Agenda item - Members' Questions

Members' Questions

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 25 September 2018 7.30 pm (Item 53.)

a) Councillor C Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

The graveyard of St Michael’s Church, Horton, is reaching capacity, causing issues for residents. Horton Parish Council and St Michael’s Church Parish Council believe three acres of land adjacent to the existing graveyard would be suitable for an extension. The landowner has agreed in principle to sell at market value. Would the council purchase the land for the municipal graveyard?

b) Councillor C Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor Grey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

With reduced police presence in Horton village, like most of villages we have had problems with anti-social behaviour and increased levels of crime. On behalf of the Parish Council, I would like to ask the Lead Member to consider installing CCTV in the centre of Horton village to monitor the village hall and parish council playing fields.

c) Councillor Hilton will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

The Times reported that councils have spent more than £43 million in five years to settle legal claims brought by cyclists and motorists injured on Britain’s deteriorating roads. Although, under the pothole challenge, we have fixed most reported potholes within 24 hours there have probably been some successful claims. Please advise how many there have been and the financial consequences?

d) Councillor Brimacombe will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Principal Member for Housing:

Councillor McWilliams gave a written reply to Council in April that he would conduct wide and meaningful consultations before publishing a Housing Strategy, a Homelessness Strategy and an updated Allocations Policy in the Autumn. As Autumn has arrived, can he now give specific details on those consultations he has conducted and the intended publication dates for those documents?

e) Councillor Brimacombe will ask the following question of Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

The RBWM website advises that there is a 3-5 year waiting list for any Allotment within Maidenhead. Considering the known benefits of Allotments for topical subjects such as a healthy diet, exercise and social interaction; why has this Administration done so very little in recent years to improve the availability of Allotments in order to reduce the waiting list?

f) Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council / Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead:

As RBWM is now responsible for delivery of the Maidenhead Waterways project and you have taken over the portfolio for Maidenhead Regeneration please detail exactly how you intend to resolve the appalling situation whereby the Maidenhead Waterways Project requires significant further funding to make it fully navigable by a wide variety of craft by lowering the channel under Chapel Arches.

g) Councillor Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Grey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

I would like to thank officers for all their hard work and their quick response to the threat of another encampment at Whiteleys on 17th August 2018. What progress has been made to implement a long term solution to protect the green and so residents and local businesses?

h) Councillor Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Grey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

There are concerns of asbestos exposure following the demolition of a building in a residential area in Windsor. Could you explain the process to ensure that residents are not put at risk, what responsibilities the Council have towards those who may have been put at risk and, what is the Council doing to inform residents of what to do?

(The Member responding has up to 5 minutes to address Council. The Member asking the question has up to 1 minute to submit a supplementary question. The Member responding then has a further 2 minutes to respond.)

Minutes:

a) Councillor C Rayner asked the following question of Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Councillor S Rayner responded that the borough recognised the importance of residents being able to be buried in appropriate space near to where they lived and for relatives to be able to visit them. Officers were happy to look at extending the graveyard in Horton. A capital bid had been submitted for 2019/20. Any extensions would be subject to budget approval, agreement with the landowner, a planning application and all preliminary investigations including discussions with the local parish council.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C Rayner commented that the cost of the graveyard would be equivalent to six parking spaces in the Broadway car park. He believed the return on burial grounds in the borough was better than a car park therefore he hoped it would be seriously considered.

Councillor Saunders left the meeting.

b) Councillor C Rayner, in his capacity as Ward Councillor, asked the following question of Councillor Grey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

With reduced police presence in Horton village, like most villages we have had problems with anti-social behaviour and increased levels of crime. On behalf of the Parish Council, I would like to ask the Lead Member to consider installing CCTV in the centre of Horton village to monitor the village hall and parish council playing fields.

Councillor Grey responded that the borough had already corresponded and consulted with Horton Parish Council and provided advice on the location of CCTV cameras in the village. Legislation and a code of practice by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner set out the principles to ensure the use of CCTV in public spaces was properly regulated. Officers had already consulted with the Parish Council, residents and business on the location of cameras in Horton village; the village hall and playing fields. As ward councillor, if Councillor Rayner disagreed with the Parish Council he would be happy to revisit the issue.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C Rayner stated that Ward Councillors had not been consulted. He had had a meeting with the Parish Council a week ago. He was Vice Chairman of Horton Parish Council and he was not aware of any of the negotiations and asked for copies of the correspondence. Why did Datchet have a number of CCTV cameras and Horton did not?

Councillor Grey responded that Councillor Rayner could of course have copies of the correspondence. He would speak to officers and revisit the issue.

c) Councillor Hilton asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Councillor Bicknell responded that in the financial year 2017/18 there were 104 compensation claims arising for accidents alleging some fault on the highway (footways and the carriageways) which caused injury or vehicle damage. 48 of these claims involved potholes; three claimants received compensation totalling £2,323.05 and all of these claims involved damage to vehicles.

In the financial year 2016/17, there were 82 highways claims of which 26 were attributable to potholes. Three were paid coming to £1,430.51 (vehicle damage only).

In the financial year 2015/16, there were 65 highways claims of which 17 were attributable to potholes. Four were paid coming to £3649.06 (this included one personal injury claim of £2,000, the rest involved damage to vehicles and a bicycle).

As the most recent year was the worst in terms of number of claims received the council reviewed data to see if there was any particular reason for this. 21 of the 48 pothole claims over the year were for incidents occurring 4 February 2018 – 31 March 2018. Brief research indicated several spells of freezing during these months which probably caused more problems than usual with the fabric of the highway.

In summary, the council paid compensation very infrequently for pothole claims and this was typically for low amounts, primarily relating to vehicle damage.

The council had invested £7.7m this year in improving highway infrastructure including a resurfacing programme of £3.4m; plus an extensive pothole programme and investment of £200,000 on enhanced quality and response times through the ‘Find & Fix’ initiative.

A performance target was in place to make 100% of dangerous potholes safe within 24 hours. This target was achieved in nearly every quarter.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hilton asked if the Lead Member agreed that the borough’s performance was better than other councils and could he advise on the actions proposed to maintain and improve the success?

Councillor Bicknell responded that the borough undertook extensive resurfacing using skid-resistant materials. Problems occurred when water went into cracks in the road surfaces, often left by poor repairs by utility companies. When the water froze it expanded the cracks and led to potholes. The borough continued to invest in pothole repairs; dangerous defects were usually repaired within 24 hours.

d) Councillor Brimacombe asked the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Principal Member for Housing:

Councillor McWilliams responded that over the last few months it had been his duty, having been given the housing, to deliver an improved service and also the proper process and strategic approach. A series of meetings had been held with key strategic stakeholders including local charities, housing associations, the NHS, Thames Valley Police and local churches.

A draft was currently being put together which would be sent to stakeholders for feedback. The Homelessness Strategy Update and Allocations Policy would be presented to cabinet in November 2018 before going to public consultation. The Housing Strategy would come later but follow the same process of consultation. The three core principles of the consultation process were passion, thoroughness and co-operation. The Homelessness Strategy Update would include a raft of new support services including a homelessness prevention relief fund and more enforcement with landlords. A holistic joined up approach was needed as there was no ‘silver bullet’ or short term solution.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Brimacombe commented that there had been some adverse comments about the lack of consultation therefore he would encourage publication of the specific details. He asked if any document would set out the council policy on the extent of subsidies to make housing affordable and who was eligible for affordable housing and why?

Councillor McWilliams responded that the two reports in November would include reference to the extensive consultation. Details of subsidies would be included in the Housing Strategy. The Allocation Policy would set out eligibility criteria.

e) Councillor Brimacombe asked the following question of Councillor S Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Councillor S Rayner responded that there were nine allotment sites in Maidenhead. The website was up to date listing the wait time as between one and four years but there were differences. Usually around 46 plots became available each year. Officers inspected plots every month to ensure they were being used. A capital bid had been submitted for 2019/20 to maintain, improve and create capacity.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Brimacombe highlighted that applicants had to specify a plot on their form without knowing where vacancies may be; he asked for more information to be provided.

Councillor S Rayner responded that this would be done.

Councillor Luxton left the meeting.

f) Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council / Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead:

Councillor D Wilson, as Deputy Lead Member for Maidenhead Waterways, responded that the council had invested over £8 million in the Waterways Project as it was a key part of the regeneration of Maidenhead. The work referred to was the lowering of the hard invert under Chapel Arches. On the 31 August the council had proposed to the Shanly Group that the work should be jointly fund on a 50/50 basis. A copy of the letter sent with the offer had been made available at the meeting.

The council hoped to reach agreement with the Shanly Group on this matter and the council continued to work closely with the Waterways Group on the overall project.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hill commented that the Waterways Project was increasingly looking like a failed endeavour, which was a great shame. He asked how the proposals would be funded, if it were to be from borrowing and how much this would cost. He had also heard that the A4 bridge and York Road bridge would be difficult to navigate under.

Councillor D Wilson responded that the council had worked closely with the Waterways Group since inception; it was not a failed project. The works had already had a significant impact on businesses in the area. The council had held discussions with the Shanly Group and hoped for a resolution. Works were progressing which would result in the water level being raised to 1.5m, allowing craft to navigate the waterways. This was an opportunity to bring the river closer to the centre of town.

g) Councillor Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor Grey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Councillor Grey responded that he was delighted that the swift response of officers and ward councillors had been recognised. He had briefed Cabinet on sites vulnerable to illegal traveller encampments.at the last Council meeting he had detailed measures available to prevent incursions including bollards, gates and ditches. The approved capital programme for 2018/19 included investment of £80,000 to implement these protective measures and a capital bid for further funding in 2019/20 had been submitted.

With respect to Whiteleys a consultation with local residents would be taking place in early October 2018 to establish whether the temporary ditch / mound should be retained and improved or whether alternative measures were favoured.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Da Costa asked when residents of the other ten vulnerable sites would be consulted?

Councillor Grey responded that residents had to be consulted with first, before any measures could be implemented. In turn Whiteleys residents would be consulted with to see what measures would be acceptable.

h) Councillor Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor Grey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Councillor Coppinger, as Lead Member for Planning, responded that he understood that this related to a specific site in which Building Control, Environmental Protection and Planning had been involved. Where a development involved demolition of buildings then a report setting out the method of demolition was required for the purposes of achieving consent under the Building Regulations. In the case in question an asbestos report was filed prior to demolition, with which it appeared building control were satisfied. As health and safety at demolition sites, including the removal of asbestos, was regulated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), residents were advised by officers to contact the HSE with their concerns about asbestos and demolition procedures; this was the correct advice as the HSE was the enforcing authority for construction and demolition sites. The HSE website contained detailed information on regulations and requirements relating to asbestos, including frequently asked questions.

The HSE did not routinely advise the Royal Borough about the visits it made in the area and officers did not have information about HSE visiting the site, although officers had been in contact with HSE directly to ascertain if this was the case. In short the Council did not have any responsibilities in relation to the matter, the responsibility sat with the HSE, and officers, acting for the council, had made it clear to residents who they should contact with any concerns

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Da Costa commented that it would be good if the council would help him advise residents. He understood an at-risk register should be kept. Given a number of residents and motorists driving along the road would have been exposed to asbestos and silica it would be helpful to work together to help residents.

Councillor Coppinger responded that responsibility was outside of the council but he would be happy to sit with Councillor Da Costa and officers to increase communications if there was a problem.

Councillor Ed Wilson raised a point of order that Councillor Da Costa’s specific reference to the road in question would give a great deal of concern to people living there. He asked whether the road mentioned was already in the public domain and permissible to be referred to in a public meeting. If it was inappropriate to mention, the council would need a plan of action.

Councillor Quick stated that the site in question was not in Councillor Da Costa’s ward. Ward Councillors had been very heavily involved in meetings with residents and at no time had there been any reference to the infringement relating to asbestos.

The Mayor stated that naming of the road in the public domain was inappropriate; a statement would be issued from the Managing Director following the meeting.