Agenda item - Public Questions

Public Questions

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 23 April 2019 7.30 pm (Item 113.)

a) Jo Smith of Belmont Ward will ask the following question of Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

Despite a Freedom of Information request being submitted, residents still do not know who made the decision to change the SEN funding formula which resulted in all of RBWM's central additional SEN support fund going to just 7 schools instead of being proportionally split according to actual numbers of SEN pupils as was previously the case. Can you now advise who proposed this change and which body made the decision, including which named Councillors approved the change, and how residents can challenge/change the formula for future years?

b) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

A first responder reported to Councillor Dudley deep alarm that RBWM is permanently closing the right turn out of Queen St. Why did you decide to do no consultations with emergency services, or residents in Boyn Hill, before agreeing to this detrimental change and do you agree that it will add time to medical interventions and is potentially dangerous?

c) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Targowska, Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT:

What are the key reasons you had to justify banning (from May) the long standing constitutional public right to ask supplementary questions of Lead Members at full Council meetings?

d) Sharon Bunce of St Mary’s ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Firstly are the new Nicholson's owners, Tikehou Capital, to be the sole funders of the Nicholson re-development, if so are they under contract to complete this project, and secondly what liabilities would the council have to pick up if the development is not completed?

e) Jacob Cotterill of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council.

What steps has the council taken - and will it take in future - to oppose the punitive cuts imposed on the budgets of all local authorities by central Government?

f) Tom Baker of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Following the motion passed in this chamber, a year ago tomorrow, to future proof the services of Maidenhead Community Centre in a new location. I would like to know the progress made towards; Free parking to retain existing volunteers, accessibility for existing users and a drop off point for the guardians to see young users entering the premises.

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

a) Jo Smith of Belmont Ward asked the following question of Councillor N. Airey, Lead Member for Children’s Services:

Councillor N. Airey responded that the questioner had referenced the ‘SEND funding formula’ as a single item. It was far from that straight forward therefore she would explain: The Royal Borough received about £114m every year to fund education in the borough. About £80m of that went straight to mainstream schools to meet the needs of their pupils, including a contribution to the costs of every child with additional needs (known as the ‘Notional SEN Budget’). A further £18.5m was described as the ‘high needs block’ and every penny (and more) was spent to support children with additional needs through a range of services such as behaviour and wellbeing support; provision of special schools such as Manor Green; specialist places for the most complex children, and so called “top ups” for those pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) in mainstream schools.

Schools were expected to provide £6,000 of support to every child with an EHCP from their delegated budget. The question related to £105,000 (or 0.5%) of the High Needs Block budget which was allocated to support schools where the delegated ‘Notional SEN budget’ was higher than the budget formula allocated. Any leftover was distributed in support of inclusion, which was historically on a straight pro-rata basis.

The budget line was part of the annual budget setting process for schools which took place through the statutory meeting called the Schools Forum, which was involved in every decision. The regulations in this area were manifold and complex and there were a range of decisions that fell to the Schools Forum, some Forum Members or to the local authority through the Director of Children’s Services (DCS) and the whole set was monitored by the Department for Education.

Following the joint area SEND review by Ofsted and the CQC in July 2017, the council recommitted to its local priority of inclusion in mainstream schools. As a result options to support those leading the way were discussed with a number of schools and at the Schools Forum, and as a result the Director made the final decision to implement this support in financial year 2017/18.

At the October 2018 census there were 350 pupils in RBWM mainstream schools with EHCPs. At £6,000 each, that was £2.1m of school budget. It was then logical that the impact of this cost on a school was impacted by the total number of pupils in a school and the number of pupils with an EHCP and this could be expressed as a percentage. Nationally 2.9% of pupils have an EHCP. In RBWM only seven mainstream schools had a rate higher than this, with three of these in excess of 5%. Three schools had a rate of zero: that is no pupils with an EHCP.

The seven schools (Cheapside Primary, Homer First, Riverside Primary, Bisham Primary, St Luke’s Primary, Altwood Secondary and Holyport College) had 78 pupils with an EHCP between them and spent £468,000 of their budget to support them. That was an average cost to each school of £66,000. The remaining 60 schools supported the other 272 pupils at an average cost per school of £27,000.

The distribution of the additional funding reduced the average cost for the seven most inclusive schools to £53,000 which was still double the cost of schools with lower rates of pupils with EHCPs. The decision supported those schools who were able to be the most inclusive.

In both 2017/18 and 2018/19, the allocations were communicated to all schools and there had been no complaints from any of them. If parents wished to influence a change then they could communicate with the representatives of the Schools Forum as this was one element of a larger budget as previously explained. Schools could advise who was the representative for their school on the Forum and the meeting minutes and papers were published on the website.

With regards to the FOI request, the only reference the council had to a question on this topic was received via the ‘whatdotheyknow.com’ service in the name of another member of the public. It included the question ‘When was the mechanism for February 2019 approved and who by?’ The reply email was sent to the address provided on 14 March at 11:41am, 12 days ahead of the FOI deadline, and this included two attachments with all of the information provided.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Smith requested that she receive a written response to her question, given the level of detail. She would then take up the issue with the Schools Forum. Her concern was that by allocating the funding by the number of SEN pupils, the council was running the risk that this may reduce inclusion as parents with SEN children would be more likely to send their child to these schools.

Councillor N. Airey responded that she would arrange for a written response to be sent. It was not the intention of the council to concentrate SEN pupils. The decision to allocate in the way described had been a decision of the Schools Forum two years running. The Forum had not raised the concern but she would take it back to the Director of Children’s Services as a resident concern.

b) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Councillor Bicknell responded that the Maidenhead Station scheme, which was currently being delivered, aimed to improve links between the station and the town centre and support the increased passenger numbers from the Elizabeth Line and the broader regeneration programme. The project would enhance the public realm; deliver much wider walkways and new public spaces; provide a more direct crossing route between the town centre and station; improve facilities for bus users and cyclists (including a new 300 plus cycle parking hub) Changes to the road network were being delivered to support the overall project, including the removal of the right-turn movement from Queen Street.

This was one of a number of changes which had been assessed through the traffic modelling, the outputs of which are combined with an assessment of all impacts and considered in overall terms for the town rather than in isolation. It was understandable that concerns were raised and Cabinet would, therefore, be considering a detailed technical note on the specific change at its meeting on Thursday 25 April 2019.

In addition, any changes to the highway network which required traffic regulation orders were required to follow a formal legal process which involved engagement with the emergency services. For this project changes had been consulted upon and no objections have been received from South Central Ambulance Service.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that Councillor Dudley had said in February that it was fair to say the council should pick up concerns and they should be analysed and reviewed. A lot of people were talking about bridges or a footway – were these considered as part of the change?

Councillor Bicknell responded that a bridge was considered but although it would be financially viable, there was not enough room. Further consultation would take place therefore it was not set in concrete and there was room for more debate.

c) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Targowska, Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT:

What are the key reasons you had to justify banning (from May) the long standing constitutional public right to ask supplementary questions of Lead Members at full Council meetings?

Councillor Targowska explained that a Local Government Association Peer Review had taken place at the council in September 2017, which recommended a review of the Constitution. She had been appointed as Chairman of a cross-party working group; she had invited any Member of the Council to take part. The working group made recommendations to full Council in June 2018 having looked at a number of areas including rules of procedure. Although not originating as a recommendation of the Working Group, feedback from briefings to councillors outside the Working Group included comments around disappointment that Lead Members felt they were not always in a position to provide members of the public with the information they were asking for at meetings. Members recognised that people took time out of their busy day to attend meetings and wherever possible councillors should be able to answer questions publically. Officers did a fantastic job in assisting Members in preparing a pack of material for pre-registered and supplementary questions. They did this by preparing a lot of material that they thought could potentially come up as a supplementary question, but this could be something of a guessing game. Inevitably, it was not always possible to predict what would be asked and on some occasions a written answer had to be given. She was aware that members of the public often came with pre-prepared supplementary questions. The change was designed to ensure wherever possible, councillors could provide full answers at the meeting.

Councillor Targowska explained that she had seen Mr Hill’s letter to the Maidenhead Advertiser that raised concern that this was a freedom of speech issue. The administration had been at the forefront of transparency and had made every effort to make council meetings as accessible as possible including streaming meetings on Periscope.

However she understood the concern and was happy to revisit the decision. She was not standing for re-election but the next Lead Member for the portfolio would bring a report to Council in June recommending that supplementary public questions be allowed at full Council.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that he was sure the Lead Member would be grateful for the e-petition on the subject that had been started. He asked why the threshold for bringing a petition for debate to full council had been raised from 1000 to 1500.

Councillor Targowska responded that she would provide a response in writing.

d) The Mayor asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council, on behalf of Sharon Bunce of St Mary’s ward:

Councillor Dudley responded that the council expected Tikehau Capital would fund the redevelopment of the shopping centre. Tikehau Capital had access to very significant resources as they were an asset management and investment group, which managed €22.0 billion of assets (as at 31 December 2018), with shareholders’ equity of €2.3 billion (as at 30 June 2018).

The Council would fund the building of a new car park, which had already been approved. Funding of in the region of £35m had been included in the capital programme for this project. The new car park would be built before the existing one was demolished.

Tikehau Capital, with the cooperation of Areli Real Estate, completed the purchase of the lease and 50% of the freehold of Nicholson’s Shopping Centre in February following extensive due diligence. The council owned the remaining 50% of the freehold. The Council had agreed heads of terms with them which would form the basis of a contract to include the council’s ownership within a future redevelopment. The agreed heads of terms set out:

· The process for the sale of the council’s part ownership of the shopping centre and ownership of Central House which would lead to a significant capital receipt for the council as well as a revenue return during the redevelopment period.

· The building of a new car park at what would be likely to be a substantially reduced cost than under previous plans through a land swap.

· The existing Nicholson’s car park remaining in use until a new car park was completed.

Cabinet would consider a report on this at their meeting on 25 April 2019 and if approved detailed work would progress. One of the recommendations would be changed to say that the ultimate deal when documentation was completed would be brought to full Council for approval.

Under the plans the Council would not have any liabilities for the shopping centre redevelopment were it not to progress. The Council had already committed to building a new car park and could progress this independently were this to be required.

The resources and expertise brought by Tikehau Capital and their partners Areli Real Estate provided a once in a generation opportunity to regenerate this town centre location for the benefit of local residents and businesses and was a fundamental part of the overall regeneration of Maidenhead.

e) The Mayor asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council, on behalf of Jacob Cotterill of Oldfield ward:

What steps has the council taken - and will it take in future - to oppose the punitive cuts imposed on the budgets of all local authorities by central Government?

Councillor Dudley responded that central government had not imposed punitive cuts on local authorities however the council was always striving for an efficient council with high quality services. This was the reason the council had the lowest council tax outside London.

f) The Mayor asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council on behalf of Tom Baker of Furze Platt ward:

Following the motion passed in this chamber, a year ago tomorrow, to future proof the services of Maidenhead Community centre in a new location. I would like to know the progress made towards; Free parking to retain existing volunteers, accessibility for existing users and a drop off point for the guardians to see young users entering the premises.

Councillor Dudley responded that the Council was working closely with Maidenhead Community Centre over providing premises in the new York Road development; when the issue was debated at full Council it had been agreed that this would be seamless and equivalent or greater in size. A recent meeting with the Trustees was very positive and the council expected to both replicate and improve on many of the advantages of the current centre, enabling users to continue and grow their activities in brand new, accessible facilities. The council hoped to shortly finalise an agreement following further discussions with both the Trustees and current leaseholders which would include discussion on local parking options. Local drop off points would be available close to the venue although not in sight of the entrance due to its location.

The cost of parking for volunteers was a good point. If his party formed the next administration he would be keen to look at what could be done to support volunteers in the third sector in this respect.