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

 

Unauthorised construction of raised earth bunds on flood plain are a problem in my Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury Ward.  These embankments inhibit overland flood flows, take up flood storage capacity and raise flood levels.  The simultaneous neglect of the ancient land drainage infrastructure exacerbates flooding.  As lead local flood authority what action is RBWM taking to remedy the issues?

 

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

 

What is the total cost of the Borough Local Plan to date please?

 

c)    Councillor Price will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

Where there are broken/uneven pathways, lack of dropped kerbs/tactile paving, residents with disabilities, and indeed the elderly, are deterred from venturing out, thus increasing the incidence of loneliness, isolation, and physical inactivity. Will the Lead Member consider prioritising repairs/improvements where there are clusters of such residents in line with the RBWM Strategic Priority of Health, Skilled and Independent residents? 

d)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Lead Member for Housing, Communications and Youth Engagement:

 

What funding has cabinet allocated to support rough sleepers over the Christmas period and into the New Year around the Borough and how might we work better with community groups and voluntary organisations to raise awareness and sign post provision to maximise resources for all? 

 

e)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

With RBWM in a very serious financial situation is it now time to make use of the skills of all councillors, across parties, rather than simply relying on the Conservative Administration trying to go it alone?

 

f)      Councillor Davies will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Nationally 30,000 children - UK resident but EU nationals - may not receive settled status, despite being entitled to it, due to “irregular family contexts”. Of these, 5,000 are children in care. Are there any children in our care whose settled status is uncertain for this reason? And if so, what practical and legal support are they receiving?

 

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

 

The finance update is showing an estimated £3.61m forecast overspend at the end of the financial year. This is the ‘net figure’ after ‘saving mitigations’ have already been implemented. What assurances can the Lead Member give council that this figure can be mitigated and will not continue to rise?

 

h)   Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

 

Given the recent tragic deaths of 2 Oldfield Ward Residents when are we going to see the pedestrian crossing built on Braywick Road and safety upgrades to the 2 crossings near Oldfield School on Bray Road?

 

i)     Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

 

It was agreed after two petitions were raised to review pedestrian crossings on Stafferton Link Road that all crossing points on the road would be examined with a view to improve pedestrian safety.  When will this be complete and improved safer crossings be installed?

 

(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)

 

 

a)    Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

 

Unauthorised construction of raised earth bunds on flood plain are a problem in my Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury Ward.  These embankments inhibit overland flood flows, take up flood storage capacity and raise flood levels.  The simultaneous neglect of the ancient land drainage infrastructure exacerbates flooding.  As lead local flood authority what action is RBWM taking to remedy the issues?

 

Councillor Cannon, as relevant Lead Member, responded that from a planning perspective the council was not aware of any unauthorised bunds in the Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury area. There were sites in the area that had bunds but these were either lawful through planning permission or by virtue of S171B of the Town and Country Planning Act i.e. they were immune from enforcement action.

 

There was a site in Datchet that had piles of wood that were stored as part of an unauthorised timber processing site, to which Councillor Larcombe may have been referring. These were not strictly bunds but their removal was required by an extant enforcement notice to which the owner had failed to comply. This offence, i.e. failure to comply with the terms of the enforcement notice, had been referred to the Council’s legal team to pursue prosecution.

 

If there were other sites in the area with alleged unauthorised bunding, Councillor Cannon asked Members to report them to the Planning Enforcement team so that the matter can be formally investigated.

 

With regard to the land drainage infrastructure, actions being progressed included recommencing an annual weed spraying programme on the Wraysbury Drain in the Spring 2020; guidance to be issued on riparian responsibilities relating to the ancient infrastructure, on conclusion of the legal work; where the watercourse was impeded and there was restriction to flow, subject to legislation, undertake enforcement action using the council’s powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991; and to continue working with the local community.  With regard to the ‘Ardmore’ site at Hythe End, the planning enforcement notice for removal of the hardstanding, including reinstatement of the ditch, had a deadline of Christmas for compliance.  The council would instruct legal to issue a Land Drainage enforcement notice if further ditch restoration works were needed.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that the Flood and Water Management act 2010 identified the responsibilities of different types of flooding. As a unitary authority the borough was the Lead Local Flood Authority with overall responsibility. He realised his ward was a remote and minor outpost but he believed the council should do more to ensure proper maintenance. The emerging Borough Local Plan stated that ‘the de-culverting and promotion of natural water systems should be encouraged’. He asked for confirmation that these issues would get proper consideration in conjunction with the climate change adaptation strategy.

 

Councillor Cannon responded that if issues were reported to the council they would be addressed. He disagreed with the comments about remoteness, but it was down to ward Members to report issues.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.11pm and resumed at 9.16pm.

 

b)   Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

 

What is the total cost of the Borough Local Plan to date please?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that the local plan had been in development for a number of years, and for this reason there was not a precise figure.  Costs incurred towards the pre-regulation 18 stage were circa £600,000. The costs to get to Submission version in January 2018 were circa £850,000 and it was expected that costs to get the plan to be resubmitted to the Inspector early in 2020 be circa £540,000.  There would also be costs associated with the Inspector’s time and any further work that was required.

 

This cost was of course offset as investment in the future of the Borough through the future delivery of new homes for families, children, and key workers, the development of new jobs, economic growth and the associated business rates, as well as setting a clear agenda for both  sustainability and  place making. 

 

It was anticipated that the new development the Borough Local Plan sought to deliver would bring in circa £3m a year in Community Infrastructure Levy to be spent in and by local communities and the council, and that was why the council was also busy supporting local communities with their development of neighbourhood plans to enable them to maximise the ability to further shape local developments and secure the financial and infrastructure benefits of development.

 

All councils were required to have a plan in place, and clearly the implications of not having a plan in place, including a lack of control over the location and type of development, were clear and present reasons an adopted plan was needed.

 

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

 

c)    Councillor Price asked the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

Where there are broken/uneven pathways, lack of dropped kerbs/tactile paving, residents with disabilities, and indeed the elderly, are deterred from venturing out, thus increasing the incidence of loneliness, isolation, and physical inactivity. Will the Lead Member consider prioritising repairs/improvements where there are clusters of such residents in line with the RBWM Strategic Priority of Health, Skilled and Independent residents? 

Councillor Clark responded that he had personal experience as he was a carer for his disabled mother.

 

The Royal Borough had made and continued to make significant investment in highway infrastructure in recent years and the capital programme approved by Council on 26 February 2019 included investment of £11.8m to maintain and improve highway infrastructure including roads, footways, bridges, street lighting, etc.

 

Part of this overall investment was £300,000 specifically for footways seeking to meet the aims of the Local Transport Plan to ‘…improve access to services. This also supported the delivery of the broader aims of the strategic priority of ‘Healthy, Skilled and Independent Residents’.

 

Therefore, he was very happy to continue to prioritise improvements. He requested Members, residents and carers help identify issues and report them so they could be prioritised.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Price asked if a pilot could be undertaken in her ward to identify key routes to access local services,  particularly around care homes. The results could then be used to consider extending it to other parts of the borough.

 

Councillor Clark responded that local knowledge was key. He would be pleased for the pilot to be implemented and the results discussed, he asked then to be informed of the resources needed so he could ensure prioritisation in future.

 

d)    Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Lead Member for Housing, Communications and Youth Engagement:

 

What funding has cabinet allocated to support rough sleepers over the Christmas period and into the New Year around the Borough and how might we work better with community groups and voluntary organisations to raise awareness and sign post provision to maximise resources for all? 

 

Councillor McWilliams responded that the council had a statutory duty under SWEP. The council had taken the decision to rehome people from the end of November this year. On top of the statutory obligations, £138,000 in grant funding had been received. Of this, £88,000 was for the rough sleeping initiative which funded a rough sleeping co-ordinator and an outreach worker. The remaining £50,000 for cold weather provision funded an additional outreach worker and supported the rough sleeper pathway which would be rolled out at John West House in the coming days. It would include wrap-around support to move to long term solutions; this was a sea change in approach. The three principles he applied to the issue were compassion, thoroughness and co-operation.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey asked as there had already been a few nights of very cold weather, why had implementation not already taken place?

 

Councillor McWilliams responded that if residents had come forward and contacted the council via SWEP they had already been housed. However this was not a long-term solution. The council was looking at sites in Windsor and Eton to provide services similar to John West House, to ensure more comprehensive support rather than at isolated units dotted around the borough.

 

e)    Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

With RBWM in a very serious financial situation is it now time to make use of the skills of all councillors, across parties, rather than simply relying on the Conservative Administration trying to go it alone?

 

Councillor Johnson responded that it was fair to say that there was a focus as an authority on significant financial challenges, some driven by demographics and some service-related pressures. The borough was in a comparable situation to others in the southeast facing constricted budgeting issues. His administration was committed to presenting a balanced budget. It would look to discuss with all interested parties; the Opposition would be able to comment at Scrutiny Panels and at Cabinet. Any ideas how to improve the financial position would be welcomed. He would be calling on the new majority Conservative government to look at the entirety of the local government financial settlement.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey asked if a cross-party working group including officers could be set up to look at the issues.

 

Councillor Johnson responded that the administration was working on a draft budget, which would go through the scrutiny process. Opposition Members would have the opportunity to suggest ideas and could contact individual Lead Members if they had contributions in specific areas.

 

f)      Councillor Davies asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Lead Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

 

Nationally 30,000 children - UK resident but EU nationals - may not receive settled status, despite being entitled to it, due to “irregular family contexts”. Of these, 5,000 are children in care. Are there any children in our care whose settled status is uncertain for this reason? And if so, what practical and legal support are they receiving?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that as of 16 December 2019, the council did not have any children in its care who were UK resident EU nationals that would require an application for settled status.  However if that situation changed, council staff would stand ready to support any children in care for whom settled status was required, including care leavers.

 

More generally parents who were EU nationals and had children who were born in the UK should check with the Home Office to ensure that their children had settled status. 

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davies asked what risks had been identified with regard to Brexit preparedness in Adult and Child Services in the case of a No Deal Brexit and how would the council cope given that it was known that there were not the ‘very healthy reserves’ that were referred to by the former leader of the council when this question was asked by Windsor for EU earlier in the year?

 

Councillor Carroll responded that given the general election result, a no deal scenario was unlikely. However, if it occurred the council would coordinate with colleagues in the Home Office to understand any additional implications. Children’s Services had not identified any immediate risks with any of the possible Brexit scenarios. The Prime Minister had made it clear that EU nationals were welcome to apply for settled status.

 

g)   Councillor L. Jones asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

 

The finance update is showing an estimated £3.61m forecast overspend at the end of the financial year. This is the ‘net figure’ after ‘saving mitigations’ have already been implemented. What assurances can the Lead Member give council that this figure can be mitigated and will not continue to rise?

 

Councillor Hilton responded that with demand led services there could be no certainties and in the December Finance monitoring report, which had already been published, he had declared an additional £132,000 overspend.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor L. Jones asked, with the information available at the moment, what impact would this have on the 2020/21 budget and what was the current total estimated shortfall that needed to be met.

 

Councillor Hilton responded that the figures were still moving and it would be inappropriate for him to talk about it at the moment.

 

h)   Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

 

Given the recent tragic deaths of 2 Oldfield Ward Residents when are we going to see the pedestrian crossing built on Braywick Road and safety upgrades to the 2 crossings near Oldfield School on Bray Road?

 

Councillor Clark responded that the deaths of two residents in road accidents was tragic and his thoughts and condolences were with the families and friends of those affected.

 

Every fatal collision was investigated by Thames Valley Police in conjunction with road safety specialists from the Royal Borough and any points which emerged from the process would be reviewed and actioned. On average there were four road deaths per year in the borough.

 

The Royal Borough approved funding and committed to delivering a pedestrian crossing on Braywick Road earlier in 2019. This approach responded positively to a local petition and an extensive public consultation and the council made a commitment to deliver in advance of the opening of the new leisure centre. This timeline remained with works due to start in April 2019.

 

With respect to the crossings on Bray Road, a meeting had been undertaken between Members, residents and officers to listen to concerns and identify any potential improvements which could be introduced.

 

Councillor Hill confirmed he did not not have a supplementary question but commented that officers had been very helpful and a way forward had been identified, subject to funding.

 

i)     Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

 

It was agreed after two petitions were raised to review pedestrian crossings on Stafferton Link Road that all crossing points on the road would be examined with a view to improve pedestrian safety.  When will this be complete and improved safer crossings be installed?

 

Councillor Clark responded that safety and easy access to services and facilities was a priority for the Royal Borough and was embraced in the ‘Local Transport Plan’ and throughout other polices and strategies (for example: the 10-Year Cycle Action Plan adopted by Cabinet).

 

There were a number of key crossing points along Stafferton Link which were being, or had been, reviewed and assessed by officers. He welcomed the opportunity to update on the good progress. The existing zebra crossing adjacent to Vicus Way had been reviewed and was being considered to be upgraded to a signalised crossing due to the changing nature of the area.

 

The existing signalised crossing adjacent to ‘Lidl’ was installed relatively recently to link the north-south cycle network and integrate with the waterways.

 

The eastern end at the junction with Bray Road and Forlease Road had been investigated, seeking to manage the large volumes of children and parents walking to and from Oldfield School. There were practical constraints in introducing a controlled crossing in this area but dialogue was ongoing to find a deliverable solution.

 

In addition, a meeting had been undertaken that afternoon between Members, residents and officers to listen to concerns and identify any potential improvements which could be introduced in addition to the normal review procedures.

 

Councillor Hill confirmed he did not have a supplementary question but commented that officers had come up with a proposal for a crossing at the eastern end near Green Lane. The western end was more problematic.