independent councillor he had been prevented by legislation from sitting on any committee for the last three years. The borough website under ‘how to be a councillor’ stated that most councillors were nominated to a political party, but that individuals were welcome to stand in their own right. Councillor Larcombe felt this meant independent councillors were only welcome until they won their seat. He felt excluded and disenfranchised and a victim of discriminatory legislation.

Councillor Davey commented that the logic said to him that if the West Windsor Residents’ Association (WWRA) with two members was given two seats then a grouping of one member should be given at least one seat.

The Monitoring Officer suggested that Councillor Larcombe’s motion could be proposed as an amendment to the current motion being debated, to allocate him seats within the political proportionality calculations. She advised that in order for such a motion to succeed, no Member could vote against it. Abstentions did not count as voting against a proposal.

Councillor Larcombe proposed an amendment to allocate him two seats under the political proportionality calculations.

Councillor Werner seconded the amendment.

Councillor W. Da Costa stated that he supported the proposal to allocate seats to Councillor Larcombe to enable him to represent his residents.

Councillor Werner confirmed that he had spoken to the Monitoring Officer to say he would be prepared to offer two Liberal Democrat seats as part of the arrangement. Just because someone had been elected as an individual, it did not mean they should not have the right to represent their residents on committees.

Councillor Baldwin commented that he felt the current situation was an inequity for Councillor Larcombe. He questioned why a report had been produced for this meeting when Councillor Larcombe’s motion had originally been on the agenda for the cancelled July meeting.

The Monitoring Officer explained that in early September 2022 a new group had been formed (the WWRA) which had triggered a review of political balance by the council, requiring a report to the September full Council meeting. The order of business for a full Council meeting was set out in the constitution, meaning Councillor Larcombe’s Motion on Notice came later in the agenda.

Councillor Reynolds commented that the discussion was about formalising an arrangement; Opposition councillors already shared seats. Common sense told him it was the right thing to do. It would have no impact on Conservative seats on any panel and Councillor Werner had made an offer of two seats already. The only reason anyone would vote against the proposal would be if they wanted to silence Councillor Larcombe.

Councillor Johnson commented it was a generous offer that had been made by Councillor Werner, but it was a shame it had not been made some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

To consider the above report

Members considered the appointment of the statutory Scrutiny Officer.

Councillor Johnson introduced the report. He commented that all Members valued scrutiny and it was important that the council complied with related legislative requirements.

Councillor Price welcome the proposed appointment and commented that it was important that the officer was given support, training and time to undertake the role properly.

Councillor Werner stated that he supported the proposal. He felt it was important the officer be able to focus on scrutiny only and not be dragged into other things. It was important that the role was not downgraded.

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that he hoped the officer would have the freedom to report issues to councillors.

Councillor Rayner commented that the proposed nominee was an excellent officer, and she was proud that the council gave staff the opportunity to progress through the organisation.

Councillor Baldwin welcomed the idea of promoting from within. He echoed concerns that it was not best practice to combine the Scrutiny Officer role with Democratic Services.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the report and appoints Mark Beeley – Democratic Services Officer, as the council’s Statutory Scrutiny Officer.

To consider the above report

Members considered the appointment of an Interim Chief Executive and Head of Paid Services.

Councillor Johnson introduced the report. He explained that the recommendation was the culmination of a detailed recruitment process. He thanked the cross-party panel of Members that had reached a unanimous decision to recommend the appointment of Tony Reeves to full Council. He had been the strongest candidate and had a solid background in local government.

Councillor Werner commented that Tony Reeves had been an outstanding candidate. He had faith that he would carry on the cultural changes started by the former Chief Executive.

Councillor Price commented that she had not been on the Appointment Committee so had little detail on the candidates. She felt it would have been useful for both Members and residents to have received some biographical details.

Councillor Baldwin highlighted that the day rate was inclusive of fees to the recruitment agency. He asked if there was any merit in them being settled in whole rather than as part of a daily rate.

It was confirmed that because of the way both the interim and permanent Chief Executive recruitment had been procured, there had already been a significant reduction in fees.

Councillor Rayner supported the appointment and celebrated the fact that the borough could attract high quality applicants.

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

RESOLVED UNANAIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and approves the recommendation from Appointment Committee that:

i)               Tony Reeves be appointed to the position of Interim Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service

ii)             The appointment to commence from 3 October 2022 for three days per week

iii)           The appointment be at a day rate of £1,392 per day including fees

a)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection:

Apparently a further £13k of public money has recently been spent on maintaining a riparian owned ancient ordinary watercourse in Wraysbury.  Can you please confirm that this money has been or will be recovered from the riparian owner?

b)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation:

What percentage of RBWM primary school children are taught to swim at school?

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

Despite a petition, signed by over 2000 residents, and two years of engagement with officers and lead members we have still taken no action to provide a pedestrian refuge at the site of a fatality. Why has this obvious and necessary measure not been approved?

d)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate & Residents Services, Culture & Heritage, & Windsor:

Why does it feel like all council meetings are moving to Maidenhead and what are the reasons for the change?

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

Why wasn’t Councillor Price given a role on an outside body and instead a resident was put forward by the administration, and is this constitutionally sound?

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

Could we have a progress update on establishing the Maidenhead Town Team to take forward the Maidenhead Vision & Charter and the consultation with the existing Town Partnership please?

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with Member questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

a)    Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection:

Apparently a further £13k of public money has recently been spent on maintaining a riparian owned ancient ordinary watercourse in Wraysbury.  Can you please confirm that this money has been or will be recovered from the riparian owner?

Written Response: 

The works at the Wraysbury Drain were undertaken upstream of the Wraysbury Dive Centre in order restore some flow of water to the watercourse. This was done by removing woody debris such as tree branches and other vegetation and fallen trees which were causing an obstruction to the flow of water. RBWM is a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) pursuant to Section 6(7) of The Flood and Water Management Act 2010.  

As a Lead Local Flood Authority, the Council is given powers through the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the works at the Wraysbury Drain were undertaken using our powers under the section 6(7) of the Land Drainage Act 1991, allowing us to carry out works to manage local flood risk in the borough. As a result of this work, a small flow of water has been re-established in the channel where there previously had not been any flow. 

The Council has additional powers under sections 24 and 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 where it can enforce removal of unconsented structures and enforcement of maintenance work by landowners. Further tasks at the Wraysbury Drain are being planned over the next year which will include enforcement where landowners have deliberately obstructed the watercourse. This programme of work will be compiled over the next couple of months. 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that he imagined that the long-term failure of RBWM to ensure maintenance of the land drainage infrastructure was simply due to legislative shortcomings. After the 2007 floods, the Pitt Review, and the Floods and Water Management Act 2010, which clearly identified the newly created Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) as the body responsible for ordinary watercourse and groundwater and appropriate permissive and enforcement powers, he had looked forward to improvement. Unfortunately, there was no legal duty on the authority to monitor the condition of ordinary watercourses or to use the available powers. An ancient watercourse, 220 years old, had ceased to flow properly. The borough had failed for years despite hundreds of thousands of pounds. It was still not fixed. He therefore asked when it would be fit for purpose.

Councillor Cannon responded that the answer had been given in the original response which explained that the Wraysbury Drain was subject to a scheme of works and would be progressed as officers had already advised.

b) Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation:

What percentage of RBWM primary school children are taught to swim at school?

Written Response: 

Thank you for your question Councillor Larcombe.  All primary schools offer swimming  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

a)    By Councillor Larcombe

This Council:

i) Agrees to allocate seats on the politically balanced committees to single non-aligned members in accordance with the political proportionality calculations.

ii) Requests officers to bring a report to full Council in November 2022 to consider the representation of the different political groups and single non-aligned members on bodies appointed by the Council for the remainder of the 2022/23 Municipal Year

b)    By Councillor Cannon

Since the Environment Agency took responsibility for managing the Thames and alleviating its flood waters, it has ceased the river dredging that had been in place for the previous 50 years.

It is believed that this has caused a decrease in capacity due to unmanaged silting, impacting on river navigation and the river’s capacity to contain flood waters.

This Council:

i) Requests that the Environment Agency resumes dredging of the River Thames within the boundaries of RBWM (especially the undefended reach between Black Potts and Bells Weir) to both ease navigation and increase the rivers capacity to hold water and therefore alleviate flood risk to our riverside communities.

ii) Requests that the Environment Agency expedites its efforts (in working with RBWM) to bring forward its alternative plans for flood alleviation for the Black Potts to Bells Weir reach of the River Thames following the EA removal of Channel One from the River Thames Scheme in July 2019.

c)    By Councillor Bhangra

This Council:

i) commends the excellent work of the Trading Standards team;

ii) thanks the officers in the team for their commitment to the Borough’s residents, and;

iii) supports the team’s continued efforts to provide an environment in which residents can buy goods and services without fear of being cheated, and honest businesses can be supported to thrive and grow.

 
    d) By Councillor Davey

Outside bodies determine their own memberships, including whether their constitution requests a council representative.

This Council agrees that as outside bodies are able to appoint non-Councillors to other positions in their membership, any appointment of a council representative must be restricted to an elected Member, a council employee or resident willing to sign up to a version of the Code of Conduct, to be defined by the Members Standards Panel, to ensure they are accountable to the public. 

e)    By Councillor Coppinger

This Council:

i) Thanks every one of our residents for the positive way in which they have approached the changes we made to the collection of waste last year. 

ii) Notes that change is never easy but as a result waste reduced by 18%; recycling increased from 51% to 55.7% of the total and most importantly food waste recycling increased from 2500 tonnes to 4600 tonnes.

f)     By Councillor Reynolds

Both Parliament and this Council have declared an Environmental and Climate Emergency. Yet, the Climate and Ecology Bill is hopelessly stalled in Parliament and our own Biodiversity Action Plan has been deferred for a second time. Cabinet won’t consider it until November 2022, at the earliest. To break this log jam,  ...  view the full agenda text for item 100.

Motion a

The motion had been considered as part of the earlier item ‘Political Balance’.

Motion h

Councillor McWilliams introduced his motion. He explained that when he had taken on responsibility for housing, the borough had been in challenging position. The key issue to tackle at the time was support for roughsleepers. Significant work had been undertaken by officers and partners and progress had been made.  The focus now was how to fix the housing market to ensure no resident had to sleep rough through necessity; this objective was included in the Corporate Plan. The Housing Strategy codified the council’s strong preference for social housing to be delivered and for more council owned housing in the borough. The motion was an opportunity for all to articulate the strong preference for the expansion of socially rented homes in the borough.  With thousands on the housing register, many of whom faced unsustainable housing situations, the council needed to seize the opportunities the Borough Local Plan offered.

The White Paper ‘For a Fairer Private Rented Sector’ set out a huge range of proposals particularly relating to local councils including transparency and enforcement. There was a specific proposal that would require licences on a property basis which would ensure all homes were kept up to standard. Good landlords should not be punished for the behaviour of bad ones. Increasingly local authorities had relied on private landlords to plug the gap where insufficient socially rented homes had been delivered. It was not fair on the residents or the landlords. The borough should have a housing market with housing stock that met the needs of residents. The PropCo provided an obvious vehicle for increasing the volume of council owned stock, particularly on council owned land.

Councillor Johnson commented that the majority of landlords in the borough were exceptionally good however there were always a few rotten apples that did not pay attention to the welfare of their tenants. They would be targeted as part of the initiative. The fundamental point was to give residents in rented accommodation greater choice and stability. This was not to interfere in the market but to show leadership. The adopted Borough Local Plan (BLP) had included a bold policy statement on the delivery of affordable housing especially on strategic sites. Councillor Johnson referred to a written response to an earlier public question:

Since the 8th February the Council has received major planning applications proposing a total of 817 private market homes and 429 affordable homes. On average 34.4% of all housing applied for since the adoption of the Borough Local Plan is affordable.

The figure of 34.4% put the council ahead of its target of 30%. He would obviously like to go further but circumstances were difficult. The council intended to hold developers’ feet to the fire to meet the target. The centrepiece of the proposal was a local lettings plan. Those on the existing housing waiting list would be given additional priority for new affordable housing in their vicinity.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.