Agenda item - Members' Questions

Members' Questions

a) Councillor Price will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adults, Children and Health:

At the June Council meeting Cllr Carroll responded to the Motion re parking the Brett Bus on Council land. Will he clarify that his response was a list of issues needed to be considered SHOULD the bus be parked on Council Land, and in no way implied that the current operation of the bus was deficient in any regard.

b) Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Shelim, Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT:

What strategies and policies are in place to improve transparency across council departments by increasing the use of the very excellent Neighbourhood Maps that can be used by residents to see what RBWM is planning next and what work has been done?

c) Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Every week another concerned resident is asking questions about Maidenhead Road, in person and on social media. The LEP have made funding available for the A308 Corridor Review. When will the review take place and when will the results be ready for public consultation?

d) Councillor Haseler will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning:

Given the unanimous refusal by the Maidenhead Area Development Management Panel of the 5 Claires Court & Berkeley Homes Planning applications for Cannon Lane, College Avenue and Ray Mill Road. Will the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead undertake to robustly defend this decision at any appeal by the applicants to the Planning Inspectorate or Secretary of State?

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

Many residents work extremely hard in their gardens each year and look forward to us judging their efforts in the Garden In Bloom Awards. This year has seen cutbacks by not issuing medals and certificates to the winners, this has caused disappointment. Will you please reconsider at least the awarding of certificates to the winners of Garden In Bloom Awards?

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

The answer to my question about lack of water in Wraysbury Drain at our Council Meeting on 25th June revealed that £125,000 had been invested in maintenance and that further works were required. The weir near Wraysbury Station was repaired in July. What is the present situation please?

g) Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Acting Leader of the Council:

The Landing site is progressing well with the demolition and hoarding constructed along King Street. I am disappointed to see at least two large freshly planted planters now blocked in behind the hoarding along with several hanging baskets, could you let me know if there is a plan to rescue these and reposition elsewhere?

h) Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, LeaderMember for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Regarding the St Marks Road DYL and permit parking scheme; my understanding is that the original scheme was not supported by residents and businesses at consultation however after stripping back business owners’ comments from the consultation it gained approval at 52%. Is this the case and if so why was the scheme implemented without taking business owners’ comments into consideration?

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

Can the Lead Member confirm that Cipfa have been brought in to assess RBWM finances and also clarify to all members what their findings were.

j) Councillor Jones will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Acting Leader of the Council:

Will the change in Leader of the Council bring about a more collegiate attitude from the administration and result in having respect for the scrutiny role, due regard to transparency and working together for the benefit of the council and residents.

k) Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning:

What is the procedure used to decide whether or not Members of an Area Development Management Panel need to conduct a site visit prior to determining a planning application?

l) Councillor W. Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, LeaderMember for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Does the administration believe that the outsourcing of highways engineers has been a success and do the services provide good value for money?

m) Councillor Knowles will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, LeaderMember for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Can you confirm that the list of highway work has been arrived at by assigning priority of need, that is for the road surface balancing condition and time since last full repair; and that there has been no bias towards Conservative voting wards?

n) Councillor W. Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Ascot and Finance

Councillors recently granted planning permission for the £15m Oaks leisure centre against the recommendation of officers. Can the Lead Member advise us how this will be funded and what impact it will have on reserves?

o) Councillor C. Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adults, Children and Health:

Could the Lead Member update us as to whether the change in operations with Optalis will affect our residents in the RBWM?

p) Councillor C. Da Costa will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adults, Children and Health:

Recent figures published on child property have shown a substantial rise in the Borough. Maidenhead’s child poverty is at 22.1% and Windsor’s at 20.7%. Can the Lead Member explain what measures have been put in place to support these families?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to two 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 one minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

a) Councillor Price asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adults, Children and Health:

Councillor Carroll responded that he was pleased to provide clarification that the list of issues he had itemised in his response at the June Council meeting were those that would need to be considered should the bus be parked on council land. Councillor Johnson had also given information on the health and safety aspects. The Brett Fund was highly valued and he was pleased that cross party working was taking place.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Price asked if the Lead Member would confirm if the borough had been in discussion with the Brett Fund about the bus and its operation and how the borough could help find a permanent site for the bus, as the previous Leader has promised to do.

Councillor Carroll responded that Councillor Johnson had written to the Brett Fund. Officers in Adult Social Care had also made contact and had discussed how the council could assist on issues such as parking and safeguarding. He was very keen to meet with representatives along with the new Head of Housing who was due to start shortly. There was a need to challenge aspirations and ambitions.

b) Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Shelim, Lead Member for HR, Legal and IT:

Councillor Rayner, on behalf of Councillor Shelim, responded that over time the council had invested in developing a number of excellent on-line maps that were widely used by council departments, residents, businesses and visitors. Although there was no documented strategy or policy in place regarding the ongoing development of the maps, she assured Councillor Davey that the council were planning to continue to develop them to provide both additional functionality, and different layers of information.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey explained that local residents had shared concerns on social media about trees being removed for 5G signals. He asked for applications for new telephone masts to be shown on maps. He also asked for a list of proposed maps and a schedule for production.

Councillor Rayner responded that she would raise these issues with officers.

c) Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Councillor Johnson responded that the council had secured money from the planning delivery fund to undertake a study of the A308 corridor. This was being undertaken in partnership with the adjoining highway authorities Buckinghamshire and Surrey, echoing the earlier discussion about a regional transport strategy. The scope had been agreed and a procurement process was underway to appoint a consultant to undertake the work. The nature of the study meant that it could not be undertaken over the summer, due to unrepresentative traffic conditions. The study would seek to identify all of the existing issues and work to address them. Councillor Johnson was happy to write to Councillor Davey with a more detailed response. This was a major strategic transport issue for the borough and one that needed action sooner rather than later.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey asked for further information on the procurement process including details of the ITT.

Councillor Johnson responded that he would ask the relevant officer to send a summary of the position.

d) Councillor Haseler asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning:

Given the refusal by the Maidenhead Area Development Management Panel of the 5 Claires Court & Berkeley Homes Planning applications for Cannon Lane, College Avenue and Ray Mill Road. Will the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead undertake to robustly defend this decision at any appeal by the applicants to the Planning Inspectorate or Secretary of State?

Councillor Rayner, on behalf of Councillor Coppinger, responded that the borough would robustly defend the decision.

Councillor Haseler confirmed he did not have a supplementary question.

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

Councillor Rayner responded that the Garden in Bloom scheme was a fantastic community scheme and she had very much enjoyed taking part in the judging. With the council’s biodiversity emphasis the contribution of residents’ flowers and gardens to the wildlife environment was very much valued. She would certainly allow for certificates and medals for the winners.

Councillor Haseler confirmed that he had no supplementary question.

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

Councillor Cannon responded that as Councillor Larcombe was aware, works had been undertaken over a number of years including ditch clearance and regrading at a number of locations, silt clearance and clearance of vegetation and debris. Since the question in June, he had arranged for the weir to be repaired at the top entry of the drain and subsequent community clearance events had been undertaken. The next steps were to evaluate the impact of the work that had been done and prioritise activity when it would be most beneficial. Input of the local community and landowners would progress in the next stage

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that he had tried for over a year to get water into the channel. The Wraysbury drain was incapable of serving its purpose because it had not been looked after. He asked which authority was responsible for ensuring the conveyance capacity was maintained to an acceptable standard.

Councillor Cannon responded that the drain was a man-made covered by the Enclosures Awards Act 1799. It was the borough’s responsibility to maintain the drain however but because of changes in legislation, ownership and work done it was a very complex legal and historic problem. He had a series of further meetings with lawyers on the subject and when a conclusion had been reached it would be circulated to all parties.

g) Councillor Singh asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Acting Leader of the Council:

Councillor Stimson, on behalf of Councillor Coppinger, responded that the planters had been left because there were live services underneath therefore they could not be moved when the hoardings were put up. Now the developer was aware, if Councillor Singh wanted to advise them where the planters should be moved to they would oblige.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Singh suggested they be moved to the new temporary car park on the corner of King Street.

Councillor Stimson responded by asking Councillor Singh ‘Why don’t you just ask them yourself?’.

h) Councillor Singh asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, LeaderMember for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Councillor Johnson responded that consultation responses relating to the introduction of parking restrictions in the area were broken down and analysed by individual roads and the votes for specific areas counted; a detailed copy of the analysis was available and he would be very happy to share the information.

The only responses which were identified and discounted were those from outside of the area, which included those made by business customers. Therefore, he believed that the consultation was thoroughly and fairly analysed in order to agree a scheme which reflected the support of local residents. In addition, he was very supportive of local business and valued them as part of the community. Once a new Lead Member for parking was in place, the issue could be explored in more detail to identify any tweaks to the implementation.

Councillor Singh confirmed he had no supplementary question.

i) Councillor Hill, on behalf of Councillor Jones, asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Ascot and Finance:

Can the Lead Member confirm that Cipfa have been brought in to assess RBWM finances and also clarify to all members what their findings were.

Councillor Hilton responded that driven by a lack of clarity around issues prompted by a question to Council and after talking to me, with my total support the Managing Director commissioned a short piece of work by CIPFA. The brief was to establish the facts around one capital project and to comment upon financial governance. Councillor Jones had seen the report. The concerns that CIPFA raised fell into three categories: revenue budget, capital budget and strategies and policies that did not comply with the CIPFA code. The council was advised that the Treasury Management Strategy and Capital Strategy were non-compliant. The Treasury management report presented earlier in the meeting was compliant therefore immediate progress was being made.

CIPFA also advised that the Medium-Term Financial Planning (MTFP) process did not reflect the corporate plan as it should in order to reflect best practice. The 2019/20 budget reports did not include a statement on the robustness of estimates and level of reserves.

Councillor Hilton had asked for and received a number of examples of best practice and these issues should be quickly resolved. However, on the level of reserves, he shared the concern in the CIPFA report that the council should look to increase reserves and it was planning to do so.

With regard to the revenue budget Councillor Hilton shared the frustration that the finance update reports carried little detail. For example, the draft September finance report that was reviewed at Cabinet Briefing disclosed £512,000 of pressures.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Hilton be allowed to speak for more than 2 minutes in responding to the Member question as permitted under Part 2 C11.7 of the constitution, given the importance of the subject matter.

Councillor Hilton kept a spreadsheet of known pressures and therefore had advised Cabinet that there were known pressures of £951,000 and other very significant pressures in Adult Care Services, Children’s Services and parking. It was essential that the administration had the financial information it needed to be able to make prudent in-year decisions and he assured Councillor Hill that the September monitoring report offered full disclosure. This was the second significant change in financial government that he had made in his term.

He found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to track and monitor capital projects. CIPFA had highlighted that the capital programme monitoring needed to highlight scheme variances or slippages and offered no explanations; this needed to change. CIPFA also questioned the Capital Programme approval and monitoring process, advising that all schemes should go through a prioritisation process and have a robust business case, which Councillor Hilton wholeheartedly endorsed. To facilitate this, a lot of old projects with minimal outstanding funding were being closed down, which would make tracking easier. A revised reporting format was work in progress. Councillor Hilton concluded that he had told Members everything that was in the CIPFA report.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hill commented that given the concerns consistently raised by Councillor Jones, could Councillor Hilton give his absolute assurance that in the last four years the Conservative administration had managed its finances, budgets and governance in a legal, transparent, professional, competent way with no circumvention of prudent policy.

Councillor Hilton responded, yes to the best of his knowledge.

j) Councillor Jones asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Acting Leader of the Council:

Councillor Johnson responded that, yes, absolutely this would be the case.

Councillor Hill confirmed he had no supplementary question.

k) Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning:

What is the procedure used to decide whether or not Members of an Area Development Management Panel need to conduct a site visit prior to determining a planning application?

Councillor Cannon, on behalf of Councillor Coppinger, responded that in the case of very large scale and complex schemes the Head of Planning would identify that the Panel would benefit from a site visit and it would be organised in advance of the meeting with the Members of the Panel accompanied by officers as required by the Council constitution. The Members’ Planning Code of Conduct covered the matter of a Panel resolving to conduct site visits and stated that “A decision by a Panel to carry out a formal site visit normally only takes place where it is felt by the Panel that decisions cannot be taken without viewing the site and adjoining properties” and went on to say “The purpose of a site visit is for Members to use the visit for fact finding to gain further knowledge of the development proposal, the application site and its relationship to adjacent sites.”

As Cllr Larcombe was aware the presentation to Panel by the officer usually involved the display of photographs of a site and plans submitted with the application, the Panel should be clear that it is deferring a decision for a site visit in order to see something which it cannot see from the material presented.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe suggested that the call-in form be amended to include an additional question as to whether there was a need for a site visit.

Councillor Cannon responded that he would take this suggestion back to the Head of Planning.

l) Councillor W. Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, LeaderMember for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Does the administration believe that the outsourcing of highways engineers has been a success and do the services provide good value for money?

Councillor Johnson responded.

The borough had recently shifted towards a commissioning model. This approach led to highway services being outsourced through a competitive process. He was broadly happy that the change had resulted in good value for money. A report to Cabinet in October would demonstrate that Volker Highways were hitting the majority of their key performance indicators and delivering services within budget. For highway maintenance the council was third out of 16 in the south-east and seventh out of 113 participating authorities nationally. There was always room for continued improvement and the council would continue to review the contract. He was convinced that it was the right decision to move to a commissioning model for highways.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor W. Da Costa commented that there had been a number of complaints about road dressing that had deteriorated and broken down in just a few months and had yet to be resurfaced. Given the pattern across the borough, how could Councillor Johnson describe this as a success?

Councillor Johnson responded that one type of surface dressing that had been used in the last year had proved unsatisfactory. A new revised formula had been trialled recently in Moneyrow Green. The results were being analysed before other affected areas were also assessed and resurfaced where necessary. The council would not accept substandard work form its contractors.

m) Councillor Knowles asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, LeaderMember for Infrastructure, Transport Policy, Housing and Property:

Councillor Johnson responded that the administration had been elected on a manifesto commitment of investing £50m in highways. The 24 hour pothole pledge had recently been introduced. The resurfacing programme underway for 2019/20 had been set by the previous Lead Member. There had been no bias to any ward. A robust technical assessment of all roads was undertaken; some were put on the reserve list based on deliverability. He would be happy to show Councillor Knowles the breakdown of spending by wards. He highlighted that his own ward had a relatively low level of investment.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Knowles said that he would be interested in seeing the breakdown; it would help allay the claims about bias. It would also be useful to publicise the decision making that determined priorities.

Councillor Johnson responded that that in terms of the capital programme 2020/21 that was currently been working on by officers, a report would go to Cabinet in October and therefore all Members would have an opportunity to hold Lead Members to account. Going forward all works would of course be undertaken on the basis of technical assessment. There was of course a limited budget and a large highways network. There would always be the aspiration to do more but Councillor Johnson highlighted to Members that there had been areas of significant investment which had resulted in marked improvement. He encouraged councillors to speak to relevant Lead Members if they had a suggestion for a capital scheme within their ward.

n) Councillor W. Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Ascot and Finance

Councillor Hilton responded that Councillor Da Costa would be aware that it was perfectly acceptable for Councillors to form a different view to planning officers when determining planning applications. There were still a number of technical issues that needed to be resolved before permission was granted including the fact that, as the proposed development was in the Green Belt, it would be referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration.

If the council borrowed, it paid interest on the debt and the Minimum Revenue Provision. The MRP was an amount which a Council must charge to its revenue budget each year, to set aside a provision for repaying external borrowing. If the council were to borrow £15 million this would mean a charge of around £540,000 a year to the revenue budget which, without an equivalent level of receipts or savings, would be a charge on reserves.

The council needed to model and profile the finance required and match this to cash flows before proceeding. Ascot was described as a growth area and the Oaks was exactly the infrastructure that was needed to support that growth. For Councillor Hilton it was a priority but the strength of the council’s finances was the highest priority so there was much work to do before the project could be approved.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor W. Da commented that the proposals could potentially have a multi-million pound impact on reserves, which can only be replenished by increasing council tax or cutting services. CIPFA had already said the council reserves were too low.

Councillor Hilton responded that the council would not proceed with any project until it was sure of the financial position to do so.

o) Councillor C. Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adults, Children and Health:

Could the Lead Member update us as to whether the change in operations with Optalis will affect our residents in the RBWM?

Councillor Carroll responded that he had sent an email to all Members one month ago, however he was very pleased to have the opportunity to assure Members and residents that the changes in Optalis due to decisions made by Wokingham Borough Council in no way affected residents in the borough.

By way of background, Wokingham Borough Council made the decision to bring an element of statutory services that was currently delivered by Optalis back into the council. It was important to state that Wokingham remained fully committed to Optalis, and to Optalis continuing to deliver the significant amount of Wokingham’s adult social care services that remained in the company.

This decision had no impact on residents. The staff transferring back into Wokingham were not delivering any services to Royal Borough residents. The council remain committed to delivering the range of adult social care services through Optalis. The staff, from senior leaders to front line practitioners, were experienced, enthusiastic, dedicated and committed to delivering the best possible services for residents

Councillor C. Da Costa confirmed she had no supplementary question.

p) Councillor C. Da Costa asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adults, Children and Health:

Recent figures published on child poverty have shown a substantial rise in the Borough. Maidenhead’s child poverty is at 22.1% and Windsor’s at 20.7%. Can the Lead Member explain what measures have been put in place to support these families?

Councillor Carroll responded that the measures of poverty have risen across the country during the financial crisis and the borough was not immune. There were more families who despite their own hard work found that they fell into the definition of poverty. This often meant that they came to rely on the state for financial support which could include help with childcare, free school meals, help with home to school transport and pupil premium income for their schools. Services were in place to make sure families knew how to access these benefits. He was working with Children’s Services to see how communications could be improved.

The council had proudly continued to provide Children’s Centre services and youth services directly to residents and to support schools to make the most of pupil premium through the period of austerity. The council would continue to do this and he had already, since adding Children’s Services to his portfolio, started two initiatives.

He had asked officers to sharpen the focus of the early years’ services to maximise the life chances for vulnerable children through a more targeted “first 1,000 days” and youth service. He had also revised the role of the School Improvement Forum to have a critical focus on disadvantaged pupils. He would be looking to relaunch the vision at the next School Improvement Forum meeting. He invited colleagues to come along.

The council had a statutory duty to support children in need where their wellbeing was at risk. In line with the rest of England that demand continued to grow, with some elements connected to the pressures caused by poverty. The council would continue to support and invest in services for children.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor C. Da Costa commented that she had talked to families accessing food banks and who received free school meals. Some families were not doing so because of the stigma attached to having their child separated as a result. She asked the Lead Member to look at ways that children could obtain free school meals in a way that was invisible to others, to improve take up.

Councillor Carroll responded that he would discuss the issue with the Director of Children’s Services as the issue had been raised with him as well; he was aware of the impact of stigma. He would redouble efforts to ask officers to address the issue.