To receive any apologies for absence

No apologies received.

To receive any declarations of interest

None received.

To consider the Part I minutes of the meetings held on 28^th May 2020 and 12^th June 2020.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meetings held on 28 May 2020 and 12 June 2020 were approved.

There were no appointments made.

The Chairman announced that they were in the process of signing off their Covid-19 recovery plans and as part of this there would be an Outcome Engagement  Board, a transformation body as a sub-committee of Cabinet Chaired by Cllr Carroll and a recovery reference group to work with our partners to get the economy moving and help those effected; this would be chaired by the Leader and he was pleased to say that this would include a member outside the administration in Helen Taylor.  The terms of reference of the groups will be circulated in due course.

To consider the Forward Plan for the period July 2020 to October 2020.

Cabinet considered the contents of the Forward Plan for the next four months and noted the changes made since last published.

Cabinet considered the report for information regarding the CIPFA review of governance undertaken during 2019 and early 2020.

The Leader informed that he requested that this item be brought to Cabinet before it goes to scrutiny and any recommendations to Cabinet at its next meeting. As the Leader of Council he felt that it would have been remise of him not to have introduced this item as it was a damming indictment of cultural and process failure that he would not defend.  He believed in sound financial governance and believed in a culture that got the best out of the organisation, that was fair, open, transparent and wanted a high level of challenge.  But that delivered for residents, businesses and visitors to the area.

The Leader apologies that when concern had been raised to the previous administration that their concerns had not been addressed. As a new Member of this council he found it very difficult reading of the report.  There seemed to be a cultural failure, undue pressure and blocking those who raised concerns.  He would not defend those who were named in the report.  The Leader said that under his administration things would be different, bring this report before them was a good example. The organisation was now more open and collaborative in getting things done.  It was for scrutiny to raise questions and recommendations from the report.  These are now legacy issues and there were focus on the new difficult demands due to C-19.

The Lead Member for Finance and Ascot informed Cabinet that after the May 2019 elections he become Lead Member for Finance and I had expectations regarding the financial information he should receive. Timely and accurate financial information was essential to enable a business to be properly managed and to facilitate appropriate decision making. Frustratingly and unacceptably, this was not made available to me or Cabinet at that time.

He held discussions with the Managing Director and supported his decision for an internal investigation on financial governance by CIPFA and took part in meetings with John O’Halloran, Director Business Advisory and Consultancy at CIPFA, and Peter Robinson.

The initial report on Clewer and Dedworth capital schemes exposed weaknesses in the capital approvals process; no business case had been provided and funds were inappropriately used.  This was the draft report reviewed by the Corporate O&S committee in October 2019 and he welcomed their comments.

Following that initial investigation, a structured work programme had been agreed with the Interim CIPFA accountants, Peter Robinson and Terry Neave, who led the finance team on budget monitoring reports and the 2020/21 budget build. This was not a formal review of governance but something much more thorough. Many in the finance team, who are still working for the authority, worked above and beyond as they accepted the task of bottoming out problems that were exposed and learning some difficult lessons.

This period of self-reflection for the organisation had at times been difficult and unsettling; a series of uncomfortable truths  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Cabinet considered the report regarding the proposed adoption of the of the Borough-wide Design Guide.

The Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead informed Cabinet that in February 2019 a regulation 13 was conducted on the Borough Wide Design Guide.  The guide defined what we meant by high quality design that would build high designed quality.  62 comments were received.  Adoption of the guide will held planning and help secure more sustainable development.  This is not a SPD for climate change that is more important, a concept of place has been introduced.  We wish to move to the adoption of the document.

The Lead Member for Finance and Ascot informed that this was a long awaited and important document.  It was important that developers look at the document and follow the guidelines to aid their applications.  This will be welcomed by developers and those impacted by development. 

Cllr Tisi reported that it was a positive report but wanted to refer to principle 6.2 of the guide that talked about the commitment to plant trees.  Only committed to plant 76 trees this year, she had been informed that RBWM would not be applying to the tree fund but neighbouring authorities had.  Is there a risk of having admirable ideas that are not carries out.  Cllr Stimson replied that the application to the urban tree fund had been submitted. 

Resolved unanimously:  That Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Approves the adoption of the final Borough-wide Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document set out in Annex 1. 

Cabinet considered the report that sought approval in principle for the preferred early help model of integrated Family Hubs.

The Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health informed Cabinet that this was the same decision brought to Cabinet in April 2020 and returns following the ‘call in’ and accepted comments.  The item had always been on the forward plan for Cabinet to consider.  It was reiterated that this was a decision for the principle of an integrated family hub model and not the closure of centres.  Section 3 of the report was mentioned as it contained the O&S Panel’s recommendations which were read out as follows:

1. It be noted that the Head of Law had reviewed the Cabinet’s decision made on April 30th, what had been said at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting on May 14th, and the reasons for the call in, and had concluded that the decision complied with the law and did not conflict with the Council’s Access For All policy;

2. The Cabinet paper of April 30th will be brought back to Cabinet in June setting out a consultative pathway;

3. The results of a further consultation process and recommendations for a decision will be brought to the Cabinet in July or August.  

It was agreed at Cabinet on 28 May 2020 that the report be brought back to this Cabinet meeting.

The Lead Member for Housing, Communications and Youth Engagement reported that members had looked into the report in detail and that it was important part of our transformation work.  He reiterated his desire for the community to come forward for the use of any buildings that may become available and the delivery of universal services delivery with our partners. 

The Director of Children’s Services said that the report had been re worked to provide clarity that was lacking in the original report regarding consultation and how to take this forward.  They had looked for advice on undertaking consultation during C-19 but this was not something the organisations had experienced so they looked at best practice to bring ideas forward.  The proposed consultation was longer than that proposed by O&S.

The Lead Member thanked O&S for reviewing the revised report, passing comments and agreeing with the contents.

Mr Bermange said that as the speaking rights for the public were stronger than those of non-Cabinet members he felt compelled to speak tonight. He did not believe that the required 28 days notice had been given to this item on the forward plan, it missed the statutory deadline and he disagreed with the legal opinion that the decision that it was on the forward plan from the original date.  He felt that the name of the report and description had changed, that the item was not listed on the forward plan at Cabinet on 28 May 2020 and he wanted to ask if this decision was worth the risk given judicial review.  He was pleased to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7g

Cabinet considered the Cabinet report regarding the approval for a refreshed action plan for the homelessness strategy and changing the name of the strategy to Homelessness & Rough Sleeping Strategy.

The Housing, Communications and Youth Engagement informed Cabinet that the authority had gained international condemnation due to homelessness particular in Windsor.  This challenge was overcome and a new strategy was being implemented. The report showed areas of success and what else was planned.  The action plan was due to be refreshed and will be refreshed on an annual basis if required.  The change in name was to ensure clarity that the policy was to help those who were homeless or facing homelessness. Consultation events had been held with our partner agencies and members.  Comments received had been included with the report.  An updated equality assessment had also been included.  The failures of two years ago had been addressed.  A new scorecard had been introduced and further work would be undertaken with our partner organisations. 

The Head of Housing and Environmental Health reiterated what had been said about changing the name to widen the scope of the policy and work already being undertaken.  New actions to be delivered had been included.

The Leader said that we had come a long way from two years ago another strong piece of work setting aside legacy issues.

Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health reported that this was a crucial and important subject area.  It was important to continuously update the strategy.  Prior to C-19 he had visited John West House with the Lead Member and the primary care lead.  It was excellent to get direct feedback and positive views from the establishment.  The current pandemic had provided challenges.  Homelessness could not be viewed in isolation there were other areas such as addiction and mental health that needed support and the pathways provided this. 

The Deputy Leader of the Council, Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor said she also endorsed the paper there were brilliant organisations in Windsor and she was glad to see them working with the council.  C-19 showed how well we can work together when we pulled together. 

Cllr Singh asked if the complete quality impact assessment on the slide should have been the completed equality impact assessment as raised by Cllr Baldwin and his concerns raised at O&S.  it was confirmed that the name should be changed and that the impact had been reviewed since scrutiny and the groups raised were not impacted.

Cllr Price welcomed the robust discussion at O&S on this.  She said that the cooperation with partners was critical and wanted to know if the Bret Foundation had been contacted.  More Than a Shelter wanted to know if their services were too be required so they could start planning for this winter.  NRPF category of people who could not claim benefits, she asked if this was an issue within the borough and if they were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

Cabinet considered the report regarding the appointment of representatives to serve the Council on a number of associated and outside bodies.

The Leader of the Council and Chairman of Cabinet, Business, Economic Development and Property reported that this was an annual report with the proposed appointments contained at appendix A.

Cllr Larcombe asked why it was felt necessary to replace him on the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.  He represented a flood ward and has been involved with flood issues since the 1980’s and have experience in blocked water courses that had not been looked after.  The River Thames scheme was looking for a contribution from the Royal Borough towards its funding, he had put this question repeatedly and wondered if this was why he was being replaced.  In response the Leader said that it was not due to him asking questions regarding the funding.  The feedback received from the organisation was that they were looking for a more strategic approach going forward.  He welcomed Cllr Larcombe’s continued work on the Flood Liaison Group.

Resolved unanimously that:  Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Appoints representatives to serve on the organisations listed in Appendix 1.

ii)         Delegates authority to the Head of Governance, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Leaders of the Opposition Groups, to fill any ad hoc vacancies that might arise through the year from nominations received or make any changes to appointments as required.

iii)        Requests the Democratic Services Team Manager to contact organisations as identified as being suitable to have a reduced or no council representation, to seek feedback on the proposal.

iv)        Following receipt of feedback, delegates authority to the Democratic Services Team Manager, in consultation with the Leader of Council, to permanently reduce council representation on specific associated and outside bodies as appropriate.

Cabinet considered the report regarding the year end performance report.

The Deputy Leader of the Council, Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor informed Cabinet that there were 43 key measures aligned to the strategic objectives in the Council Plan 2017-21. There were 22 measures that had been identified as being of particular strategic importance and these were reported to Cabinet at the end of quarters two and four.

Of the 22 measures 14 of the measures met or exceeded target, 5 measures fell just short of target, although still within the tolerance for the measure and 3 measures were out of tolerance and require improvement.  These three ‘Red’ measures were:

•           Delayed transfers of care rate (per 100,000 pop.) attributable to RBWM.

•           Percentage of children subject to a Child Protection Plan for 2+yrs on ceasing

•           No. homeless households in temporary accommodation.

The report also gave a brief overview of key activities and milestones achieved by the council in the second half of the year that would not be picked up by performance indicators, for example the Children’s Services Ofsted report, reaction to C-19 and the excellent work by Customer Services keeping residents informed.

The Director of Adults, Health and Commissioning reported that this was the yearend report with in-depth scrutiny by members being undertaken.  The format of the report had remained stable and gave a good balance of performance and activities.   

Resolved unanimously that: Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Notes the Q4 and End of Year Performance Report in Appendix A.

ii)         Requests relevant Lead Members, Directors and Heads of Service to maintain focus on improving performance.

iii)        Delegates authority to Directors in conjunction with Lead Members to amend and confirm the Strategic Performance Management Framework for 2020/21.

Cabinet considered the report regarding the designation of the Cookham Neighbourhood Area.

The Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead informed that this administration supported neighbourhood planning and as mentioned at Council he had been involved in the first neighbourhood plan.  Council had been asked this week to adopt a plan that was at the end of the process and was surprised that 13 members did not vote for the plan that supported localism. 

This report was at the start of plan making and defined the area, after consultation, that was the same as the parish council boundary.  There had been only been one objection, from John Lewis, who wanted their sites excluded.  They are both in the green belt and it was felt it would be wrong to exclude the sites.

The Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure informed that he endorsed the great work done.  This may be the start of the process but a lot of work had already been undertake.  Cookham had a design statement in place to guide planning, the formation of a plan would enhance this and further help planning decisions.

The Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking informed that it was great to see communities coming together and having their views heard at planning.

Cllr Brar said that she was pleased to see the report and endorsed it.  In 2008 there was a Cookham Plan that was shelved and the design statement was produced.  Bisham Parish Council did not want to join this plan as they wished to produce one of their own.  She wished the village to be protected.

Resolved unanimously that:  Cabinet notes the report and:

Approves the neighbourhood area designation for the parish of Cookham, with the boundaries shown in Appendix B, co-terminus with the Parish boundary.

Cabinet considered the report that updated Members on the delivery of the Treasury Management Strategy approved by Council on 26th February 2019 and confirmed the treasury outturn position as at 31st March 2020.

The Lead Member for Finance and Ascot informed Cabinet that the report presented a review of the Council’s financial investment portfolio at the 31st March 2020, a review of the Council’s borrowing strategy 2019/20, a review of the compliance with the council’s prudential limits for 2019/20, an economic update for the financial year and compliance with the Treasury Management Strategy statement.

Cabinet were informed that as para 3.1 stated the objective of treasury management was the security of investments whilst ensuring cash was available to run the business which was an exceptionally important part of financial management.

RBWM manages Local Economic partnership funds and as a consequence of LEP payments being lower than expected and COVID related funding from government our invested funds are higher than anticipated. Paragraph 4.1.5 showed this to be over £51 million and the table indicates where this was invested. These are all counterparty’s listed on page 277 in Appendix C.

When investing, our benchmark return was 0.25% above bank rate. In 2019/20 the target was exceeded by 0.03% but with bank rate at 0.1% and interest rates at an all-time low and beating this may be a challenge in 2020/21.

Paragraph 4.1.8 explained that long term debt was unchanged.   4.2.1 showed short term debt to be £167.5 million. However, in looking at the budget report to Council in February 2019  this was about £20M above the projected level of borrowing.  The reasons were a loss of income from the Ray Mill Road development and the understanding that we would be retaining just £19M of LEP funds. This would have an impact on the revenue budget and will be considered in a revised Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

The Treasure report was written by Ryan Stone, a relatively new and promising recruit to the finance team. It was important that we develop our staff and reports be more analytical.

The report notes that the Council was within the operational boundary and authorised limits for borrowing.  Long term borrowing was shown on page 378.  Our Treasury consultants Arlingclose provided an economic assessment on page 379. This come as part of the agreement and is given to all clients. At the present time any economic assessment was out of date the moment it was printed.

Resolved unanimously that Cabinet notes and approves the annual Treasury Outturn Report 2019/20. 

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 9-11 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) od the Local Government Act 1972, the public were excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion took place on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the Part II minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 28 May 2020.