To receive any apologies for absence from Panel Members.

There were no apologies for absence received.

To receive any declarations of interest from Panel Members.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5^th September 2023.

Councillor Price asked for an amendment to be made to include reference to her suggestion that an offline meeting should be held for the Panel to discuss the work programme.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes from the meeting held on 5^th September 2023 were approved as a true and accurate record.

A new Quarterly Assurance Report (QAR) has been introduced for routine consideration by Cabinet as a mechanism to support good governance. The QAR is focused on the latest available position in relation to performance indicators (Q1 2023/24 or where latest data is available until August 23) and the corporate risk register. Audit and Workforce insights are also included.

The first QAR was considered by Cabinet on 25^th October 2023 and is now shared with the Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel for scrutiny to support good governance.

The Panel are invited to consider whether there may be areas that would benefit from further scrutiny and analysis, as part of the Panel’s forward work programme.

Stephen Evans, Chief Executive, said that a number of measures had been put in place to improve governance, performance and risk management, with the data related to Quarter 1 of the financial year which was April to July. The report would be considered by the Executive Leadership Team and Cabinet on a quarterly basis and the Panel would have the opportunity to scrutinise the report going forward. The key performance indicators and metrics were in an interim position as work was currently being done on the creation of a new Corporate Plan which would be finalised in 2024 and would include new priorities of the administration and a fresh set of goals and objectives. The government had also been strengthening local government oversight and had set up the Office for Local Government, this compared council performance on finances, waste and adult social care. These indicators would be built into the performance reporting already undertaken by the council.

A traffic light system was used to demonstrate performance in the Quarterly Assurance Report. Overall, performance was good with notable successes but there were some challenges. 24 indicators were green, 6 were amber and 7 were red.

Councillor Price noted the quality and depth which the report covered. She asked how data fed into the Citizens Portal, which was where residents could currently review the live council performance.

Stephen Evans said that a number of teams fed data to the performance and strategy team, who could then collate the data into the report. He would provide an answer after the meeting on the relationship with the Citizens Portal.

ACTION – Stephen Evans to provide an answer on the relationship of the data between the Citizens Portal and the Quarterly Assurance Report.

Councillor Wilson felt the report was fantastic and welcomed the report being considered by the Panel. He had been interested in exploring a topic around staffing and headcount, particularly how many roles there were across the organisation. He suggested that a headcount or a resource summary with some detail could be provided in future reports.

Stephen Evans said that he was concerned about some of the capacity gaps, this was being worked on through the budget process. Growth was being explored in service areas where there had been high demand. Service areas were encouraged to put their capacity gaps on the table during budget sessions so that this could be investigated.

Nikki Craig, Assistant Director of HR, Corporate Projects and IT, said that the data came from iTrent from was the council’s HR system. This did not include agency staff but this could gained from a different system under the finance team. Nikki Craig would explore whether this could be added in to give a more complete picture.

ACTION – Nikki Craig to explore if agency staff could be included in the full headcount for future Quarterly Assurance Reports.

Stephen Evans said that there were a number of reasons why agency staff were used across different service areas. It could be difficult  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Land at Pickins Piece consists of 2.11 acres of agricultural land within the Horton Parish to the east of the Borough. It was historically leased as grazing land but has since been unused and attracts fly tipping.

Terms have been agreed to sell the freehold interest in the property to Field House PS Ltd for a sum of £200,000. If the property is redeveloped within 20 years, the Council would receive an uplift in value of £50,000.

Under the Council’s Scheme of delegation Cabinet approval is required for disposals in excess of £100,000. 

The report will be considered by Cabinet on 29^th November 2023. The Panel are asked to scrutinise the report and provide any relevant recommendations for consideration by Cabinet.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of agenda items was changed, so that Pickins Piece, Horton, was considered next on the agenda.

Ian Brazier-Dubber, Managing Director of RBWM Property Company, outlined the report. Cabinet were being asked to decide what to do with a piece of land, around two acres in size, just outside the village of Horton. The council had owned the site as open grazing land for a number of years but over recent years it had become disused and had been under consideration to be disposed of. The sale of the land had gone out to market, with four offers initially being received. All four offers were subject to planning permission being granted. After considering these, it was decided that the land should be sold for £200,000 as a straight sale. The Community Land Trust had offered £100,000 which was subject to a local housing survey. These were the two main options being considered.

Lizzie Jones was representing the Windsor and Maidenhead Community Land Trust and had registered to speak on the item. She clarified that the Community Land Trust’s offer was an ‘open book’ arrangement depending on certain factors at the site. They would appreciate any consultation that could be done with Horton Parish Council, particularly if a significant site was planned for the land.

Councillor Price commented that the report had only been received by the Panel late on Friday afternoon and this was only one working day in advance of the meeting. A second version had also been circulated but it was not clear where changes had been made, while the Equalities Impact Assessment had been circulated earlier today. The report claimed that various options had been considered but did not outline what these options were. Councillor Price believed the £50,000 fee if the land was to be developed on was very low. It was concerning that the offer from the Community Land Trust had been misrepresented.

Ian Brazier-Dubber said that the report had been a work in progress, he was happy to support further conversations with Horton Parish Council and the Community Land Trust. The site was in the green belt and there were a number of mature trees which would make development difficult.

Councillor Buckley felt that the report was not ready to be considered by Cabinet as the decision had not been scrutinised and would impact local residents. He suggested that the report should be pushed back on the Cabinet Forward Plan. Councillor Buckley argued that the report failed on value for money, legal obligations and equalities. The land was gained in around 1970 and had been allocated for development in the past, it was surrounded by social housing and there was a good argument for the land to be used to increase the supply of social housing. Councillor Buckley claimed that Horton Parish Council had attempted to carry out a tree survey on the land but the site locks had been changed by the RBWM Property Company. He believed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Mark Beeley explained that as per C25 Part 2 of the RBWM Constitution, the Panel would need to take a named vote on whether to continue the meeting.

The Panel discussed whether both the month 5 revenue monitoring report and the update on the budget 2024/25 progress should be considered.

Councillor Price suggested that the Panel just considered the budget 2024/25 progress update.

A named vote was taken.

AGREED: That the meeting would continue and the Panel would consider the budget 2024/25 update on progress.

To receive a verbal update from the Executive Director of Resources on the progress of setting the budget for 2024/25.

Elizabeth Griffiths said that the financial position of the council was well documented and all political groups had been briefed on the situation. The Spending Control Board had considered decisions which were a choice on a weekly basis to ensure that spending was being done appropriately. The finance team had sat down with each service area to check and challenge figures and assumptions to understand where a difference could be made. The relevant Cabinet Member, along with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance had also attended budget challenge sessions.

Councillor Price felt that there were lessons to learn from last year’s process. Corporate had considered the whole budget but had referred relevant parts to People and Place but this had been disjointed. When Councillor Price first became a Councillor, there was an appendix which was a risk analysis and there were figures against each risk. This had not been produced in recent years but Councillor Price suggested that this would be a useful addition. Councillor Price believed that last year officers in adult social care made assumptions on figures that were very accurate but Cabinet had decided to lower these figures. If this were to happen this year, Councillor Price asked that this was made clear to improve transparency. Councillor Price continued that she had questions on the robustness of assumptions but some answers were not convincing last year and did not provide assurance. She said that any questions and answers were published on the website.

Elizabeth Griffiths said that the assessment of risk was important and the council was focused on the mitigation of that risk and ensuring that the budget which was being proposed was achievable.

Stephen Evans believed it was right for all three Overview and Scrutiny Panels to be involved in budget scrutiny but that work was not being duplicated as a result.

Mark Beeley outlined the budget scrutiny process. The full budget would be considered by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 19^th December. Before this, two offline meetings would be held with the People Overview and Scrutiny Panel and the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel to decide on a list of questions, comments and potential recommendations. This would be published in the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel agenda and the Chairs of both Panels would be invited to present at the meeting.

Councillor Price asked if this process could be shared with all Councillors.

ACTION – Article on the budget scrutiny process to be shared as part of the Councillor newsletter.

Councillor Buckley raised concern that the budget process was focused on cost savings and not on income increases. He suggested an income panel could be set up to investigate opportunities to increase income generation.

Elizabeth Griffiths reassured Councillor Buckley that officers were looking at transformation and income generation as part of the process.

Councillor Howard said that the process sounded positive and that it seemed the culture of the organisation was that things could be done. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

This report details the forecast outturn against budget for the 2023/24 financial year. It includes the revenue and capital budgets along with the financial reserve position at year end.

The report was considered by Cabinet on 25^th October 2023 and the Panel are provided with an opportunity to further scrutinise the current financial position of the council.

This item was not considered.

To consider what topics the Panel would like to consider over the course of the municipal year.

This item was not considered.