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

Will you commit to supporting the expansion of the Cox Green Community Centre car park, as per the recent petition which gathered almost 500 signatures from local residents?

b)   Councillor McWilliams will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy and Housing

Will you commit to supporting the resurfacing of Cox Green Lane as part of our commitment to spend £50m on our roads?

c)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection:

The Wraysbury Drain is over two miles of ancient and legally protected watercourse that has gone dry. How much RBWM money has been spent on maintaining this channel without actually fixing the problem?

d)   Councillor Bond will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

What process was followed when deciding to combine the Lead Member for Children’s Services role with the Adult Services and Health portfolios, and will he undertake to publish the results of the ‘local test of assurance’ to demonstrate ‘the focus on outcomes for children and young people will not be weakened or diluted’, as per the Department for Education guidance?

e)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

In last year’s budget there was a line “CC52 Clewer & Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvements £350,000”. On enquiring how this money was invested officers tell me that £386,943 was spent so there appears to have been a £36,943 or 11% overspend. How was this overspend allowed to happen and can you ensure us that you will not overspend again this year?

(The Member responding has up to two minutes to address Council. No supplementary question shall be raised)

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

Will you commit to supporting the expansion of the Cox Green Community Centre car park, as per the recent petition which gathered almost 500 signatures from local residents?

Councillor Rayner responded that the car park was not part of the Royal Borough estate; it was part of the school site. Although it was recognised as a popular local community centre and youth centre, it was therefore not appropriate for the council to provide funding. In April 2018 officers looked at the options to expand the car park. Since then the school had built 16 more car park spaces which had alleviated pressure at peak times. A figure of £20,000 has been identified in this year’s capital budget to enable a detailed feasibility and design study to take place.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor McWilliams asked whether,  following the £20,000 allocated, Councillor Rayner would commit to reconvening the round table to discuss future options.

Councillor Rayner responded that the council would always consider new ideas; following the results of the feasibility the council would determine the next steps.

b)   Councillor McWilliams asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy and Housing

Will you commit to supporting the resurfacing of Cox Green Lane as part of our commitment to spend £50m on our roads?

Councillor Johnson responded that the council had committed to investment in infrastructure and would invest £50m over four years to deliver infrastructure before housing and development. In addition, the council had recently introduced further investment to fix potholes within 24 hours.

With respect to the specifics of Cox Green Lane, the road resurfacing programme for 2019/20 had already been approved. However, he had requested that this road would be added to the reserve programme and resurfaced as soon as possible.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor McWilliams explained that he and Councillor Haseler had committed to the people of Cox Green to push to expand the resurfacing programme, he therefore asked the Lead Member if he would come on a tour of the ward to see other roads

Councillor Johnson responded that he would be delighted to join ward councillors on a tour.

c)    Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection:

The Wraysbury Drain is over two miles of ancient and legally protected watercourse that has gone dry. How much RBWM money has been spent on maintaining this channel without actually fixing the problem?

Councillor Cannon responded that in 2014 the Royal Borough commissioned a study of the Wraysbury Drain, and completed work which emerged from the study during 2015. The works included essential ditch clearance and regrading at a number of locations along the Wraysbury and Horton Drains, including the dive centre and The Splash. 

The contractor completed 12 weeks work on both the Horton and Wraysbury Drains between September and November 2015. Sections were cleared of vegetation and other sections received silt clearance.  In addition debris was cleared at several locations.  30 skips were used to remove the arisings. The work was paid on a ‘dayworks rate’ for the gang and vehicles

Approximately £125,000 had been invested by the Royal Borough over a number of years. An ongoing commitment to maintenance was required to address a range of inter-connected issues, including the lack of water which had negative ecological and wildlife impacts. In addition, access over private land was often required, which had proved frustrating and had delayed works in some cases.

The current focus of activity was to repair the weir adjacent to, and to the south side of the railway line, approximately 150m upstream of the bridge. This would assist in managing the water levels in the immediate vicinity of Wraysbury. He was pleased to report that work had started and the contractor would continue until all works had been completed. Following completion, the impact on water levels would be evaluated which would inform a further programme of prioritised clearance and maintenance in partnership with the parish council and adjoining landowners.

In parallel the council had sought legal advice to clarify the council’s, and riparian owners’, responsibilities for the watercourse under the Inclusions Act to ensure that all parties were meeting their obligations.

Councillor Larcombe confirmed that he did not have a supplementary question.

d)   Councillor Bond asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

What process was followed when deciding to combine the Lead Member for Children’s Services role with the Adult Services and Health portfolios, and will he undertake to publish the results of the ‘local test of assurance’ to demonstrate ‘the focus on outcomes for children and young people will not be weakened or diluted’, as per the Department for Education guidance?

Councillor Dudley responded that Councillor Carroll held an undergraduate degree, a Masters and an MBA. The overview and scrutiny structure mirrored the Lead Member portfolio, bringing adults and children’s services together. The administration strongly believed that better care and more seamless processes could be created in terms of the migration from children’s to adult services. The integration of the Lead Member portfolios would allow oversight of this process, He would be delighted to publish the test of assurance and sit down with Councillor Bond and officers to discuss.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Bond commented that he had looked at other council’s test of assurance and most had produced a comprehensive report giving their thinking. He asked if the Lead Member had seen examples from other councils?

Councillor Dudley responded that he had seen the borough’s report and it was very detailed.

e)    Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

In last year’s budget there was a line “CC52 Clewer & Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvements £350,000”. On enquiring how this money was invested officers tell me that £386,943 was spent so there appears to have been a £36,943 or 11% overspend. How was this overspend allowed to happen and can you ensure us that you will not overspend again this year?

Councillor Hilton responded that this was the first time in his long experience that a Councillor has raised, as an issue, the spending of more money in their ward rather than less. However, the Councillor raised a serious issue of budgetary control. New in his role his focus up to now had been on the revenue budget, but when he turned his attention to capital this was exactly the sort of question he would be asking.

There were two projects for the Dedworth area, one termed Pave Dedworth and the other Clewer & Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvement. The total commitment was £450,000 with £70,000 of the Pave Dedworth project slipping into the 2019/20 programme. The most up to date information projected a £56,000 overspend, rather more than the sum in the councillor’s question.

He believed that the Clewer & Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvements project was made up of a number of individual parts and it could be that the estimated costs were low. No detailed work had been done but, with the assistance of the Head of Finance, the overspend would be investigated. He suspected capital monitoring could be improved and he had asked the Head of Finance to review the process to identify improvements and take the necessary action to make capital monitoring more robust. He would write to Councillor Davey when he had more detailed information on the overspend.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey commented that 14 roads were updated at a cost of £215,000; four paths at a cost of £26,000; £25,000 was spent on Sutherland Grange and £21,000 was spent on Spencer Denny. These were all random amounts, there were no projects as such that capital money could be allocated to, for example a swimming pool, where an overspend would be more expected.

Councillor Hilton responded that if there was a significant project, energy was put into estimating the cost and therefore it was more likely to be accurate. If there was a string of projects there may be a greater risk of error. However he would write to Councillor Davey with what exactly happened.