Agenda item - Members' Questions

Members' Questions

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 11 December 2018 7.30 pm (Item 78.)

a) Councillor Lenton will ask the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Please confirm the date by which the refurbishment of the flood relief channel, known as the Wraysbury Drain, was due to be completed together with the then predicted cost; the date on which the work is now expected to be completed; the latest estimate of the cost; and the reasons for the continued slippages in time and cost.

b) Councillor C Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways, Transport and Windsor:

There are weight restrictions through the village of Horton. Please can you confirm the number of prosecutions in the last year by the Council for vehicles driving through the village over the weight limit?

c) Councillor C Rayner will ask the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Horton has problems with cars being parked for weeks on grass verges alongside the public highway. It is believed they may have been left by parking companies offering parking for travellers using Heathrow Airport. What can the council do to prevent these grass verges been used for commercial parking?

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

We know that the Narrative cafe in Maidenhead library closed due to the perceived uneconomic rent required by the Council, who now has no income at all in its budget from such a facility. So could you please inform Council of any efforts to secure a replacement cafe for the library at the market rent demanded?

e) Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

As has been widely reported the Budget is overspent by at least £7.4m. I recall the budget being presented to Council with immense confidence by the Lead Member and my concerns about it being speculative robustly dismissed. In this member-led Authority is anyone now going to stand up and say sorry, I got it wrong?

f) Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Targowska, Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT:

The sudden departure of the Borough’s former Managing Director without a proper explanation is unacceptable. The line manager for the MD is the Leader of the Council, so will there be any accountability allocated to either party for this fractured working relationship?

g) Councillor McWilliams will ask the following question of Councillor M. Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Why was there no public consultation on the new Homelessness Strategy before it was adopted and who made that decision, since it was previously announced that one would be held?

h) Councillor McWilliams will ask the following question of Councillor M. Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

What safeguards are in place to prevent the enforcement powers within the recently adopted Support Before Enforcement paper, specifically fines and threat of prosecution, being used on vulnerable residents?

i) Councillor Majeed will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

The council has encouraged people to invest in Oldfield yet proposes building a 5 storey car-park in front of their homes; residents are concerned about antisocial behaviour and the effect of pollution on health. I ask you to send out the right message and not proceed with this development?

(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) C

b) Councillor C Rayner asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways, Transport and Windsor:

Councillor Bicknell responded that responsibility for the enforcement of moving traffic offences within the Royal Borough rested with Thames Valley Police, which included the contravention of weight limits. Therefore, there had been no prosecutions by the council. Thames Valley Police had been requested to provide information of any prosecutions which they had pursued.

However, contraventions of the weight restriction had been reported to the borough by residents, Ward Members and the Parish Council who were keen to provide support and deliver measures within the control of the council. For example, existing signage had been upgraded to improve visibility of the restriction and to discourage the abuse. Concerns were also regularly raised with the Community Wardens as part of their routine patrols and community meetings; the wardens sought to work with business and the community to resolve the issue.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C Rayner stated that he had been a parish councillor since 2003 and a ward councillor since 2005. Each time he had contacted the police about who was responsible he had received the response that it was the council’s responsibility. Borough trading standards officers had told him they did not have the capacity to enforce the limit. He asked the Lead Member to write to Thames valley Police to clarify the situation.

Councillor Bicknell responded that he would do so.

c) Councillor C Rayner asked the following question of Councillor M Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Councillor M Airey responded that concerns relating to long-stay parking on verges in Horton and Datchet had been raised previously by the residents and Members (including the former Councillor Grey) and were understood by officers. A residents’ parking scheme was introduced in Horton Road, Datchet to remove this parking and enforcement was now in place to ensure that residents were not disadvantaged.

In addition, a scheme had been agreed to introduce new double yellow lines in Horton Road (between the existing residents’ parking scheme and Welley Road) which would be implemented in January 2019 to further manage this indiscriminate parking. Officers were not aware of any further areas in this vicinity which require investigation to introduce additional measures. However, the Ward Member was very welcome to discuss areas for further investigation. Where the council had received indication that landowners were letting out land unlawfully for airport parking the enforcement team had investigated.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C Rayner commented that it was very important for residents that the green spaces were protected. A parking warden had not been seen in Horton and Wraysbury in a long time. When was the last time parking enforcement had taken place and someone had been issued with a ticket?

Councillor M Airey responded that MSL should be regularly patrolling the area however he would answer the specific question in writing.

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

Councillor S Rayner responded that the café closed in May 2018 despite the council offering to waive the RPI increase. The space had been used by various groups including for a book sale, health checks and singing. Councillor S Rayner had visited earlier that day and it was alive with residents using the library. The fantastic York Road development would provide the opportunity for cafés and restaurants for residents to enjoy. The council was looking at installing a hot drinks machine. The space had been marketed but only a few enquiries had been made.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Brimacombe commented that what he had heard was that there had been no effort to replace the lost facility. He asked if the Lead Member would agree that the council had appeared to stifle someone’s entrepreneurship, lost a substantial amount of income and a much valued facility? Did such action hold any accountability and if so, for whom?

Councillor S Rayner responded that the council had asked for a lower than market rent but the scene had now changed in the library. A café would be less viable due to the opening of the new Bakedd café. The council had looked for someone else to take it over but none had come forward; it was proposed to install a hot drinks machine.

e) Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Saunders, Lead Member for Finance:

Councillor Sanders responded that the answer to the question was: ‘Yes’.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hill asked what confidence could the council have in the next budget with the same leadership in place?

Councillor Saunders responded, on behalf of all of the officers and Members involved in the budget setting process for the current year, that he apologised for some budget assumptions being overtaken by events and circumstances.

Did he apologise for the way in which the council devoted full funding to the needs of children in care? No he did not, unlike several councils, who should apologise for restraining this funding. Did he apologise for the way in which the downward trend on which the children in care budget was based, which reversed last year, and then accelerated, and for the high inflationary pressure on quality care for vulnerable young people? He could only share his deep concern that the number of children in care had risen substantially across the country, and continue to affirm his support and that of the administration for investing in the highest quality of care available for some of the most vulnerable people in the community.

Did he apologise for the way in which the council protected residents with Advantage Cards from the increases in time-based parking charges? No he certainly did not. Unlike several councils, who had significantly increased their charges to residents. However did he apologise for not forecasting a substantial increase in the use of Advantage Cards by residents to park their cars? He supposed he did however if he could promote more budget variances which put money back into residents’ pockets, he would be certainly hunting for them.

Did he apologise for working with officers and Cabinet colleagues to deliver the regeneration of Maidenhead, no matter how speculative and generating significant sums to reinvest in new resident facilities. No he did not. Did he resent any suggestion that the administration’s clear, confident and capable management of the council’s financial resources and risk was insane. Yes he did.

f) Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Targowska, Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT:

Councillor Targowska responded that he Leader of the Council was not the line manager of the Head of Paid Service. The Managing Director as the Head of Paid Service reported to and was responsible directly to full Council. Accountability (if indeed that was actually the perception) lay with full Council. When the Managing Director relinquished her day to day responsibilities, this decision was agreed and approved by Full Council in an Extraordinary Meeting on 5 November 2018.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hill asked would there be any transparency, or would it continue to be conveniently cloaked as an HR mystery?

Councillor Targowska responded that it was not cloaked in mystery, however it was not appropriate for her to comment in a Part I council meeting. Part 2C of the council constitution prevented Members from addressing matters relating to an employee being raised in his manner and she was not going to assist Councillor Hill in doing so.

g) Councillor McWilliams asked the following question of Councillor M. Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Why there was no public consultation on the new Homelessness Strategy before it was adopted and who made that decision, since it was previously announced that one would be held?

Councillor M Airey responded by thanking the former Lead Member for his work in delivering the proposals. Consultation had taken place in July 2018 with partner agencies including homelessness charities, housing associations and Thames Valley Police. Extensive engagement had been carried out to inform the development of the new Homelessness Strategy including workshops and individual meetings with these statutory and voluntary organisations. It was essential that the strategy was working document that could be reviewed and updated regularly as initiatives and demands on housing changed. The partner agencies with whom the borough consulted were able to make suggestions and ideas through their professional experiences of homelessness. The time frame including the approval at Cabinet was quite limited. Whilst it was a statutory obligation to produce a strategy there was no legal requirement nor was it normal practice to carry out public consultation. Following all the discussions with specialist partner agencies he had felt it would be better to get on with delivering the strategy. He had had no residents contact him to either comment on or challenge the policy.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor McWilliams welcomed the clarity given by the Lead Member and reinforced his faith in the Lead Member’s skills and principles to deliver the critical strategy. All Members would agree the welfare of vulnerable residents was critical and welcome the introduction of the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP). Would the Lead Member continue to listen and ensure the borough’s approach was regularly updated and improved upon?

Councillor M Airey responded that the short answer was ‘yes’. In terms of SWEP, he commented that there were still some rough sleepers on the streets. He assured Members that these individuals had been offered accommodation but this had been rejected.

h) Councillor McWilliams asked the following question of Councillor M. Airey, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Councillor M Airey responded that the borough was committed to supporting vulnerable individuals, and the September Cabinet report set out the approach the borough would follow to always seek to offer and provide support on a case by case basis, and which reflected the individual circumstances that each case presented.

As the Lead Member responsible for this very challenging area, he would be working closely with officers who had the operational responsibility to implement the council’s policies. He would meet regularly with officers who provided updates which reflected the delegated approval by Cabinet to implement a Support before Enforcement Strategy.

Following the recently confirmed acceptance into the National MEAM programme, RBWM was drawing on the good practice the earlier adopters of this programme had developed. Officers were continuing to develop the strategic and operational arrangements, working in conjunction with partner stakeholders, from the point of referral through the engagement and support, to the incremental enforcement options where necessary if engagement with and offers of support were not being taken up. The approach would provide the necessary safeguards to ensure balance was achieved for the council’s support before enforcement strategic approach

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor McWilliams welcomed the clarity that the Housing Enforcement team would work with charities to protect vulnerable residents from harm.

Councillor M Airey responded that he would ensure enforcement action would only ever be the last option when a vulnerable resident refused to engage.

i) Councillor Majeed asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Councillor Dudley responded that the council was investing in homes, education, leisure, public realm and infrastructure in order to bring forward sustainable regeneration for the town. The redevelopment of the site known as Vicus Way, as a ground plus four storey car park, had been planned as part of the wider parking strategy to provide much needed infrastructure for the regeneration of the town of Maidenhead.

The car park would be used to replace parking spaces that would be lost as part of the infrastructure improvements to Maidenhead Station Approach (in the middle of next year 80 spaces would go) and the additional requirements for local businesses and commuters. The site was a predominately light industrial area, with easy access to the station and provided for an ideal site for car parking.

The planning application had dealt with transport, environmental and planning considerations. It had also taken into consideration its surrounding environment, and the need to assist the employment use of the area. The report was in the public domain, with a recommendation for approval. The over-riding consideration when speaking to most residents was to provide more parking for the town. There was also a large proportion of local businesses who were seeking additional car parking in order to provide for and retain staff.

The Vicus Way car park allowed the council to free up space in town centre car parks currently occupied by season and permit holders who would be able to move to the new Vicus Way car park, giving more available space for shoppers and businesses in the town centre. The car park would provide 503 much needed good quality permanent parking spaces and 26 blue badge spaces.

The council had a waiting list of businesses for spaces:

· Maersk - 200 spaces

· Lane 9 - 100 spaces

· 3 Mobile - 50 spaces

· Doug Stenning - 25 spaces

· NHS - 50 spaces

· Crossrail – 100 spaces

The total waiting list for car parking permits was therefore 525 spaces minimum. In addition there were multiple individual applications for parking permits for Hines Meadow and Stafferton Way, which were currently sold out.

To create a vibrant new town new parking provision was needed, to give residents the town they deserved.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Majeed commented that residents of Oldfield had been checking car parking figures every morning on the board outside the Broadway car park. It regularly showed 1000 spaces available at 9am. He asked if there was therefore a real need for more parking?

Councillor Dudley responded that he had just answered the question.