Agenda item

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor Davey

 

Since June ward councillors and a number of officers put a great deal of energy into making plans for a trial removal of Sutherland Grange Recycling Centre. This plan was pulled at the very last minute by Conservative Lead members. We will get back on track. However my issue is with the energy wasted before Lead Members voiced their thoughts.

 

This Council:

 

i) Should enhance its project management steps, ensuring a more efficient use of council time, officers and councillors alike.

ii) Agrees that Lead Members should make their thoughts known within the first few weeks of a project’s planning so that answers can be found to address their concerns before energy is wasted on bringing a plan together.

 

 

b)   By Councillor McWilliams:

 

The ambition of this council is to be as accessible as possible to residents.

 

This Council asks the Lead Member for Communications:

 

i)     To look at innovative ways to involve residents in council forums, such as Maidenhead/Windsor Town Forums, via social media.

ii)      To invest in new cameras and more effective microphone equipment to better live stream important council meetings across social media and for subsequent use.

 

 

c)    By Councillor Tisi

 

The three Maintained Nursery Schools in RBWM make an outstanding contribution to Early Years Education; particularly their impact on social mobility and support for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and the role that they play in raising the standard of other Early Years providers locally. All three nurseries are Ofsted Outstanding.

 

This Council:

 

i)     Recognises the higher costs faced by maintained nursery schools compared to other early years providers due to:

 

·         Higher staff qualification levels than private nurseries and childminder settings - Maintained nursery schools are required to employ qualified early years teachers and NNEB trained assistants.

·         Statutory requirements to employ a qualified Headteacher and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Coordinator (SENDco)

·         Being subject to business rates (unlike charity registered preschools) and higher utilities than home-based childminders;

·         and that securing guaranteed funding beyond 2020 is necessary to avoid their closure.

 

ii)       Supports the ‘Save Our Nursery Schools’ campaign and will write to the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, urging him to guarantee funding beyond 2020 for state funded nursery schools.

 

iii)   Recognises that Maintained Nursery Schools have at least the same statutory roles and staffing qualification requirements as maintained Primary and Secondary schools and should be treated in parity with those schools and therefore, resolves to introduce ongoing/permanent business rate relief for Maintained Nursery Schools within RBWM.

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

 

Motion a

 

Councillor Davey introduced his motion. He explained that he wished to amend the motion he had proposed as detailed in the agenda. Members noted the amended motion:

 

This Council:

 

i) Should enhance its project management steps, ensuring a more efficient use of council time, officers and councillors alike.

ii) Ensure appropriate training for all parties.

ii) Agrees that the key decision makers should make their thoughts known within the first few weeks of a project’s planning so that answers can be found to address their concerns before energy is wasted on bringing a plan together.

 

Councillor Davey explained that his experiences with the CC52 funding question and trial removal of the Sutherland Grange Re-cycling had made him question how projects were managed. As a new Independent Councillor he was allowed to express how he felt without the risk of being ostracised which he accepted was far more difficult for those representing national parties.

 

He wished to make it very clear he did not wish to offend anyone by bringing the motion to council. He was not interested in blaming other Members or officers. He came into the new environment with a passion for helping his fellow man, as a Rotarian with the mantra of “Service above Self”. He asked if he would be doing the best for his residents and his ward by not asking difficult, sometimes slightly embarrassing questions at council meetings.

 

His first question at council related to the CC52 Clewer & Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvements for £350,000 was treated with amusement. The minutes record that ‘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.’

 

A letter dated 16 August 2019, almost two months after his question stated that ‘There were irregularities in the approval of these projects, in that, the virement should not have taken place and the works on Spencer Denney and Parks, however valuable to the community, should not have been funded from CC52. I thank you again for your question which will lead to tighter control of the capital programme and in a few months, improved reporting.’

 

Councillor Davey commented that he had therefore been right in his observations and therefore right to flag them to council. A supplementary to that letter would be how long had this type of thing gone unnoticed or unreported? 

He was interested in better governance all round. Recent experience had shown that key decision makers needed to be involved sooner rather than later.

 

Officers needed the correct training both in project management but also in assertiveness and standing their own ground. Councillors needed to know the boundaries and respect that once a strategy had been formed, they should leave the ‘how’ to officers who then were given the power to push back when necessary. This would take time to get used to for those who had been used to dictating but it needed to happen sooner rather than later.

 

Councillor Davey suggested that the first thing that should be handed over was tarmac, allowing highways to sort out the highways in the best way. Then councillors could be coming up with strategies for generating more money that could be spent on highways, for example how 5G might allow the council to charge each vehicle a penny toll for driving through the borough along the M4.

 

There had been a number of recent social media posts and tweets featuring highways with words from Councillor Johnson. Councillor Davey felt this smacked of electioneering and made him want to respond political. Councillor Davey felt that such communications should be written by council officers with comments from other council officers.

 

By the same token, contractors needed to earn their money, not be looking for shortcuts to maximise profits. Profits should be agreed from the outset on a topic such as tarmac as part of procurement. 

 

Councillor Davey reiterated that he was not looking to blame anyone, he was looking to improve the environment in which officers worked. He appreciated it was not in his job description but when he saw something that did not appear to be working properly, then surely he had to question it or he was not doing the best for his residents or his ward.

 

Council, in his opinion, was the place to raise questions about transparency, openness and accountability.

 

Councillor Knowles seconded the motion.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa explained that the last administration moved a civic amenity site from Tinkers Lane to Sutherland Grange, which was a nature reserve.  Poor siting, overuse and fly-tipping were all issues. As a consequence pollution entered the Thames ecosystem and dangerous items were deposited at the site. CCTV would cost too much and the community Wardens could not enforce. Members worked with officers in the waste management team. Based on experiences in Ascot where a civic amenity site was removed for a short time, it was agreed there would be a trial to see if this reduced fly tipping or would be ineffective. Members spent hours going through all the details and options however then the Lead Member suddenly said no in what seemed to be a politically motivated decision.

 

Councillor Clark commented that Councillor W. Da Costa’s questions were useful however there were a number of errors in his statement. As Lead Member he had been made aware of Sutherland Grange on 24 July 2019 but he understood that other Members had been in discussion with officers since June. At no stage had he tried to suppress the democratic process or discussion. He spent a month in dialogue with officers about the certainty a trial closure would deliver some benefits. A number of residents had expressed concern about a potential withdrawal of the community facility.  He had made other Members and officers I was not minded to support the closure because of a lack of clarity on the benefits. A Freedom of Information request had been made so the information would be in the public domain. Local councillors were advised that he was not convinced that residents were in support of closure and officers were challenged to improve the site as a first option. He was aware of only three emails from people supporting closure. Councillor Clark believed that he had been totally transparent and fair. He commented that there was a lack of consultation by local councillors in Windsor. He did not see a lack of process or transparency in any of the communications he or officers had had with the local councillors.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa requested to make a personal explanation. He stated that he refuted the contention that local councillors had not been open and transparent; they had engaged with residents on many occasions in open discussion.

 

Councillor Clark stated that he was not aware of, or informed of how wide the consultation was.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa stated that she supported the motion. It was not clear at the site that everything that could be recycled at the site could now be done at the kerbside. Things that should not be left at the site were regularly left there. No enforcement was undertaken.

 

Councillor Davey commented that he did not wish to blame anyone about Sutherland Grange; the point was in general things were wrong. The finances were wrong; the figures he had been given were wrong. Project management needed to be managed better.

 

Councillor Hill referred Members to the issues that had arisen with the Stafferton Way link road project, which had gone over budget. The council had not been good at project management. The council needed to sharpen up skill so buy in support when this could save money. Officer training was needed, particularly in light of the regeneration projects in the town.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that Sutherland Grange was an example of a lack of communication causing issues. He suggested scoping requirements should be laid down. It was only right to equip officers with the skills needed through training.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that the motion was too vague to mean very much. He suggested it be withdrawn and discussions be held with the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel Chairman to see if a Task and Finish Group could look into the issue. The motion as written would not achieve what was desired.

 

Councillor Price commented that as new councillors they were still feeling their way. If they felt something should change they could speak to officers of the relevant Lead Member as appropriate. In the end she asked, who was the decision maker, the officer or the Lead Member? She was unsure and it would be helpful to know so time was not wasted.

 

Councillor Davey concluded that the purpose of the motion was to bring the issue into the public domain.

 

Members voted by a show of hands. The motion fell.

 

 

Motion b

 

Councillor McWilliams introduced his motion. He explained that at a recent Maidenhead Town Forum, it had been suggested that when residents should be able to contribute to meetings using social media. Periscope streaming was useful but limited and more could be done.  He suggested the council should invest in HD cameras and audio equipment.

 

Councillor Del Campo commented that all Members would get behind moves to improve accessibility for residents. However given the report on the financial situation she could not agree to recommendation ii because this effectively committed to spending without any scope or detail.

 

Councillor McWilliams agreed to amend recommendation ii) to read:

 

ii)      To invest in new cameras and more effective microphone equipment to better live stream important council meetings across social media and for subsequent use, subject to a detailed report to Cabinet.

 

Councillor Clark stated that he had knowledge of AV equipment and this would not be a big project. However information would be needed from professional, including the budget. The quality of the equipment would be important.

 

The Managing Director confirmed that the correct decision making process would be Cabinet for operational decisions and, dependent on the cost, either Cabinet or Council for approval of the capital budget.

 

Councillor Price commented that basic things did not happen in relation to the Town Forums, for example, representatives of resident groups were not invited to come to meetings. She felt that each Chairman should make a list of relevant organisations and invite people to meetings; she also felt that a record of those present should be taken.

 

Councillor Davey explained that being Social Media Week’s ‘Social Media Personality of the Year 2012’ he fully support Councillor McWilliams’ vision of making the council more accessible. Meetings were available via an online streaming service but the council should be helping residents access this technology via care homes, community groups, schools, at home and around the borough. It took a couple of minutes for someone who knew what to do to log on and start enjoying a ‘show’ if they had all the elements joined up. If they did not it could take an hour to work it all out, and the meeting was over.

 

A simple way like a web page on the council website that people could tune into, ensuring the site has adequate bandwidth to prevent buffering and irritations to ensure residents log on again, had to be the goal. Interactive would be a bonus so people could vote on a discussion or ask a question via their phone or television screen.

 

He had previously mentioned to officers that the minutes may not perfectly match the actual meeting. That was normal but as sound recordings were available, how could one track to the right point in the meeting to hear what someone had actually said and the way that they said it without having those all-important time stamps? One potential solution was YouTube which could auto translate, not perfectly, but it could be tweaked after to line things up properly.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa requested details of the capital threshold that had been mentioned. The Managing Director agreed to send an email detailing the relevant thresholds.

 

Councillor Haseler commented that the streaming of council meetings demonstrated transparency and accountability and would provide real time information for residents. Many residents were unable to attend meetings and streaming allowed them to see the meeting wherever they were.   He had received a lot of feedback from Cox Green residents following a recent Maidenhead Area Development Management Panel; the main concerns were the quality of picture and sound.

 

Councillor Singh supported the motion, particularly given the increase in town forum meetings. Live streaming that allowed residents to ask questions and get detailed answers form professional officers would be a real benefit.

 

Councillor Tisi commented that currently 8 people were watching the full Council meeting on Periscope; it would be good to increase the viewing figures. It would also be a good idea to have edited highlights.

 

Councillor Knowles suggested that the proposals needed to link in with the wider communications plan. He suggested an app could be developed for use during meetings.

 

Councillor Reynolds highlighted that a recent Maidenhead Area Development Management Panel meeting had used a HD camera with the footage viewable in a number of other meeting rooms.

 

It was proposed by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Haseler, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council asks the Lead Member for Communications:

 

i)     To look at innovative ways to involve residents in council forums, such as Maidenhead/Windsor Town Forums, via social media.

ii)  To invest in new cameras and more effective microphone equipment to better live stream important council meetings across social media and for subsequent use, subject to a detailed report to Cabinet.

 

Motion c

 

Councillor Tisi introduced her motion. She explained that following legal advice, she had made some amendments to the second and third point of my motion, which now read:

 

That this Council:

 

i)    Recognises the higher costs faced by maintained nursery schools compared to other early years providers due to:

 

·      Higher staff qualification levels than private nurseries and childminder settings - Maintained nursery schools are required to employ qualified early years teachers and NNEB trained assistants.

·      Statutory requirements to employ a qualified Headteacher and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Coordinator (SENDco)

·      Being subject to business rates (unlike charity registered preschools) and higher utilities than home-based childminders;

·      and that securing guaranteed funding beyond 2020 is necessary to avoid their closure.

 

ii)   Supports the ‘Save Our Nursery Schools’ campaign and will write to the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, urging him to guarantee funding beyond 2020 for state funded nursery schools and recognise that as they have at least the same statutory roles and staffing qualification requirements as maintained Primary and Secondary schools they are equal to other schools and should be enabled to benefit from the Designated Schools Grant for rate relief.

 

iii)      Request officers to undertake an urgent review into the options available at a local level to support funding for maintained nursery schools.

Councillor Tisi stated that the maintained nursery schools in the borough needed help. The borough was very lucky to have three council-run nursery schools, in her ward, Clewer East and in Furze Platt and Cookham. Their plight was one that as a ward councillor, educator and a parent she could not ignore. After changes to their funding formula in 2017 and the lack of guaranteed supplemental funding beyond 2020, their future hung in the balance.

Council run nursery schools usually served the most deprived parts of a community, giving priority to disadvantaged children and children with special educational needs and disabilities. They had a positive impact on social mobility and reduced inequality later in the education system while providing excellent free childcare to working parents.

The charity Early Education had pointed out that in 2018, maintained nursery schools had the highest percentage of children who were 'at risk' of developing special needs. Yet many of the children identified as 'at risk' at age 3, had caught up with their peers by age 5. Ultimately there was a positive association between pre-school quality and children leaving the 'at risk' category. It was no coincidence that over 96% of nursery schools were graded good or outstanding by Ofsted, including the ones in the borough, an accolade that the Lawns in Windsor had maintained in all inspections for the past 13 years.

Excellence in early years’ education came at a higher cost and maintained nursery schools had many of the same statutory requirements as any other maintained first, middle, primary or secondary schools. They employed head teachers and qualified early years’ teachers on local authority pay scales. Their teaching assistants were qualified nursery nurses and they must also employ a special educational needs coordinator .Furthermore, they were required to enter into certain service level agreements with the council, increasing their costs. Unlike other schools, nursery schools also paid full business rates but they were not businesses, they did not make a profit and were community assets. They were treated differently to other local schools, which had their business rates reimbursed from the designated schools grant, a strange and unfair anomaly. Unlike private voluntary and charity registered nurseries, they were not entitled to claim any rate relief. To be clear; in 2018-19 The Lawns nursery school in Windsor paid just over £31,000 in business rates. This was equivalent to a full-time qualified teacher.

 

The borough nursery schools were no strangers to struggling to make ends meet and the Co-head teachers have had to be creative with budgets for years. In 2018 the nursery laid out to the council the self-help steps they had taken to increase their income: leading moderation of the early years’ profile for all settings, becoming a teaching school to train teachers and delivering CPD to other local providers. This proved their determination to survive and the massive impact that their loss would have on the whole community.

Therefore, she proposed that the council take steps to protect the future of its maintained nursery schools, by supporting the Save our Nursery Schools Campaign to secure funding beyond 2020 and by writing to the Secretary of State for Education, urging him to treat maintained nursery schools in the same way as other schools, allowing them to benefit from the Designated Schools Budget and refund their business rates. Finally the council must take an urgent review into maintained nursery school funding at a local level, exploring all possible options to ensure these jewels in the crown of the borough’s early years’ education were not lost for future generations of children in Windsor and Maidenhead.

 

Councillor Davey highlighted that parents could claim money from the council if they met various statistics. The nurseries received between £4.30 and £4.75 per hour per child. He questioned how many people could run a business looking after children for that rate of pay.

 

Councillor Carroll commented that he was pleased to see the original third recommendation had been withdrawn as it would not have been possible for the council to do what had been proposed.  The three maintained nurseries in the borough were all rated as outstanding by Ofsted; they played a very important role. The funding issues were not new as changes had been made in 2010 and 2015, when the council decided to allow for transitional protection. Last year a one-off cost was covered by a grant following a decision by Cabinet. The issue of ineligibility for business rate relief was a historical one with the Department for Education policy. There was no local authority budget to provide support.

 

Councillor Carroll stated that he was happy with the motion as amended. He would continue to advocate and push the agenda. He would be happy to write to the Secretary of State and to see what would be possible and reasonable and could be costed from a local authority point of view.

 

Councillor Targowski cautioned that any review should not overtake something Children’s Services already had in the pipeline. Councillor Carroll agreed that officers in Children’s Services were very busy and he therefore appreciated the concerns.

 

Councillor Tisi thanked Councillor Carroll for his support.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Tisi, seconded by Councillor Davey, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council:

 

iv)  Recognises the higher costs faced by maintained nursery schools compared to other early years providers due to:

 

·         Higher staff qualification levels than private nurseries and childminder settings - Maintained nursery schools are required to employ qualified early years teachers and NNEB trained assistants.

·         Statutory requirements to employ a qualified Headteacher and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Coordinator (SENDco)

·         Being subject to business rates (unlike charity registered preschools) and higher utilities than home-based childminders;

·         and that securing guaranteed funding beyond 2020 is necessary to avoid their closure.

 

v)       Supports the ‘Save Our Nursery Schools’ campaign and will write to the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, urging him to guarantee funding beyond 2020 for state funded nursery schools and recognise that as they have at least the same statutory roles and staffing qualification requirements as maintained Primary and Secondary schools they are equal to other schools and should be enabled to benefit from the Designated Schools Grant for rate relief.

 

vi)     Request officers to undertake an urgent review into the options available at a local level to support funding for maintained nursery schools.