To consider the above report

Members considered adoption of the Eton and Eton Wick Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Bateson explained this was the third Neighbourhood Plan to come before council for adoption. The first stage of the Eton and Eton Wick Neighbourhood Plan was started by community groups undertaking consultation. Once sufficient material and evidence had been gathered a plan was drafted, which was then checked by the planning department to ensure compatibility with the NPPF and Borough Local Plan (BLP). Following a final consultation the plan went to examination. The Examiner recommended a few minor changes and then it was put to referendum. Of the 411 votes cast, 360 were in favour of the plan.

Councillor Bateson thanked those involved for the many hours of voluntary time given to bring the plan to fruition.

Councillor E. Wilson congratulated all those involved for the many hours spent designing policies for the community and ensuring a bridge between the NPPF and what was needed on the ground. He had two reservations. On the face of it there was a conflict between H06 in the BLP and T12. He asked why projects were listed in the plan that were already completed, or were not eligible for CIL or S106 funding, or were not being conducted by the council.

Councillor Da Costa acknowledged the thousands of hours put in by the volunteers. He asked if the minor changes allowed under the proposed delegation would be made only with the approval with the Neighbourhood Plan Group.

Councillor S Rayner, as Ward Councillor, thanked the team of volunteers in the local community who had been working since October 2013. Both communities had a strong heritage background. In the future both communities would face challenges; the work already undertaken would make them more resilient. The plan included 17 aspirations. As the plan had been progressing for the last five years some had inevitably been achieved including bicycle way funding and the bus service. Finances were being gathered for a visitor centre. Some projects were outside the borough scope but it was important they were included as they related to issues such as healthcare.

Councillor Stretton congratulated the Neighbourhood Plan group. She was concerned to hear of the conflict with the BLP and hoped this could be resolved. She requested assurances from the administration that the Neighbourhood Plan would not be ignored in the way substantial parts of the Ascot and Sunnings plan had been ignored in the emerging BLP?

Councillor Coppinger highlighted that Neighbourhood Plans were about localism; as a result some areas were outside the scope of the borough. This should not stop people achieving aims in their local area. It was the council’s job to support these aspirations.

Councillor Hilton highlighted that the NPPF supported Neighbourhood Plans where they were presenting policies in areas where the borough policies were not strategic. He commented that the Ascot and Sunnings plan included a long-term aspiration for a bus service. This may not come to fruition but it was important that it had been included. Some practical aspirations such as cycle ways could be undertaken without council resources.

Councillor Bateson commented that the delegation to make changes related to typographical errors; it would allow the Head of Planning to check all was correct before publication. In relation to the comments by Councillor Stretton, it was not so that substantial parts of the plan had been ignored; Ascot and the Sunnings were very proud of the plan. In relation to the comments by Councillor E Wilson, the council would clearly seek to ensure the car park was not needed or alternative provision was secured. The aspirations in the plan came from stakeholders in the consultation. It was clear the council was not responsible for delivery as the table set out the stakeholders and funding mechanisms.

It was proposed by Councillor Bateson, seconded by Councillor Coppinger, and:

RESOLVED: That Councilnotes the report and:

i)          That the council make the Eton and Eton Wick Neighbourhood Plan part of the Development Plan for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead; and

ii)         Delegates authority to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Principal Member for Neighbourhood Planning, to make minor, non material, amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan prior to its publication.

(48 Councillors voted for the motion Councillor M. Airey, N. Airey, Bateson, Beer, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Brimacombe, Bullock, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Da Costa, Diment, Dudley, D. Evans, L. Evans, Gilmore,  Grey, Hill, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Hunt, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Muir, Quick, Rankin, C. Rayner, S. Rayner, Richards, Saunders, Sharpe, Shelim, Story, Stretton, Targowska, Walters, Werner, D. Wilson and Yong.  1 Councillor abstained: Councillor E Wilson.)