To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G. Jones and Knowles.

Councillors L. Jones and W. Da Costa were in attendance virtually and took no part in the vote on any item.

To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 27 September 2022.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2022 be approved.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Rayner stated that she had asked Councillor Johnson to present item 8d on Constitutional Amendments as she felt uncomfortable doing so, given she had been a former member of the Platinum Jubilee Committee. She left the room for the duration of the debate and vote on the item.

Councillor Rayner declared a pecuniary interest in item 9 due to her family’s land interests. She left the room for the duration of the debate and vote on the item.

Councillor C. Da Costa stated that, in relation to the Petition for Debate, she was a member of Friends of the Earth.

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 all Members, the Mayor placed on record her thanks to Karen Shepherd, Head of Governance, who was leaving the council for a new role after almost 20 years’ service.

A minute’s silence was held in memory of former Mayor Dorothy Kemp who had recently passed away.

a)    David Buckley of Datchet ward will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate & Residents Services, Culture & Heritage, & Windsor

Windsor being one of the largest tourist locations in the UK. I understand there is an ongoing shortage of hotel rooms for both the tourism and business sector. Have the Council considered restricting local hotel use to tourists, business visitors using any laws or regulations available. This would increase income for the local economy and support the growing tourism sector.

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

Why is the Council's medium term financial plan showing a need for £7M+ savings in 2023/24?

c)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

Noting that Maidenhead now has a new £12m car park, what improvements are being made to existing car parks in the Royal Borough?

d)    Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

Well done RBWM for listening to local residents and putting forward steps to improve safety of the highway in Ellington Park, Belmont. What Highways budget will be set aside for safety improvements such as this, over the next year? In particular addition of zebra crossings outside schools for example as the one already outside St Luke’s School in Belmont.

e)    Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

Will the Cabinet member for Highways and Transport indicate as to why a bus service route has not yet been approved nor is one in service now for the residents and Community groups in Holmanleaze following the removal of public parking in the area due the start of development on St Cloud Way?

f) Hari Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside:

Furze Platt Conservatives in 2014-2016 set up two play areas called Moffy Hill & Shifford Crescent in the ward. These play areas are very popular and well used by our children. It’s been a while now since it was installed.

Can you assure residents these rides and furniture fitted in there have been inspected regularly and safety checks conducted recently?

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

Central Government is to provide £60m to help bus operators cap single adult fare at £2 / child at £1 per journey. As I understand, most cities outside London are bringing these fares in to help residents during this cost-of-living crisis. When will residents of the Royal Borough get a reduction of their bus fare and start paying £2?

h) Jack Douglas of Pinkneys Green  ...  view the full agenda text for item 105.

a)    David Buckley of Datchet ward asked the following question of Councillor Rayner, Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate & Residents Services, Culture & Heritage, & Windsor

Windsor being one of the largest tourist locations in the UK. I understand there is an ongoing shortage of hotel rooms for both the tourism and business sector. Have the Council considered restricting local hotel use to tourists, business visitors using any laws or regulations available. This would increase income for the local economy and support the growing tourism sector.

Written response: Hotels fall within Use Class C1 of the Use Classes Order which includes hotels boarding and guest houses where no significant element of care is provided and must be used for these purposes. There are a variety of reasons why people may legitimately stay in a hotel and there are no laws or regulations which would enable a Local Authority to prevent certain types of guests.

It may be of interest that there is currently a planning application under consideration in respect of Windsor Yards (Ref: 22/02893/FULL) which seeks to provide additional hotel and apart-hotel accommodation for visitors. The application is currently undergoing public consultation and the Council would welcome any comments on the proposals.

By way of a supplementary question, David Buckley explained that his question had been about whether the council would introduce some supplementary planning guidance as introduced by many other councils in terms of protecting the local hotel capacity in the borough. Over 8.5 million people visited the borough but only half a million stayed because of a lack of capacity. He asked if the council would show some commitment to protect the local economy.

Councillor Rayner responded that she agreed Windsor was an incredibly important visitor site for the UK. There were a number of new hotels coming online, for example additional holiday home units at Legoland and a new hotel in Peascod Street. She agreed with the proposal, and she was sure that officers would look into it.

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

Why is the Council's medium term financial plan showing a need for £7M+ savings in 2023/24?

Written response: The medium term financial plan published as part of the budget papers in February 2022 already included a shortfall of £4.883m for 2023/24. This was mainly caused by inflation assumptions (£2m), demographic growth (£1.5m) and reduced NNDR funding (£708k). Further details are shown in Appendix 1, Annex A of the February Budget Report to Full Council. The updated MTFP presented to Cabinet in July and Full Council in September included revised assumptions for increases in inflation and interest rates that increased the potential shortfall to over £7m.

The Mayor read out the following supplementary question on behalf of Ed Wilson who was unable to attend the meeting:

Thank you for answering my question.  Does the shortfall mean that you will be charging residents the maximum increase allowed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

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

Petiton: Increase measurements of air polluting and health damaging particulates

 a) The Mayor to invite the Lead Petitioner to address the meeting (5 minutes maximum)

b) The Mayor to invite the relevant Cabinet Member to speak, including proposing any recommendation in the report (5 minutes maximum)

c) The Mayor to ask for the motion to be seconded

d) Motions without Notice (other than those detailed in Part 2 C13 of the constitution) will not be allowed.

e) The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors to speak (5 minutes maximum each)

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

Members debated a petition requesting the council to increase measurements of air polluting and health damaging particulates.

Thomas Wigley, lead petitioner, addressed the meeting. Mr Wigley highlighted that over 200 residents had signed the petition; he thanked the Maidenhead Great Park team for their efforts. He wanted to explain why a better regime to measure toxic particulates was needed. Particulates were toxic and could cause premature death. They could cause irregular heartbeats in young people. The World Health Organisation (WHO), the government, and the council knew that particulates were bad for health. Particulates were tiny bits of solid suspended in the air. PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 caused the most concern. The latter were the most toxic because they were so tiny, they entered the bloodstream from the lungs and then got carried to organs which got damaged. Particulates were created by diesel, petrol and electric vehicles. Their engines, brakes and tyres all wore down. Aircraft too created ultra-fine particles that drifted over long distances. There were five AQMAs in the borough due to traffic pollution. This was bad news if you lived in Bray or Holyport, where the M4 now had 33% more capacity as a Smart Motorway; if you lived near the busy A308 corridor; if you lived in Windsor which had two AQMAs and the busiest junction in the borough; if you lived near Wraysbury with 16 lanes of traffic on the A308 and M25; if you lived in Maidenhead as the proposed development would generate increased traffic; or if you lived under any of the Heathrow flightpaths.  

Mr Wigley asserted that one PM₁₀ particulate measuring site in Frascati Way could not possibly provide information on pollution across the borough measuring 190 square miles. There was currently no measurement of PM_2.5, instead it was modelled from the PM₁₀ figures from a single source in Maidenhead. The borough must measure much more than it did now, which was what the petition requested. The report stated there was no money and no need to extend measurements therefore it recommended doing nothing. The justification was that the current data did not suggest there was a need to extend the current network.  Mr Wigley suggested this was a case of ‘don’t look, don’t find’. He felt it was surely self-evident that there were many significant sources of particulates in the borough. The report said extending the monitoring would cost money and resources must be prioritised. Mr Wigley questioned why health was not considered a priority. The Director of Public Health for East Berkshire had not been consulted in compiling the report before Members and neither were residents. The report stated correctly that there was currently no statutory requirement to measure PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. This was not a sensible justification given the specific local issues he had outlined. Slough and Spelthorne measured PM_2.5 and Slough had five PM₁₀ stations. Particulate pollution affected everyone and there were no safe pollution limits. The ‘no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

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).

No petitions were submitted.

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

To consider the recommendation from the Polling District and Polling Places Review Working Group

Members considered recommendations from the Returning Officer and the Polling District and Polling Places Review Working Group.

Councillor Johnson, Chairman of the Working Group, thanked the Members on the Working Group for the collaborative approach that had been taken and the officers who had supported the group. The report proposed a series of operational changes to encourage democratic engagement and make it easier and more practical to hold future elections.

Councillor Werner agreed that the meetings had been very good. He was disappointed that a more satisfactory location had not been found for Riverside, but the proposal was the best solution available. The overall idea of the proposala was to make it easier for voters, unfortunately the introduction of Voter ID could cause issues.

Councillor Walters commented that the polling station at Holyport School had always worked well, and it was sad the school had complaints. A lot of older people would find it harder to get to the Memorial Hall.

Councillor Johnson commented that Voter ID was being introduced to eliminate voter fraud.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Councilnotes the report and:

i)               Approves the proposed amended designation of polling places in the following wards/polling districts:Bray (MBR2), Furze Platt (MFP3), Pinkneys Green (MPG2), Riverside (MRS2), Clewer and Dedworth West (WCDW2 and WCDW3) and Clewer East (WCE2 and WCE3) as detailed in Appendix B.

ii)             Notes that no changes are proposed to the designation of polling places in any other ward/polling district, including Ascot & Sunninghill (WAS3) and Clewer East (WCE1), which were included in the review as a temporary polling station was designated for elections held in May 2021, but the designated polling station is to be retained.

To consider the recommendation from the Corporate Parenting Forum

Members considered the annual report from the Corporate Parenting Forum.

Councillor Carroll, Chairman of the Forum, commented that without question, the Forum was the best meeting he and others had the privilege to be involved in. The term ‘Corporate Parent’ could seem vague and opaque, but all councillors had the responsibility to provide the best possible care for children and young people looked after by the authority. All councillors and officers had a legal and moral duty to provide the same level of care, support and protection as any parent would. The Forum had reviewed the effectiveness of its workings and decided to adopt five workstreams (detailed in paragraph 2.4 of the report) to take forward actions. Each workstream would have a lead officer, work with young people and an elected Member. They would provide a critical focus on this important work.

Councillor Clark commented that it was very humbling to be a Member of the Forum. Its work was driven by feedback from the children and young people themselves. The Forum listened to their wants, aspirations and opinions and responded in the best way it could.

Councillor Price commented that every decision-making report included an EQIA and suggested the format be amended to include a note on the impact of the decision on children in care, as a reminder to all Members of their role.

Councillor Tisi echoed the comment that it was a privilege and a pleasure to be involved in the Forum. As Vice Chairman she enjoyed meeting young people and learning from them. The Strategy included a letter from KickBack illustrating how the young people did not hold back and challenged the council. Councillor Tisi urged all Members to attend the upcoming training session on Corporate Parenting and also to consider the Total Respect training offer.

Councillor Carroll echoed the comments in relation to training.

It was proposed by Councillor Carroll, seconded by Councillor Clark, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council notes the report and:

i)           takes note of progress and updates being made at the Corporate Parenting Forum and the new revised corporate parenting strategy attached as appendix A.

To consider the recommendation from the Audit and Governance Committee

Members considered the annual report of the Audit and Governance Committee.

Councillor Sharpe, Vice Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee explained that the Committee had worked its way through a number of financial reports, scrutinising all areas of the council’s activities.

Councillor Story commented that the Committee had been established to improve Member oversight of the financial governance of the Council and it was achieving that aim.

Councillor Jones commented that the Committee Members worked well together in a collaborative approach.

Councillor Hilton commented that as Cabinet Member for Finance, he welcomed the work of the Committee. Its status had grown over the year; Members had asked insightful questions and challenged appropriately, especially in terms of timescales. He thanked Councillor Jones, the Chairman of the Committee, for all the work undertaken.

Councillor Sharpe commented that the work of the Committee had obviously improved the public scrutiny of all areas of the council’s work.

It was proposed by Councillor Sharpe, seconded by Councillor Story, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the annual report of Audit and Governance Committee

To consider the recommendation from the Constitution Working Group

Members considered recommendations from the Constitution Working Group.

Councillor Johnson explained that the proposals related to contract and tendering rules including when seeking tenders and awarding contracts, including concession contracts, strengthening the role of the Head of Finance and internal audit, and a direct reference to sustainability including single use plastics and electric vehicles. He thanked the Working Group for its invaluable cross-party support.

Councillor Bond commented that it was not an easy read if it was not part of your day-to-day work. He hoped that small businesses would not be deterred from putting forward bids. Although the changes were minor, it was right that they came before full Council. He found it odd that changes to the terms of reference of the Health and Wellbeing Board had been made under delegated authority as he felt some of the changes were more noteworthy than the ones being presented to Members in relation to contract rules.

Councillor Sharpe commented that the proposals were very worthwhile and important as they strengthened governance over the tender process. He highlighted the references to sustainability; as an organisation the council had a huge influence over how the market worked.

Councillor Baldwin appreciated the inclusion of concession contracts into the process.

Councillor Hilton highlighted that in accordance with good governance the constitution was regularly reviewed to ensure it was fit for purpose and reflected the latest legislation. The contracts and tendering rules provided a framework in which decisions were made. The objectives in paragraph 2.2 included the efficient use of resources and value for money.

Councillor Johnson thanked Members for their positive contributions to the debate.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: Thatfull Council notes the report and approves the recommendations from the Constitution Working Group to amend Part 8A – Contract and Tendering Procedure Rules as detailed in Appendix B.

Councillor Rayner left the meeting for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.

To consider the above report

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

Councillor Haseler explained that the unitary authorities in Berkshire had responsibility for planning for the future production of minerals and for the management of waste disposal within the Berkshire area. Minerals and Waste was an area of planning which was strategic in nature and as such was better planned for on a larger geography than an individual unitary authority.

The Borough had been working with Bracknell Forest, Reading and Wokingham Borough Councils to produce a Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire (JCEB) Minerals and Waste Plan which would guide minerals and waste decision-making in the Plan area for the period up to 2036. Hampshire Services had been acting as a consultant to undertake this work.

Together with the individually adopted Local Plans for eachAuthority and any other adopted or made Plans, the Plan would form the development plan for the area. The Plan, comprising 14 objectives and 28 policies, guided the level of minerals and waste development needed within Central and Eastern Berkshire and identified where development should go. Proposals for minerals and waste developments would be considered against the policies contained in the Plan. The determination of non-minerals and waste applications by thoseAuthorities (in terms of other matters such as housing) would also need to take the Plan into consideration.

The Plan had been prepared over several years, commencing in 2017, involving public consultations, and being submitted to the Secretary of State for examination in February 2021. Two Inspectors were appointed to carry out the independent examination on the soundness of the plan. In October 2022 the Inspectors’ final report was received, concluding that with the main modifications the Plan was sound and capable of being adopted. Councillor Haseler highlighted that the Plan could only be adopted with all of the Main Modifications recommended by the Inspectors. Once the Plan was adopted, it would become part of the statutory Development Plan and have full weight in the determination of planning applications.

Adopting the Plan would ensure that the Council had an up-to-date strategic planning framework for guiding minerals and waste development, as required by law. It would also assist in the delivery of the objectives of the new Corporate Plan, supporting economic growth and sustainable waste development to enable resource efficiency and drive waste management up the waste hierarchy. The supply of minerals was also important to enable the delivery of infrastructure, buildings, energy, and goods for quality of life.

Not adopting the Plan would mean that the existing out of date adopted Minerals and Waste Plan policies dating back to 1998 and 2001 would remain.

The Council therefore would not have robust and up to date policies that were compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy for Waste. The resources incurred to prepare the Plan would have been largely wasted. A decision not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

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.

a)    Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside:

The pond, waterway cascade feature and wooden bridge in Kidwell's Park has been in a disgraceful state of disrepair over 2.5 years now. Previously I have been told that the money has run out to maintain these features, please can the lead member advise if and when these will be maintained, repaired and brought up to the previous high standard?

b)    Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

The upper floors of the Broadway car park still remain a no-go area for residents to park vehicles and continue to be closed off due to out of control ASB. Please can you explain in detail what the plan is to deal with this issue and when will the upper floors be deemed safe and reopen for public use?

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

What plans do you have to make the Windsor Town Forum engaging enough for residents to want to attend?

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

Back in May there was a consultation with residents from the Community Safety Partnership on safety matters, asking for their concerns.   The results have not been published.   One of the Corporate Plan Values is “working openly and transparently, listening to our residents, communities and partners.” Why has this not been published?

e)    Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Action & Sustainability:

Has the Lead Member for Climate Action & Sustainability applied to central government for grant money to install comprehensive air pollution monitoring throughout the Borough?

f) Councillor Price will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, & Sport & Leisure:

Please could you give an update on residents acting as hosts for Ukrainian Refugees in different parts of the Borough, including the current numbers hosted and having left hosts and the reasons why, plans to encourage hosts to continue beyond six months, and what happens to the Refugee family if a host cannot continue?   

g)      Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

The Datchet Neighbourhood Plan is approaching the finishing line. What are the target dates for referendum and adoption please?

h)      Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

How many 5G masts have been erected within the Borough without ‘prior approval’ permission?

(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  ...  view the full agenda text for item 114.

a)    Councillor Singh asked the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside:

The pond, waterway cascade feature and wooden bridge in Kidwell's Park has been in a disgraceful state of disrepair over 2.5 years now. Previously I have been told that the money has run out to maintain these features, please can the lead member advise if and when these will be maintained, repaired and brought up to the previous high standard?

Written response: Officers have been exploring options for these features to look at what would be possible to bring them back into use. Unfortunately the cost of repairing the upper pond and associated streams is not something that can be covered. However, following options appraisal for the leaking top pond and associated streams at Kidwell’s Park, we are now in a position to have the pond and streams removed. The bottom pond and fountain will remain, still giving park users a sensory water experience while the top pond/streams/bridge which have been out of repair for some time, will be removed and laid back to grass. This is a low cost solution with simpler maintenance going forward.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Singh commented that the issue had been ongoing for two and a half years and there were lots of complaints from residents. The answer was ridiculous as it was all about money. A huge amount of investment had gone into the pond and the surrounding infrastructure including cabling and a bridge. The investment would go to waste if the pond was backfilled. Councillor Singh asked the Lead Member if he would meet with him, Councillor Stimson, and officers to discuss options including alternative features such as rocks and plants.

Councillor Bhangra responded that officers had assessed the question, but he would be happy to meet at the park. Councillor Stimson had also raised the issue with him.

b)    Councillor Singh asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

The upper floors of the Broadway car park still remain a no-go area for residents to park vehicles and continue to be closed off due to out of control ASB. Please can you explain in detail what the plan is to deal with this issue and when will the upper floors be deemed safe and reopen for public use?

Written response: There are currently no plans to reopen the upper floors of Nicholsons ahead of the full closure of the car park due. The closure was put in place in order to protect public safety following two serious ASB incidents where a lump of masonry and more recently a door were thrown from the roof level onto public areas below. This preventative action is with the full support of the police and shopping centre management.

There is sufficient parking capacity within Hines Meadow to cover this shortfall which will be strengthened by the opening of Vicus Way Multi Story Car Park for daily parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

a)    By Councillor Haseler

The RSPCA and a number of RBWM residents are very concerned for the welfare of animals given as prizes at fairgrounds and other public events, calling for a ban on this practice.

This Council:

i)               Agrees to ban outright the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Council land.

ii)              Requests the Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection to write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land.

b)    By Councillor Tisi

The Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms Act) 2021 requires schools, from September 2022 to ensure – 

•         Uniform policies are published online 

•         Supplier arrangements give the highest priority to cost/value for money 

•         Tendering is designed to avoid uncompetitive single supplier contracts 

•         A supply of second-hand uniforms 

Given the cost-of-living crisis we must ensure the commitment of all borough schools. 

This Council will: 

i)               Require all schools governed by the Act to demonstrate evidence of its implementation 

ii)              Create a mechanism to ensure continued compliance. 

(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).

Motion a)

Councillor Haseler introduced his motion. He explained that he had brought the motion to Council as a direct result of residents asking him to do so. Animal ownership was a big responsibility; one that should be planned and well thought out. Animals often did not have their needs met before, during or after being given as a prize. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it was an offence to give an animal as a prize to anyone under the age of 16 except in the family context. The RSPCA believe that this did not go far enough. It would like to see legislation introduced similar to that in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 which stated that it was an offence to give an animal as a prize regardless of age, except within the family context.

Local authorities had the opportunity to introduce bans on council owned land as well as raising public awareness in ending the outdated practice. Whilst a range of animals were given as prizes every year, the most popular, goldfish, often suffered from shock, oxygen starvation or die from changes in water temperature. Those who won them as prizes did not often have an aquarium set up so may keep them in an unsuitable environment or illegally dump them in a local waterway. Nine local authorities in Wales and 28 in England had supported a similar motion.

Councillor Taylor stated that she 100% supported the motion but was concerned how it would be policed, for example at travelling fairs.

Councillor Davey commented that he supported the motion, but he would have liked it if the proposer had spoken to private landowners that hosted the fairs to get their support.

Councillor Davies commented that the welfare of animals was something very close to her heart. Members would remember this from a previous debate on a RSPCA motion, to reduce the noise level of fireworks sold in the borough. She had been disappointed that the administration had not supported that motion, she was going to support this one.

She had spoken to the Licensing team to find out if there were any known instances of live animals being given as prizes on borough land. They were not aware of any examples but advised that the event holders would not at present be required to notify the local authority and that it was not illegal unless the person receiving the prize was under 16. They suggested that the council might therefore need to introduce a byelaw for this to take effect. She therefore asked how the council would ensure its good intentions were enacted.

Councillor Cannon commented that it was a no-brainer. Animals should not be given as a prize. The motion was about what the council could easily do on its land; he was sure Councillor Haseler would speak to other councils to see how they were managing enforcement. He would take up the challenge to write to the government.

Councillor Haseler commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.