The Forum shall receive any apologies for absence.

The Chair, Councillor Carpenter, welcomed everyone to the meeting. Forum members then introduced themselves.

Apologies were received from Councillor Knowles. He was substituted by Councillor Price.

The Forum are asked to declare any interests that they may have.

No interests were declared.

The Forum is to go through the action points in the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th September 2023 and approve them as a true and accurate record.

The Chair went through the actions from the last meeting:

The Chair notified the Forum that Chris Joyce,Assistant Director of Infrastructure Sustainability and Economic Growth, was unable to attend the meeting nor provide a written update on the Windsor Vision. He was also unable arrange for someone else to substitute him to present the item as well. As a result, the Vision for Windsor item would not be covered in the meeting. She hoped to the item would return to the meeting in January 2024.

ACTION: Vision for Windsor to return to the next Forum meeting in January 2024.

Councillor W. Da Costa raised a couple of points relation to the minutes. He first stated that the minutes should state that he would work with officers to search for funding for the Forum rather than doing it himself only. He said he had not heard from any officers and that he made contact with Louise Freeth, Assistant Director of Revenues Benefits Library and Resident Services, to chase up about where the Forum could acquire finance for community activities and that he would continue to push this forward.

Councillor W. Da Costa’s second point was in relation to Andrew Durrant, Executive Director of Place Services, to investigate opening the coach park to improve access from Footbridge to The Arches through the use of Welcome to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 320.

To receive a presentation about Busy Buttons CORE Charity from their founders, Louella & Lautaro.

Lautaro and Louella shared a presentation which explained the charity in which they founded, Busy Buttons CORE Charity, located at Windsor Yards. They described the charity as “an inclusive charity helping each child find their unique potential through creativity and imagination”. While the charity was known more for its community projects and creative courses for young people, the charity provided other services.

According to the NHS, 1-in-5 children in the UK suffered from mental health problems, which lead to school avoidance, isolation, self-harm, anti-social behaviour and criminality. Lautaro conveyed that anxiety was not a personality disorder, but a response to a situation. These may include special needs, such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia (in which they refer to as superpowers), as well as bullying and domestic abuse.

Lautaro stated that Busy Buttons was started in response to a first-hand experience of the results of mental health problems. Louella explained the background: she and Lautaro were attacked by a group of young people in a park in London but managed to escape. The assailants were a group of 20 young people aged from 15-to-21-years of age who “worked like clockwork”. After receiving counselling, Louella and Lautaro wondered about the frame of mind of the assailants, namely their lack of empathy and having nothing to lose. They speculated that the attack gave the assailants a sense of empowerment, and that they had no mentoring and no sense of responsibility. From this, Louella and Lautaro decided that these types of young people required positive feeling through more positive experiences and by contributing to the community rather than causing trouble.

The Charity believed in early intervention whereby young people were presented with a passion at a young age to prevent them from going down alternative routes. They gave a case study whereby an anxious child with selective mutism became more cheerful and sociable at Busy Buttons.

Lautaro informed that Busy Buttons provided a weekly one-to-one support to families to challenge emotional-based school avoidance by their children. From this, Busy Buttons received referrals from CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services), social services, early help, local schools, adoption services and domestic abuse charities. Since this programme was launched, there was a positive response of 55% of young participants returning to school.

After submitting children’s artwork, Busy Buttons was selected as the best art school by Craft Council UK and received a Yinka Ilori Designer’s Award. Three young people from Busy Buttons were selected to display their work at the Royal Academy of Arts, out of 1,500 nationwide entries.

Lautaro stated that this showed the positive impact of early intervention, creative opportunities, and positive experiences. He explained that young people were invited to join programmes with other young people once they gained enough momentum and confidence. These include holiday programmes, such as Creative Wellbeing Camps, Creative Skill-based Courses, Theatre Productions and Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme.

Attending the meeting with Lautaro and Louella, the Youth Ambassador from Busy Buttons then shared his own story. He explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 321.

To receive a presentation on the powers and responsibilities of parish and town councils from Stephen Hedges, Clerk to Cox Green Parish Council.

The Chair introduced Stephen Hedges, Clerk to Cox Green Parish Council, who was doing a presentation on the powers and responsibilities of parish and town councils. Councillor K. Davies, Lead (Cabinet) Member for a Windsor Town Council, was also invited to the Forum meeting and would be leading on the consultation on a town council for Windsor. The Chair informed that a town council in Windsor would not replace the Borough local authority; instead, it was an extra layer of authority.

Stephen Hedges explained that parish councils were a tier of local government which were the closest to communities, varying in size from the small village or hamlet to larger communities of over 130,000. With a variation of facilities and services provided, the budgets of parish councils could have a large range from less than £1,000 to over £4 million. Parish councils were generally referred to as ‘local councils’, differentiating them from principal councils, namely district and county councils. There were around 10,400 local councils across England and there was no ‘one-size-fits-all’ description.

In terms of naming, alongside ‘Parish Council’, a local council may call itself from any of the following:

·       Town Council

·       Village Council

·       Community Council

·       Neighbourhood Council

In spite of the different names, their powers and duties were the same as the legislation applied to all local councils.

Stephen Hedges highlighted that there were eight city councils which could be confused with the higher tier principal councils. For example, Manchester City Council was a principal council whereas Wells City Council was a local council. He also highlighted that the Chair of a town council could be referred to as ‘Town Mayor’.

Stephen Hedges explained that an area may have one, two or three tiers of government with each possessing their own responsibilities which apply to the area which they cover. RBWM had a unitary authority which incorporated local authority tiers one (County Councils) and two (District, Borough and City Councils). Local (parish/town) councils were tier three; if there was no parish-level authority, then the district-level authority would carry out those functions. Each local authority tier was its own independent authority in its own right, whereby they were not subservient to any other authority; however, certain permissions may be required from a relevant authority carry out certain works or actions, such as highways works.

Stephen Hedges then explained the power and duties of local councils. He informed that a ‘power’ was the legislation which allowed a council to do something, while a ‘duty’ was a requirement imposed upon it (e.g., the duty to consider the crime and disorder implications of its actions and functions). Local councils had a duty of providing allotments if there was a demand. All the work and the actions of a council had to have a lawful basis; therefore, they needed to flow back to a relevant power. All the powers and duty of a local Council apply to all local councils, including newly created ones; therefore, they would have all the powers from day  ...  view the full minutes text for item 322.

To receive an update from Paul Roach, Windsor and Eton Town Centre Manager.

Paul Roach, Windsor and Eton Town Centre Manager, presented his Town Manager update. With the average footfall count, the figures for 2022-23 were slightly above the figures for 2018-19 (pre-Covid). Paul Roach highlighted these were general average figures of the movement of people through Peascod Street rather than actual figures, showcasing a general trend. Illustrated by the graph in the presentation, there was usually a peak in footfall at around July and August, followed by a decline as summer holidays end and school reopen. The footfall in September 2023 was higher compared to September 2019.

Paul Roach then gave the headline data up to the week commencing 29^th October 2023:

·       Total number of visitors to Windsor Town Centre External for the last 52 weeks was 7.4 million (3.5% increase compared to 2022).

·       The total number of visitors in 2023 so far was 6.1 million (3.9% increase compared to 2022).

·       Total number of visitors to Windsor Town Centre External in the week commencing 23^rd October 2023 was 139,000.

·       The busiest day in the week commencing 23^rd October was Saturday 28^th October 2023 with 22,293 visitors.

·       The peak hour of the week was 15:00 on Sunday 29^th October 2023 with footfall being 3,270.

Car parking in September 2023 had decreased by 18% (in contrast to the error of 40% in the presentation) with the total number of users being around 77,283 users. It was usually expected for car parking usage to decrease at around September of each year. Meanwhile, coach parking had increased of 120% (1,311 users), an increase in comparison to 2022 (595 users).

In terms of Vacancy Rates, the national average had increased by 13.9%, compared to 13.8% in the last Forum meeting in September 2023. In spite of this, the vacancy rate in Windsor was static at 9.4% with a lack of movement compared to the last Forum meeting. In terms of movement:

·       The recently vacated units in the last month included Neal’s Yard Remedies and FG Pymm and Son Funeral Director. Paul Roach was uncertain of the context for the sudden closure of the Neal’s Yard Remedies unit in Windsor, as they were still operating in other towns and cities, whether it was only restricted to their Windsor branch or a wider consolidation.

·       The recently opened stores included Card Factory and French Kiss (formerly Madame POSH) in Peascod Street. Coffee Gallery was about to open in the former Coral unit.

·       The units which were offered or under development were Halifax, Newlook (Mango), Patisserie Valarie, Coral, and Cath Kidston.

Paul Roach then explained the Christmas programme within the Borough. The Christmas campaign was launched on 1^st November 2023 with the use of the hashtag #MyFestiveRoyalBorough being encouraged by RBWM’s partners, providing a central base for people to reflect, add or support some of the Borough’s work. The hashtag was usable across multiple social media platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram.

Similar to last year, an electronic copy of the Christmas brochure (designed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 323.

To receive an update from Chris Joyce, Assistant Director of Infrastructure Sustainability and Economic Growth, on the Vision for Windsor.

NOTE: This item follows up from Vision for Windsor being discussed in previous Forum meetings:

·       ‘Vision for Windsor’ – Meeting on 19^th September 2023

·       ‘The Windsor Vision’ – Meeting on 20^th March 2023

(Chris Joyce, Assistant Director of Infrastructure Sustainability and Economic Growth, was unable to attend the meeting. As a result, this item was postponed.)

Residents are invited to make suggestions on agenda items for future forum meetings and ask any questions that may have.

Sue asked about the projected final cost for the road resurfacing outside Henry VIII Gate at Windsor Castle. Uncertain about the answer, the Chair suggested that the answer could be investigated.

Sue elaborated by wondering if the Council believed the project had been a worthwhile and justified expenditure. While it was a historic decision, Councillor A. Tisi believed that much of the costs had been paid for by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). She invited John Bowden, as a former RBWM Councillor, to explain as the project was decided under his watch.

As far as he was aware, John Bowden explained that the Local Enterprise Board, which was funded by central government, provided £1 million to the costs, with £300,000 added from the community investment levy (Section 106).

Sue then asked whether there was a particular justification for spending money for the block paving near the Henry VIII Gate. John Bowden replied that this part of a necessity for security outside Windsor Castle, in addition to the barriers at Park Road, Sheet Street, Thames Street and Victoria Street, for the changing of the guard and people congregating outside the Castle. He referred to the terror attacks in 2018 (e.g., Nice, France) which involved the assailant driving a vehicle into crowds. He highlighted that this was a national decision and that this was in a conservation area of national heritage.

While understanding of the barriers, Sue reiterated her query on the expenditure of road refurbishment in contrast to a less expensive solution, stating that the development had been going on for months and had caused disruption. She felt that this had been an “awful over-expenditure” of a development which could have been enhanced in a less expensive way.

John Bowden countered that he was informed by an infrastructure officer that the subsurface needed special attention whereby the drains, water works, and electricity cables were underneath. He added that senior individuals had made certain decisions which influenced the development, including a certain approach in securing the area as well as the Windsor Castle requesting that a certain material.

Sue then conveyed that it was “peculiar” that the road was laid with bricks, followed by three-to-four square feet being lifted out to install the barriers. She asked whether the barriers could have been installed first and then the bricks be laid. She also heard that the cost was £5 million and then asked where the addition money came from on top of the Borough’s original £1.3 million. The Chair suggested that the total costs could be investigated.*

*Post-meeting update: The whole project was £2.4 million, jointly funded between the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and RBWM with Castle Hill providing the bulk of this finance.

Nigel Griffin stated that there was a large area of Windsor which had been underutilised in terms of development for seven to eight years. He asked whether the inhabitations to development of this area was caused by planning or by developers. After receiving clarification from Nigel Griffin that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 325.

To note that all future meetings to be held in-person at York House, Windsor on the following dates at 6.30pm:

·       11^th January 2024

·       12^th March 2024

·       8^th May 2024

The Forum noted that the next meeting would be held on 11^th January 2024 at 6:30pm at York House, Windsor. The subsequent meeting dates (all 6:30pm) were:

·       12^th March 2024

·       8^th May 2024