To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Buckely.

To receive the minutes of the budget meeting of the Council held on 29 February 2024.

The Mayor noted that the minutes of the budget meeting held on 29 February 2024 were not yet available for review and would be considered at the April meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Moriarty declared a personal interest in agenda item eight, Overview and Scrutiny Co-Optees, by virtue of having a personal relationship with one of the proposed Co-Optees listed but he did not believe it presented a conflict of interested or would afffect his approach to considering the agenda item.

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

The Mayor shared a series of images with the meeting to highlight activities he and the Deputy Mayor had attended since the previous Council meeting including:

·       attending the World Day of Prayer service at High Street Methodist Church, Maidenhead

·       attending the Hungerford Star Dinner

·       visiting the Maidenhead Rotary’s Maidenhead Big Read Festival at Maidenhead Library

·       attending the Lord Lieutenant’s Awards Ceremony

·       attending the Windsor and Eton Society Dinner

·       attending the Maidenhead’s Got Talent event

·       attending the Windsor and Maidenhead Symphony Orchestra concert

a)    Gerald Hyder of Ascot & Sunninghill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Reynolds, Cabinet member for Cabinet Member for Communities and Leisure

Windsor is one of the world's most popular tourist destinations. It would be a major blow to visitors and residents, including schoolchildren, if Windsor's prestigious and popular museum (60,000+ visitors per year, and has recently received full Arts Council accreditation) were to close. Would Councillor Reynolds please explain what is being done to ensure they remain open? 

b)    Sir Brian Donohoe from outside the borough will ask the following question of Councillor Werner, Leader of the Council and Cabinet member for Community Partnerships, Public Protection and Maidenhead

RBWM entered into a £90,000 settlement on 24/11/2006 with a part 20 defendant in consolidation action number WC049023. This protected the defendant from all future liability, and included a non-disclosure clause.
Why does RBWM have a policy which allows such contracts in child abuse cases?

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 councillor 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 councillor responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond.

The Mayor advised that the first public question set out in the agenda had been withdrawn.

b) Sir Brian Donohoe from outside the borough asked the following question of Councillor Werner, Leader of the Council and Cabinet member for Community Partnerships, Public Protection and Maidenhead

RBWM entered into a £90,000 settlement on 24/11/2006 with a part 20 defendant in consolidation action number WC049023. This protected the defendant from all future liability, and included a non-disclosure clause.

Why does RBWM have a policy which allows such contracts in child abuse cases?

Written response: I have been advised by the Council's Legal Team that in the case referred to in the question, the Council (via it's insurers and insurers lawyers) settled with a Part 20 Claimant out of court as part of the civil claim relating to the negligent running of Green Field House by the former Berkshire County Council. As is customary in such settlements, the Council agreed to waive all liability for future civil claims and agreed that the details of the settlement would not be disclosed. The Council does not have a policy in relation to such agreements, these agreements being customary during civil claim settlements and being made on a case by case basis.

This Settlement Agreement (including the non-disclosure clause) related to the civil negligence claim only; it did not relate to any criminal prosecution of the Part 20 Defendant and it did not prevent the Council from providing evidence in relation to the Part 20 Defendant in any criminal proceedings

Sir Brian Donohoe commented that one of the child abuse victims was refused entry to the Council where he was attempting to whistle blow and officers had shown him the confidential settlement which he understood contained a clause to the effect that a known, or suspected, perpetrator of child abuse was “discharged from any further liability” and for “any claim arising hereafter”. He reported that Council officers had described this clause repeatedly as “customary” and do not rule out its “customary” use in the future. He asked whether officers had shown him the settlement document in preparation for the meeting and whether he agreed that the Council should debate banning the use of taxpayers money to underwrite and protect child abusers from their future financial liability?

Councillor Werner responded that he would ask officers in the Legal team to prepare a written response.

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

Notice of the petition must be given to the Service Lead: Electoral and Democratic Services no later than noon on the last working day prior to the meeting. A councillor submitting a Petition may speak for no more than 2 minutes to summarise the contents of the Petition.

There were no petitions presented.

To agree the arrangements to establish a fully constituted Joint Committee (to be known as the Berkshire Prosperity Board) from May 2024 to deliver a Berkshire-wide vision for inclusive, green and sustainable economic prosperity.

Council considered the proposed arrangements to establish a fully constituted Joint Committee (to be known as the Berkshire Prosperity Board) from May 2024 to deliver a Berkshire-wide vision for inclusive, green and sustainable economic prosperity.

Councillor Werner explained that over the last few years the Council Leaders from the Berkshire councils had met regularly to look at how their collective power could be used to lobby central government. Previously the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) used central government money on schemes that had ‘dreamt up’ with the leadership of each Council. Some of those ideas were developed and implemented and he gave the example of the failure of the station for forecourt design as an example of how the LEP was wasting money. Central government have decided to end LEP funding from the end of March 2024 with those budgets being handed back to groups of local authorities. Working with the other Berkshire Leaders a board was established where we would focus on four different work streams: Net Zero, Health and Inequalities; Education and Skills; Affordable housing development and Strategic

Infrastructure. He explained that in the short term the Council would commission the LEP to do some of the work but with the local councils in charge. He was keen to see a pipeline of ideas being developed involving all RBWMs partners e.g. Maidenhead Town Partnership and Windsor Vision for when the money becomes available. He concluded that this could have amazing benefits with very little cost to us and it could give us big rewards.

Councillor Jones seconded the proposal.

Councillor Price commented that working collaboratively could bring benefits that working alone just could not. She reflected that the LEP had made some very strange decisions such as the Vicus Way car park and the Maidenhead station forecourt. She hoped that lessons head been learnt, this would not be repeated, and the new board would be more responsible with taxpayers’ money. She queried how residents would find out what was happening: would the results be reported to Cabinet or to Council, would the minutes be published on the website, would meetings be available to watch on YouTube and would the amount considered in Part Two be minimised. She continued to query who was this new body accountable to and how its success would be measured as the appendix refers to the accountable body, but it was not clear if this was a separate body. She concluded by suggesting that the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel might have a role to play in ensuring the new Boards’ efficiency, good use of monies and of officers’ time.

Councillor W Da Costa stated that he had dreams and visions for residents and businesses based on many conversations. He imagined a regional green public transport network enabling travellers to travel cheaply and conveniently to their destination and improve footfall, reduce carbon footprint and boost the local economy. He recognised that nature and ecosystems did not worry about council boundaries so suggested a regional biodiversity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To approve the appointment of the co-opted representatives to the Place and People Overview and Scrutiny Panel until May 2027.

The meeting considered the report recommending the appointment of co-opted representatives to the Place and People Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Taylor, Chair of People Overview and Scrutiny Panel explained that the People Panel had the ability to appoint a number of individuals as co-opted members to give the Panel a wide range of viewpoints, knowledge and experience. The People Overview and Scrutiny Panel were seeking to appoint a representative from Church of England diocese, the Roman Catholic diocese, two parent Governor Representatives which one representing the primary phase and one to represent the secondary phase and finally one representative from the Regional Schools commissioner. She explained that the two religious representatives agreed to remain on the panel for a new term. All parent governors were contacted and made aware of the positions available and nominations were received. After discussing with both individuals interested in the primary parent government position one agreed to be representative the other was happy to be a substitute. Mark Jarvis had previously served on the Panel as a Parent Governor and had expressed an interest in remaining. He has a new role as the Chair of Trustees for the Pioneer Educational Trust, which includes RBWM schools such as Desborough College and Trevelyan Middle School, and therefore the Panel have recommended he was also appointed on the Panel as the Regional Schools Commission representative.

Councillor Martin, Chair of Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel explained that the Place Panel similarly were able to appoint two Parish Councillors with one representing the northern parishes and one representing the southern parishes. All Parish councils were made aware of the positions available and nominations were received. Two nominations were received from the southern parishes however one nomination was received after the deadline and therefore this nomination was recommended to be the substitute representative.

The report had been considered and recommended by both the People and Place Overview and Scrutiny Panels. Councillor Martin moved the recommendations as listed in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Taylor.

Councillor Hunt commented that the Council was very lucky to have people who wanted to volunteer and reflected that those that had volunteered before had been excellent.

On the proposition of Councillor Martin, Chair of Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel and seconded by Councillor Taylor it was

RESOLVED unanimously that

i)               the report be noted;

ii)             the appointment of the following representatives be made to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel until May 2027:

·       Louvaine Kneen as the Parish Councillor representing the Northern Parishes

·       Roly Latif and David Sanders (sub) as the Parish Councillors representing the Southern Parishes; and

iii)            the appointment of the following representatives be made to the People Overview and Scrutiny Panel until May 2027:

·       Tony Wilson as the Church of England diocese representative

·       Catherine Hobbs as the Roman Catholic diocese representative

·       Poornima Karunacadacharan and David Hicks (sub) as the primary parent governor representatives

·       Noel Wood as the secondary parent governor representative

·       Mark Jervis as an additional co-optee on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

a)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Werner, Leader and Cabinet member for Community Partnerships, Public Protection and Maidenhead

Four of the five Directors of RBWM Property Company Ltd resigned on 13 February 2024.  Can you please explain the circumstances behind these resignations?

b)    Councillor Gosling will ask the following question of Councillor Reynolds, Cabinet Member for Communities and Leisure

Windsor is one of the UKs best tourist attractions. I believe that our iconic Museum is part of this with an accreditation from The Arts Council. When it charged, it still had a large footfall. Over 1000 people have signed the Museum petitions. What alternative ways are being considered to preserve this attraction for future generations?

c)    Councillor Brar will ask the following question of Councillor Coe, Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Household & Regulatory Services

Can I be assured that the Environment Agency and council will engage with Bisham Parish Council and the flood wardens to make sure that any lessons are learnt from the recent flood events on the Thames?

d)    Councillor Price will ask the following question of Councillor Bermange, Cabinet Member for Planning, Legal and Asset Management

A Motion was agreed by Council in September relating to Part II items. When will the periodic review take place regarding historic Part II decisions?

The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with councillor questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The councillor 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 councillor responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond.

a)    Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Werner, Leader and Cabinet member for Community Partnerships, Public Protection and Maidenhead

Four of the five Directors of RBWM Property Company Ltd resigned on 13 February 2024.  Can you please explain the circumstances behind these resignations?

Written response: In terms of the reasons for these resignations, the decision of the former Chair and the non-exec directors is their own and we thank them for their contribution.  A new interim company board has since been installed.

Regarding the RBWM Property Company more widely, as part of our financial recovery plan we’re looking at all services to determine whether the current delivery model is the right one - that's something we have to do given the pressures facing the council.  It's in this context that we'll be reviewing the Property Company and the services it provides, although no decisions have been taken about future approach.  We've also taken steps more recently to strengthen council oversight of the company, which was needed.

Councillor Larcombe asked how much had the property company had cost the Council. He clarified that he meant that when the property company was set up in 2011 there were expectations as to how it would perform over the years and he wondered whether it had performed in accordance with those expectations.

Councillor Werner replied he had wanted to tackle the scrutiny of the property company when he became Leader and implemented scrutiny changes two levels: as owners of the property company they put in place a shareholder panel but as the Council was also a client they had appointed an officer to act as the main liaison with the property company so it could be scrutinised at that level. At the second shareholders panel they had raised a number of issues with performance and asked for an improvement plan to urgently be put in place. It was the following day that four of the non-executive directors resigned and they have temporarily been replaced with senior officers of the Council while the future of the property company is considered.

b)    Councillor Gosling asked the following question of Councillor Reynolds, Cabinet Member for Communities and Leisure

Windsor is one of the UKs best tourist attractions. I believe that our iconic Museum is part of this with an accreditation from The Arts Council. When it charged, it still had a large footfall. Over 1000 people have signed the Museum petitions. What alternative ways are being considered to preserve this attraction for future generations?

Written response: The official RBWM petition has just over 70 signatures from local residents asking us to keep the museum open. You are correct to say that when the museum charged a small admission fee there was an income generation from the museum. When the decision was made by the previous administration to remove the fee, they failed to remove the income target. Therefore, the museum has always been set up to fail in the eyes of the budget. 

We are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

a)    By Councillor Larcombe

That this council takes immediate action to ensure that the probability of flooding is minimised by ensuring that land drainage infrastructure is maintained in a condition fit-for-purpose.

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) regarding minimising the probability of flooding by ensuring that land drainage infrastructure was maintained

Councillor Larcombe introduced his motion as set out in the Council agenda. He referred to the Councillor question about flooding earlier in the agenda stating that the upstream catchment was about 8,500 square kilometers and once the area was saturated every drop of rain came past here, especially in the winter season. As part of the answer to the earlier Councillor question reference was made to the Section 19 report which was a report on what had happened during the last flooding event and he queried where the report went.

He referred to Councillor Walters who had objected, 30 years ago, to what is now known as The Jubilee River and recognised his efforts to ensure that it was considered by the Planning Committee. He recounted that the Inspector had said “it would be very embarrassing for all concerned if the new channel did not carry its design capacity” and stated that it could not and never would.

He continued that 20 years later his ward, Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury, repeatedly flooded every time the gates were opened and highlighted that this was not a natural flooding event but someone was sitting in an office looking at a chart and pressing a button.

Councillor Larcombe described his ward, Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury, explaining that apart from two motorways, two railway lines with two railway stations his patch had the Thames, the Jubilee River, the Myrke which was a designated main river, the Datchet Common Brook, Wraysbury Drain which was a critical ordinary water course,  the Horton drain, the Cole Brook which was another designated main river and the County Ditch.

He explained that the area flooded at the beginning of January and they were still flooded today because the ordinary water courses and the channels had not been kept clean and tidy for years. He recognised this was a nationwide and political

problem and the issue for Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury was that it was geopolitical because they were at the end of the borough and at the end of the county.

He stated that the legislation was substandard as there was no duty anywhere for anybody to keep these water courses and the land drainage infrastructure clean and tidy. A Lead Local Flood Authority resulted from the Floods and Water Management Act 2010 but he queried who they were and what did they did. He reflected on the changes to partnership funding. He concluded that the images shared with the meeting was a road in Wraysbury called Feathers Lane from previous flooding in 2011.

Councillor Werner seconded the motion.

Councillor W Da Costa supported the motion. He reported that recent training on emergency planning within the borough. He reflected that due to the climate change they were observing increased amounts of carbon emissions, weather warnings and floods. He stated that he did not think that the existing plan dealt with the worsening  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

To consider the following appointment:

RECOMMENDATION: That Councillor Martin be appointed as Chair of the Maidenhead Development Management Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

The Mayor advised that an updated report had been circulated to address the other vacancies that were likely to occur as a consequence of the nominations.

Councillor Bermange introduced the item explaining that the report related to the remainder of the current municipal year as Councillor Reynolds had indicated that he no longer wished to be on the Maidenhead Development Management Committee. His extremely capable vice chair, Councillor Martin, was being proposed to become Chair, he had seen her step up into the role already and she had shown a real skill in managing the lively committee ensuring that all members got a chance to put their views across. He endorsed her nomination as the new Chair and noted that this would require a new Vice Chair be appointed and Councillor Hill was recommended as a long-standing member of the development management committee with a lot of experience in planning matters. He asked those present to note that Councillor Gurch Singh would be appointed as a permanent member of the Committee.

Councillor Reynolds seconded the recommendation and fully supported Councillor Martin’s nomination as Chair. He noted that in a short time as a councillor she had already shown her skills in chairing the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel and had chaired the Maidenhead Development Management Committee for the Spencer's

Farm agenda item. He concluded that he was delighted that Councillor Martin had agreed to take over as chair with Councillor Hill as Vice Chair.

On the proposition of Councillor Bermange, Cabinet Member for Planning, Legal and Asset Management and seconded by Councillor Reynolds it was

RESOLVED unanimously that:

i)               Councillor Martin be appointed as Chair of the Maidenhead Development Management Committee for the remainder of the municipal year 2023-24;

ii)             Councillor Hill be appointed as Vice Chair of the Maidenhead Development Management Committee for the remainder of the municipal year 2023-24; and

iii)            it be noted that Councillor Gurch Singh has been appointed as a member of the Maidenhead Development Management Committee for the remainder of the municipal year 2023-24.

To approve the programme of meetings for the 2024/25 Municipal Year including the split of virtual meetings/in-person meetings.

The members present considered the report setting out the programme of meetings for the Council, Cabinet and the other various panels, forums, sub-committees and other bodies administered by Democratic Services for the 2024/25 Municipal Year.

Councillor Werner recommended the meetings programme noting that the schedule tried to avoid school holidays for all the councillors who were parents accepting that if something came up during the year that made one of the dates impossible there would be the opportunity to change it at a later date. Councillor Bermange seconded the proposed programme.

Councillor W Da Costa raised concerns that the proposed schedule did not include any scheduled dates for the Aviation Forum and none had been held since 2023. He stated that was very alarming for Windsor residents who were suffering from the level of aviation noise. He reported that Windsor residents were affected throughout the day with noise at levels that were 30 times greater than the World Health Organisation recommended. He reflected that there were a number of issues that had not been addressed in the Aviation Forum including the noise action plan and the various consultations. He requested that Councillor Werner put in a hybrid meeting of the Aviation Forum each quarter.

Councillor Price recorded her thanks to the officers who had created the meetings programme as she recognised that it was not simply rolled forward from the previous year but incorporated the changes with Cabinet meetings and avoided school holidays.

Councillor Coe responded to Councillor W Da Costa’s queries about the Aviation Forum and advised that they had been considering how the Forum could be reformed to make it more purposeful. They were looking to schedule the meetings to fit in with the meetings of the main Heathrow bodies so that the Forum would input into those consultations via RBWMs representative on those panels. He explained that there was a meeting coming up in relation to latest round of consultations and hoped to be able to timetable a programme that interlocked with the meetings of the subgroups so that information could then be discussed at the Aviation Forum. He stated that he had asked for the meetings to be held in Windsor in recognition that area was more affected currently than other parts of the borough.

Councillor W Da Costa requested a guarantee of four meetings per year.

Councillor J Tisi observed that as the Chair of Audit and Governance Committee he recognised that the excellent budget process this year had been supported by how Overview and Scrutiny meetings had been dovetailed to actually get really good scrutiny over the process. He considered that it was a welcome development from the previous CiFPA observations and it was important that they were able to act as a critical friend to the Executive of the Council.

Councillor Bermange reiterated the thanks to the officers in Democratic Services who had worked to accommodate an annual schedule with so many different bodies and getting it all to work together in harmony.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To note the report explaining the Early Adoption of Fees and Charges decision, the reasons for it and why the decision was treated as matter of urgency.

The meeting considered the report explaining the Early Adoption of Fees and Charges decision, the reasons for it and why the decision was treated as matter of urgency.

Councillor Jones explained that the fees and charges report was originally proposed to be part of the draft Budget report to be considered by Cabinet in November 2023. She explained that when that report was delayed to December the fees and charges element of the report was taken as a separate report to enable it to be implemented according to the planned timetable. The subsequent separation of the two reports meant that the fees and charges report as an individual report was entered onto the forward plan with less than the required 28-day notice period. The report was considered as an urgent item and was agreed by Cabinet on 29 November 2023. To ensure full governance and transparency this report was being brought to the meeting to be noted. This was in accordance with the Constitution in Part Three, Section 15 paragraph 4B which states that the decision taker will provide a full report to the next available Council meeting explaining the decision, the reasons for it and why the decision was treated as a matter of urgency.

Councillor Jones proposed the report be noted and this was seconded by Councillor Werner.

In response to Councillor Price’s query it was confirmed that this was the next available Council meeting because the January meeting had been rescheduled and the February meeting was reserved to budget discussions.

Councillor Sharpe was hesitant about the use of urgency for a decision taken in November, that it was not taken through Overview and Scrutiny and did not accept the reasons provided as it did not feel right for a well organised and well-managed Council.

Councillor Reynolds explained that the urgency was due to the state to the Council’s finances that had been inherited and the need for the changes to fees and charges to be implemented. He stated that was very clear at the Council meeting on 27 September that an action plan was being put together which included maximising income from fees and charges. He continued that the Chair of Corporate Overview and Scrutiny was consulted about the proposal and a full discussion was held at the time. He did not recall anybody approaching or speaking to us at the time or coming to speak at Cabinet when the item was presented at Cabinet or asking any of these questions at the time of the decision. He concluded that it felt as though the opposition was trying to make a political point out of something that was very clearly constitutional.

Council Bermange commented that considering this report actually showed an example of good governance as they had identified there was a technical issue with the separation of the fees and charges item from the wider budget paper which was advertised correctly on the Forward Plan. He described the full process undertaken, as set out in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.