Agenda item - Public Questions

Public Questions

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 23 June 2020 6.15 pm (Item 8.)

a) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

Can the Lead Member advise if the RBWM is still paying interest on LOBO loans and if so what rate of interest is being paid?

b) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Will the Leader of the Council advise the approximate value of the Royal Borough’s assets including those held within the RBWM Property Company?

c) Maria Evans of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

The council has declared its directly controlled annual carbon footprint is only 0.7% of the Borough’s production emissions; let alone accounting for the Borough’s consumption emissions. What is your strategy to engage with other stakeholders to play their part in reducing the Borough’s footprint to net-zero?

d) Andrew Elder of Eton and Castle ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

2019 was the warmest year on record in Europe; 1.2 degrees above the reference period. 1.5 degrees is the recommended limit to avoid catastrophic climate change. Can you demonstrate that the strategy for the borough will enable actions to be fast enough? And if not, why not?

e) Deborah Mason of of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Can you explain how this represents a consultative and collaborative approach to local democracy when critical documents relating to the Climate Strategy were not made available to the public before the question submission deadline?

f) Fiona Hewer of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Does the Council consider the Phase 1 Habitat Survey conducted by Wild Maidenhead in 2017 a suitable baseline for measuring improvements to biodiversity in the Climate Strategy and, if not, what do you propose?

g) Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Unmanaged access to sensitive habitats, for example for dog-walking and watersports, is likely to decrease biodiversity. Can the Lead Member reassure me of the Council’s commitment to implementing an Environment and Climate Emergency strategy by giving examples of when and how expert advice on biodiversity protection has taken precedence over such ‘business as usual’ activities?

h) Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Given that the Council has, in declaring the Emergency, recognised the existential threat we face can the Lead Member confirm that commitments or assumptions made before the Emergency was declared will be subject to review and that addressing climate change and enhancing biodiversity and our natural capital will take priority unless there are other exceptional considerations?

i) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

The LPA informed me that it was not mandatory for planning panels to be presented with factually correct information provided any falsehoods were given “in good faith”. What process is followed to determine “good faith” where falsehoods are subsequently identified, and why aren't such matters returned automatically to the Member panel for reconsideration with the corrected known facts?

j) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Given Deloitte's finding that the valuation of Council assets and RBWM Property Company Limited assets are being “commissioned and conducted” under just one set of shared instructions, can you explain why this company is no longer acting as an arms-length trading company, and state whether that company’s MD is formally considered an officer of RBWM itself?

k) Jennifer Shaw of Belmont Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

We are now emerging from a slow onset, extensive crisis into another - Climate Change. What specific actions to address the environment and climate emergency will you commence now to capture the gains made, practical and behavioral, during the Covid-19 crisis?

l) Dave Scarbrough of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

In order to reach net-zero in the Borough and in the whole country by 2050, do you agree that we need to leave all fossil fuels in the ground and all new electricity generation must be by renewable means?

m) Clare Taylor of Eton and Castle ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Understanding that the financial situation of the council has been made even worse by the Covid-19 emergency, will the Council contract work on a biodiversity action plan (and other work to implement the strategy) to local voluntary groups who will likely be able to take the work forward at low or no cost?

n) Sarah Scarbrough of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

The interim strategy lacks detail and input from RBWM's CEC. What do you expect will be gained from a public consultation on the interim strategy as it stands?

o) Georgina Ellis of Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Does the Lead Member agree with me that lack of good biodiversity action planning leads to food insecurity, poorer health and increased flood risk? Can the Council explain why a biodiversity action plan has not been a priority for RBWM despite repeated offers from voluntary groups to help with the implementation of this vital element of the Climate Strategy?

p) Sarah Bowden of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Given that the inspection of the Borough Local Plan will not now happen until Autumn, will the Council commit to immediately draft and put in place in 2020 a Supplementary Planning Document that stipulates the actions required to prevent making the Environment and Climate Emergency situation any worse?

q) Rachel Cook of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Given that it is an important part of the National Planning Policy Framework, why have biodiversity measures such as ecological appraisal and habitat connectivity been omitted from the Borough Wide Design Guide SPD, and will you commit to including those amendments suggested by Wild Maidenhead?

r) Emily Tomalin of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

Ghentrification for Cyclists! Can RBWM copy the simple, bold, low cost strategy of Ghent, where traffic was discouraged from town centres with filters on side roads that stopped cars, allowed bicycles, reducing speed limits to 20 mph and giving cyclists clear priority? Motor vehicles could still access all areas but only by travelling outside the town and in again, between segments.

s) Emily Tomalin of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Would the Council consider a new planning designation to encourage local organic food production? Many areas are poorly used agriculturally in the hope that houses could be built. Instead could the Council find a way to encourage small holdings or allotments?

t) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

The BLP under examination will increase carbon emissions by 22.5%. The Inspector now asks whether the proposed additional Policy SP2 is effective in meeting the requirements, under Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, to include policies securing that development contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. How does the Lead Member propose to respond?

u) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

Is the Lead Member satisfied that the Cabinet invested sufficient time in challenging the deliverability, from a legal and compliance standpoint, of the incremental residents’ parking permit income as well as the other opportunities and savings relied upon in setting a balanced budget for 2020/21?

v) Susy Shearer of Clewer East Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

‘The greenest building is the one already standing.’ Recycling existing buildings including heritage assets takes maximum advantage of already utilised energy and materials. Furthermore, re-using those with even average energy performance consistently offers immediate climate change impact reductions as compared with more energy-efficient types of new construction. How will these principles be reflected in the Climate Strategy?

w) Susy Shearer of Clewer East Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

An estimated 25% of car journeys in the Borough are under 2 miles yet are a major contributor to CO2, NO2 and noise pollution and community severance. What specific measures will be included in the Climate Strategy to shift these journeys away from cars and towards walking, cycling and public transport?

(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 one minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

a) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance:

Can the Lead Member advise if the RBWM is still paying interest on LOBO loans and if so what rate of interest is being paid?

Written response:

The Council has the following two LOBO loans outstanding:

£5m borrowed from Barclays in 2006 at an interest rate of 4.19% that is due to be repaid in 2066

£8m borrowed from Dexia in 2008 at an interest rate of 4.19% that is due to be repaid in 2043

Barclays have waived their right to increase the interest rate on their loan, and with interest rates at historically low levels it is not expected Dexia will seek to increase their rate either as the Council would be able to repay the loan and refinance at a lower rate.

These loans form a small proportion of the Council’s borrowing and the Council regularly reviews its borrowing levels and the split between long and short-term borrowing. The Council seeks to balance the benefits of low interest rates of short-term borrowing and the protection against future interest rate increases of long-term borrowing.

The Council’s current borrowing strategy is for any new borrowing to be taken out on a short-term basis to take advantage of low interest rates, and in consultation with its Treasury Management advisors, to seek and review options to increase its proportion of long-term borrowing where this can be obtained at a favourable rate.

Mr Wilson had submitted a supplementary question in writing, which was read out by officers: ‘Given that refinancing this debt at short/ medium term interest rates would save the Council around £200,000 per year will he now provide full details of these loans and the external advice received on these loans to date?’

Councillor Hilton responded that the council had taken advice on whether or not it would be possible to close these loans out, and it would not be without significant penalty which was why they remained. If that did not answer the question, Councillor Hilton stated that he would speak to the council’s Section 151 officer to see if she interpreted it differently and send a written response if appropriate.

Written response provided after the meeting: The two Lender Option Borrower Option debts were discussed with the Council’s Treasury Management advisers, Arlingclose. They commented that at the moment there isn’t a big enough margin between the rate we are currently paying on these loans and the rate at which, we could take out a new loan to make it worthwhile repaying these at the moment. If we were to repay the loans early we would have to pay the banks an upfront payment that was the equivalent value of the interest payments we would have made to them over the course of the loans had they ran to maturity. An estimate of the impact of repaying the LOBO loans by taking out new fixed-term borrowing at current rates suggests our costs would increase by £5m.

b) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Will the Leader of the Council advise the approximate value of the Royal Borough’s assets including those held within the RBWM Property Company?

Written response:

The total value of commercial and corporate assets is £628m. The Council's assets are divided into two separate portfolios for valuation purpose.

The commercial portfolio is revalued every year. This year the total was £81.4 million. Commercial assets held for sale, which are also revalued every year and this year were valued at £63 million. These are assets where a formal commitment within the regeneration programme has already been made to dispose of them. Both of these categories are valued to open market value and total £144.4m.

The Council also hold corporate assets, which currently stand at a value of £483.6 million. The corporate assets are re-valued every 5 years on a rolling programme according to type and/or use. The valuation assumptions for corporate properties are on existing use value and include high value specialist properties like schools and leisure centres which are valued on a depreciated replacement cost (DRC) basis and not a market basis (this is not what the properties would realise if they were sold on the open market).

RBWM Property Company Ltd – holds residential assets only. The total value of those assets as of 31^st March 2020 is £3.39m. These assets are valued on a fair/open market value basis.

Mr Wilson had submitted a supplementary question in writing, which was read out by officers: ‘For the sake of transparency will the Leader undertake to publish a list of commercial assets identified for sale?’

Councillor Johnson responded that the council’s Asset Management Strategy was an item on the agenda for Cabinet later in the week. It provided was a holistic approach to managing both the operational assets and those in the wider regeneration programme or for disposal. Given the commercially sensitive nature it would be imprudent for him to provide a list at the meeting, however he would review to see what could be released. The council believed in a policy of services not buildings, i.e. that the service should not be limited by the asset from which it was currently operating. The strategy was ambitious and integrated well with the council’s climate change objectives.

c) Maria Evans of Riverside ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

We have made clear in the strategy document that we will only be able to deliver on the ambition of net zero if we work in partnership with others. This includes everyone from central Government, businesses, community groups to individuals in our community.

The council has a clear leadership role and we have set out the principles of our engagement plan in the strategy document itself. It specifies, to engage stakeholders to play their part, we will:

· Communicate the key objectives and actions of the strategy

· Engage with key groups and organisations on the work that can be undertaken in partnership as we move forward.

· Engage with residents and organisations on how they can contribute to the delivery of the strategy through the actions they take on a day to day basis. The strategy proposes several approaches, all of which are available for public view, so we hope people take the time to engage with it and feedback their thoughts to us.

· Communicate progress on the delivery of the strategy.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Evans commented that the council had hoped stakeholders would play a part in delivering the strategy. Hope would not be enough. If the council led on its own she believed it would fail. She asked if the Lead Member would recognise success relied on all stakeholders including Frimley Park Health Trust, South East Water, housing associations and schools, who between them were responsible for over 99% of carbon emissions. Would the council stop hoping for engagement and form a leadership body of equals, and commit to do this within 6 months?

Councillor Stimson responded that the council had put forward a strategy and it would now go before the community. They had already climbed a hill but there was still a huge hill to climb. She recognised that organisations such as Frimley Park and South East Water would need to be involved to get to carbon neutral. Councillor Stimson stated that she would do her utmost; she agreed hope would not get the strategy over the line. She hoped all could see that hope would move to action. In 6 months’ time actions would be on the table. Results would be seen, rather than just hope.

d) Andrew Elder of Eton and Castle ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

The council have declared their ambition to have a net zero emission Borough by 2050 at the latest which is in line with the latest climate science and international consensus on limiting catastrophic climate change. The council has produced a strategy to demonstrate it is serious about taking action to meet this ambition.

Our target is in line with the UK government target and we will work hard to bring this forward as it becomes possible. The UK government put its target into law to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement, the historic international 2015 agreement on climate change which committed the world to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.

We have committed to review our trajectory of emissions to net zero based upon the latest evidence and expert advice to ensure we continue to meet our obligations and commitments.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Elder commented that the international consensus was not only that 2050 was the latest date to reach net zero, it was also that the emission reduction pathway was not a straight line. As page 76 of the Climate Change Community Net Zero report clearly illustrated this. As experts had previously informed the council, the trajectory in the strategy would mean the per capita carbon budget would be exceeded by 2028. Given this it was obvious there was not 6 months to wait, therefore he asked if the council would set up a working group to set revised targets before the end of July?

Councillor Stimson responded that by mid-July the council would be engaging with the community. She could not promise a working group by the end of July. She understood that comments about trajectory and that this was not a satisfactory solution. If a large amount of carbon was scooped up early there would be more success in reaching the target. Within 6 months the council would be looking at it again. Councillor Stimson commented that she would be happy to meet with Mr Elder to talk further on the issue.

e) Deborah Mason of Riverside ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Written response:

In developing the strategy, we have engaged through a series of public workshops and events to seek the views of the community. The more detailed work undertaken with specific community groups has helped to build a stronger strategy which we believe demonstrated our collaborative approach.

It is important to recognise that full Council is being asked to approve the strategy for public consultation. This will provide all residents and other stakeholders to provide their views which we will consider and make appropriate changes to the strategy before we adopt it.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Mason asked for assurance that further collaborations with stakeholders would be transparent, timely and responsive and would she be willing to document this in a terms of reference.

Councillor Stimson responded that she was a firm believer in fair process. This did not mean that everyone got what they wanted but that the best ideas for the community were taken on, which would enable the council to get to the quickest point that was needed to get to. This would be what a terms of reference should indicate. She did not think the council had engaged exactly how it had wanted to; going forward she would like to do it differently.

f) Fiona Hewer of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

We welcome the work that has already been undertaken and it provides a great starting point. The council has committed to develop a biodiversity baseline and metrics for the borough based on the work already undertaken in the Green and Blue Infrastructure Study and by the local ‘Wild Groups’.

We need to undertake the actions set out in our strategy and welcome the opportunity to work with you to determine the most suitable baseline to be able to fulfil this commitment outlined in the draft strategy.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Hewer commented that the written answer said that the council's intention was to set a biodiversity baseline and metrics, but did not say when. If the Council truly wanted to respond to the ecological crisis it declared in June 2019 it would have adopted a baseline, set targets and started work. Instead it was mowing verges full of wildflowers so pollinators had no food, giving planning permission without wildlife-friendly measures and standing by while local wildlife sites were abandoned. Wild Maidenhead was concerned that there had already been a loss of water voles and breeding farmland birds, and hedgehog populations were crashing. Would the council have started positive borough-wide actions to increase and support biodiversity before Christmas to begin to prevent further losses?

Councillor Stimson responded that the council had started with 7-9 verges; signs were putting up to say ‘don’t cut’. Wild Maidenhead had a fantastic biodiversity policy but it was not for the whole of the borough therefore there was still work to do. The council would do its best and look to work with Ms Hewer. The Climate Change and Sustainability Officer had a Masters in Biodiversity.

g) Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

We recognise the importance of biodiversity and therefore the natural environment has been highlighted as one of four key themes within the strategy document. This includes setting up a new ‘Natural Capital’ programme that will enable the council to manage its natural environment projects in a co-ordinated way.

We have committed to a net gain in biodiversity of 10% over the next five years in the strategy document and the new programme will help us achieve that. In addition, we have set an objective to increase awareness of biodiversity to ensure that council officers and the wider community are better educated to support us in this challenge.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Copland commented he had taken the written response to mean that, to date, the council had not allowed biodiversity protection to take precedence over business as usual in any council owned location. He hoped the Lead Member agreed this did not help to address the environmental challenge that was faced. The strategy stated that there was a target to identify areas of biodiversity by June 2021 but there were over 60 sites across the borough already recognised as local wildlife sites. Had they been considered? Working with local groups, the sites with the greatest potential could be identified by the end of the year. This would allow discussions with landowners in January 2021 and a target to have clear action plans for 50% of identified sites by June 2021 rather than just to start looking at them.

Councillor Stimson responded that she felt the statement was unfair as there were 110 acres at Battlemead Common. The council had thought hard about how it should be treated as a biodiversity site. The council had worked with local groups on this and would continue to do so. She asked Mr Copland to call her the following week for further discussion.

h) Mike Copland of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

The strategy document makes clear that this strategy will be a priority across every part of the council. It will require officers and members to work together to review council policies to ensure they are compatible with our commitment to deliver carbon emissions to net zero as well as the clear objectives in each of the four key themes.

Our other strategies will need to be reviewed in light of our commitments on climate change to support our overall commitment to net zero by 2050. The actions set out in this strategy will support those changes and set policy direction for any new or emerging strategies.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Copland commented that changing basic assumptions about how a community behaved was difficult. Engagement was part of that as was training for council officers. In the natural environment action plan the date to complete training, particularly for planning staff, had moved in recent drafts from 2.5 years to 3.5 years from declaration. To change the regime for roadside verges would take 5.5 years. Would the council commit to review actions to find ways to bring dates forward?

Councillor Stimson responded that she would commit to looking at the dates to see what could be done.

i) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Written response:

All decisions taken by the Council’s Planning Panels are taken based on the information that is before them at the time. Decisions on planning applications are final once the decision notice has been issued and as such it is not possible for a decision to be returned to the Panel.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that the new Head of Planning had effectively stated that once a decision notice had been issued, it was not possible for a decision to be returned to a planning panel. His predecessor had put exactly the opposite in writing to Mr Hill, quoting that ‘if material considerations had presented themselves since the decision, this would require the matter to be referred back to the committee’. He asked the Lead Member if he agreed that, if the LPA became aware after a meeting that the panel had been misled by false statements, it was better for it to come back to the same planning panel for reconsideration in light of the known correct facts.

Councillor Coppinger responded that it must be frustrating when two opposing views were given. He felt the issue would be best addressed by way of a meeting with the Lead Member and the new Head of Planning.

j) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Written response:

RBWM Property Company Ltd is a company wholly owned by the Council. The commissioning of the valuation report was done jointly as the RBWM Property Company's asset base is small in comparison to the Council's. The appointment of the valuer was done under a fully compliant procurement process. RBWM Property Company has to follow the same procurement regulations as the council.

RBWM Property Company has its own independent board and works under a shareholder protocol agreement. The company is arms length from the Council. The Managing Director of RBWM Property Company is not an officer of the Council.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that the External Auditor had said the assets of the council and the RBWM Property Company should be ‘commissioned and conducted under separate instructions’. Mr Hill noted that the response appeared to reject the auditor’s view, saying the company was small. It had also been stated that the MD of the Property Company was not an officer of RBWM but he had found many references on the council website that she was an officer, for example in the March-June Forward Plan for the previous year, stating that she was the lead officer for an item on the Nicholson’s Shopping Centre. Could the Leader explain how she appeared to be an officer of the council on such a major application when it had been said she was not an officer.

Councillor Johnson responded that the Managing Director of the Property Company was not an officer of the local authority. An explanation had been provided that was a clear statement of fact about the separation of the two entities. If Mr Hill believed reports were written in error he asked him to forward them on to him and he would investigate.

k) Jennifer Shaw of Belmont Ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Written response:

The strategy sets out objectives and actions across all areas of the council. The sustainability team sits within the service that is co-ordinating the recovery planning for the covid-19 crisis which will help to ensure we are promoting a green recovery.

One practical example is the recent submission for funding to the Department for Transport to introduce changes in our town centres to support walking and cycling. As a council we have taken the opportunity to reduce travel to and from our offices which has positive impacts on carbon emissions.

We also recognise the important role the community has played in the covid-19 response. We are now working with our community volunteers and organisations to understand how we can continue to work together, and any lessons learnt can be applied to the development and delivery of our climate strategy.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Shaw thanked the Lead Member for the actions already being taken. She noted one action had been to encourage people to drive by offering three hours free parking to help the economy. Given the radical requirements to reduce emissions and provide COVID-19 safe space, would the council consider no-car days twice a week in the town centres and putting incentives in place for walkers and cyclists using local businesses to encourage less polluting means of travel and strengthen a truly local and circular economy.

Councillor Johnson responded that the 3 hour free parking had been introduced to restart the High Street economy by enticing residents and visitors back to the town centres, thereby supporting the economy, jobs and future investment. In the medium to long term the council wanted to encourage people to travel by walking or cycling, but the immediate priority was to get people in to increase trade.

l) Dave Scarbrough of Belmont ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is undoubtedly very important. In the UK, emissions from electricity generation have fallen by 50% since 2013 (based on evidence from the Committee on Climate Change in 2019). This is significant progress in a very short period of time. The amount of renewable capacity being added to the grid each year is significant.

There is still a need for electricity to be generated on very short notice to meet the peaks in demand. This new electricity generation may need to continue come from fossil fuels in the short to medium term, but we expect that as battery and demand management technology improves, it will be possible to phase this out.

The UK is also currently reliant on natural gas for heating with one of the most comprehensive gas networks in the world. The government has plans to decarbonise gas grid with the use of alternatives such as biomethane. We recognise the need to transition and as part of our new strategy will encourage the most polluting homes in the Borough, namely those using oil for heating to move to low carbon alternatives.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Scarbrough commented that the main pollutants resulting from natural gas electricity generation were nitrogen oxides which caused respiratory problems. They also reacted with other substances in the air to produce particulate matter and ozone which caused shortness of breath, heart attacks and premature death. Public Health England stated that there were 69 premature deaths in RBWM annually due to Particulate Matter. Recent research indicated that one was more likely to die from Covid-19 if there was poor air quality. The borough already had five AQMAs, and the highest growth rate of asthma related death in the country. What specific measures would the council take to address this life-threatening problem?

Councillor Stimson responded that measuring air quality outside of schools was something the council wanted to do but there was a funding issue. Trying to slow down drivers outside of schools and running their cars whilst waiting outside schools would also be important. As Lead Member she would like to charge higher prices in the middle of towns and also look at increasing walking and cycling routes into towns. Leaving fossil fuels in the ground also was important but there was not yet enough renewable energy available.

m) Claire Taylor of Eton and Castle ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

We have identified the need to work with local voluntary groups to support the delivery of the climate strategy. As set out in the strategy, the action plan will be developed into a full delivery plan that will set out the scope of every action and how they will be delivered. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this further through the proposed stakeholder advisory board to identify the best way to deliver each action.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Taylor commented that Wild Eton and Eton Wick looked forward to hearing more about the proposed stakeholder advisory. She asked how many professional ecologists the council employed and what input had they had had into the strategy.

Councillor Stimson responded that there were two full time officers and there were others involved, but she was unsure of the level of input. She would respond with a written answer.

Written response: The council has one professional ecologist who has been involved in internal consultation on the strategy, this has included internal workshops to develop the action plan. We have also worked closely with the wider parks and countryside team who have relevant knowledge and experience in these areas to develop the proposals within the Natural Environment theme of the strategy. Our Service Lead for Sustainability, who has been one of the key contributors in writing our strategy also has a Masters in Ecology.

n) Sarah Scarbrough of Belmont ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

The interim strategy lacks detail and input from RBWM's CEC. What do you expect will be gained from a public consultation on the interim strategy as it stands?

Written response:

This strategy presented to full council is the result of a series of public workshops and events which included members of the RBWM CEC and other key stakeholders.

In addition to this, the RBWM CEC and three other groups representing each of the strategy’s four themes were given the opportunity to comment on the document itself. These comments were considered and the majority were incorporated. Stakeholders including RBWM CEC received written responses to their comments which explained whether their comments could be incorporated and the rationale behind this.

The public consultation offers an opportunity for all residents in the Borough to provide their views and feedback on our climate and environment strategy. It also provides an excellent opportunity to raise the profile of the issues and improve engagement with communities and businesses on the climate crisis.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Scarbrough commented that a public consultation on a lengthy strategy document was very unlikely to draw the attention of the majority of the borough's community. The council needed to use a different method to engage, inform and inspire residents and businesses and gain the public mandate to support the difficult decisions that needed to be taken to reach carbon net zero at or before 2050. Would the council be prepared to send out more targeted information and ask the public 'Are you satisfied that the Council has chosen to aim for 2% warming rather than the 1.5% limit that the Paris agreement indicated should be pursued?

Councillor Stimson responded that a lot could be achieved by reaching out to large organisations. It had been seen with COVID-19 that the community was able to come together. The consultation approach was that the council was looking to change the way things were done and wanted the views of the community including would could be done better and how could it be speeded up. The council would be approaching businesses as well. If there were specific questions the CEC wanted to ask they would be considered, however she highlighted it was a serious consultation rather than a few lines on a piece of paper.

o) Georgina Ellis of Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

We recognise the importance of biodiversity and this is why the natural environment has been highlighted as one of four key themes within the strategy document. This includes setting up a new ‘Natural Capital’ programme that will enable the council to manage its natural environment projects in a co-ordinated way to support biodiversity.

We understand the frustration from some people who want faster progress on specific issues and projects. However, it is important that we have the right overall approach to tackling the climate emergency that allows us to prioritise the right activities to ensure we meet our overall ambitions of being net zero by 2050 at the latest.

Ms Ellis was not in attendance to ask a supplementary question.

p) Sarah Bowden of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Written response:

It is correct that the Stage 2 BLP hearing sessions will now not happen until the autumn, but there is a significant amount of work required to prepare for these hearing sessions. Earlier this month the Local Plan Inspector issued her Stage 2 Matters, Issues and Questions, along with a request that the Council responds to every question. There are over 200 questions, many of which raise complex issues, requiring detailed input from consultant advisors, as well as Officers in other departments.

It is important that development in the borough supports our ambition to be net zero by 2050 at the latest. Many of the policies in the Borough Local Plan seek to address directly or indirectly matters in relation to the environment and climate change, and getting the Borough Local Plan through the examination process and adopted remains a Council priority.

The draft Environment and Climate Strategy put before council this evening, sets out an action to prepare more detailed advice in Supplementary Planning Documents but this will need to sit under the new Borough Local Plan once it is adopted.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Bowden commented that an emergency SPD had been originally proposed in December last year and an offer of help to produce it was made in January. The response was that it was not possible whilst the BLP was under inspection. Since then 900 planning applications had been approved, and contrary to this it was understood that a new Borough-Wide Design Guide SPD was up for approval later in the week. The response led her to believe that it was resources and priorities that were the issue rather than the status of the inspection. How many more months of planning application approvals that made the current situation worse was the Lead Member prepared to subject the borough to? Given the responses and lack of urgency demonstrated she was personally withdrawing her support of the council and redirecting hervaluable time where it would have more impact addressing the climate emergency.

Councillor Coppinger responded that everyone needed to understand that the officers of the council had had a very difficult time dealing with the COVID-19 emergency in the last few months. It has had involved many officers working very hard under extreme pressure. This was not an excuse but it was a fact. The council had to deal with applications within a certain time therefore they had to proceed. The council had limited resources within the policy area; officers had had to focus time on the questions raised in relation to the BLP by the Inspector. He was sorry that this did not meet Ms Bowden’s requirements but the council was doing the best job it could.

q) Rachel Cook of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Written response:

The Borough Local Plan Proposed Changes Policy NR2 incorporates a requirement that development proposals will be expected to demonstrate how they maintain, protect and enhance the biodiversity of application sites including features of conservation value (such as hedgerows, trees, river corridors and other water bodies and the presence of protected species). It also requires new developments to identify areas where there is an opportunity for biodiversity to be improved including through recognising the importance of green corridors. Subsection 4 of that policy specifically requires that development proposals must be accompanied by ecological reports in accordance with BS 42020, to aid the assessment of proposals.

As such, the Council’s expectation on developers in relation to enhancing and protecting biodiversity is clearly spelled out in the emerging BLP

It is not necessary to repeat these requirements in the Borough Wide Design Guide, as relevant planning applications will be considered against the policies in the Borough Local Plan, as well as against the more detailed requirements set out in Supplementary Planning Documents, including the Borough Wide Design Guide.

The Borough Wide Design Guide SPD does refer to biodiversity measures, some of which have been strengthened following consultation on the draft version.

Finally, further opportunities for connecting wildlife and habitats will be addressed in the forthcoming Green and Blue Infrastructure SPD.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Cook asked when would the Green and Blue SPD be put into place.

Councillor Coppinger responded that he anticipated it to be in place by the autumn/winter of 2020.

r) Emily Tomalin of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:

Written response:

We have reviewed the Ghent example and, as a Borough, are considering where and how the use of filters, pop-up cycle space and priority crossings can benefit local journeys. All of our cycling ambitions are based on the valuable work that went into the Cycling Action Plan 2018-2028. This used local trip data and input from local residents’ groups to identify routes and measures to prioritise. At the moment we are pursuing a 20mph zone for Maidenhead Town Centre and have identified where and how the current available funding can best benefit everyone, including cyclists, to allow people to make the journeys they want to make.

The first step is additional monitoring, which we are currently undertaking. Our intention is to apply for the Emergency Active Travel Fund currently being made available by the Department for Transport to help deliver the Cycle Action Plan. This fund is for pop-up bike lanes, wider pavements, safer junctions, and cycle and bus-only corridors. The borough has already applied for the first tranche of this Emergency Active Travel funding (we have yet to hear the outcome) and we will soon be applying for the second tranche of funding. The second tranche forms the larger portion of potential funding.

The local character of the Borough means that for Maidenhead, Windsor and Ascot, there are only a few access points to High Streets and town centres. This does not make the implementation of filters straight forward, as it means that they have a significant impact on all traffic movements. For this reason it is felt necessary for such a decision to be fully considered. Once the benefits are better understood we will move forward accordingly.”

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Tomalin asked the council to explore committing income from parking charges, not excessive for the elderly or disabled, in order to improve public transport for cycling and walking. Could the council explain the multiple benefits of this to residents and local businesses including the cost-benefit ratio?

Councillor Clark responded that parking charges should not be connected with the investment. If there was an investment in cycling infrastructure to address issues in the cycling action plan that was part of the balanced budget. The collection of revenues for applications, licences etc. was a separate issue as part of the council’s revenue. The council was pursuing a policy of looking at promotion of cycling in town centres under the emergency funding and it would always look how to balance its budgets and how to progress the cycling action plan.

s) Emily Tomalin of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Written response:

Unfortunately, the planning system cannot be used to directly control whether food production is organic (or non-organic), and nor can the planning system be used to directly control where any food grown in the Borough is sold and consumed.

However, the Proposed Changes version of the BLP does include Policy QP2 (Green and Blue Infrastructure), and this policy requires development proposals to contribute to the maintenance, enhancement, and where possible, enlargement of the Borough’s existing green and blue infrastructure, which includes allotments, community gardens/orchards and urban farms.

In addition, the Site Allocation Proformas included in the BLP specifically require some of the sites allocated for development to provide new allotments and/ or community gardens and orchards.

I therefore believe that the BLP will help maintain land that can be used for local food production, as well as creating new allotments and/ or community gardens and orchards, as part of the Plan’s strong place-making agenda. This is reinforced through the climate strategy objectives to promote sustainable food production, including an action to provide more opportunities for people to ‘grow their own’.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Tomalin asked if the council could make money and create jobs by supporting more local food production, also supplying fresher food to local businesses and schools.

Councillor Coppinger responded that he would discuss the issue with officers and provide a written response.

Written response: The council has identified ‘promoting sustainable food choices’ as an objective of the climate strategy in our natural environment theme. As part of that work we would be working closely with local suppliers to provide education and promote more local production. There is unlikely to be direct financial benefit to the council but there could be wider economic and social benefits to the borough as a whole. The primary objective of this work is to deliver the environmental benefits but there is also an opportunity to promote the benefits to the local economy, health and wellbeing. As part of our covid-19 recovery strategy we have also been promoting local businesses through our communication channels and will continue to do so as part of this work.

t) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

Written response:

As a country and a borough, we have committed to be net zero by 2050, at the latest. To achieve this will require carbon emission reductions across a whole range of sectors and activities. The climate strategy sets out the key areas of focus to 2050, with an action plan for the next five years to support transition to net zero. We welcome your views on the strategy in the forthcoming public consultation.

The RBWM Planning Policy Team is currently working through all the Matters, Issues and Questions, ensuring a comprehensive response is ready for submission by 7th August 2020.

The Inspector has asked several questions in relation to Policy SP2, and in responding, Officers will be taking into account legal advice, as well as the wide range of policies and proposals in the BLP that directly (or indirectly) address the requirement to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

The work undertaken by the Council does not suggest or support the proposition that the BLP will increase carbon emissions by 22.5% and the Council strongly considers that the proposed changes to the plan, including the addition of Policy SP2, strengthen the Plan in terms of climate change and biodiversity.

By way of a supplementary, Mr Bermange commented that the council’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2050 was a positive step and this target was now enshrined in the amended Climate Change Act.

Given, under that Act, the Secretary of State had a duty when acting to consider UK domestic action on climate change and taking this together with the recent Heathrow Ruling does the Lead Member share his concern that, without significant strengthening of SP2, the Secretary of State would be duty bound to take over the entire plan-making process, under the default powers of Section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, and impose whatever changes he saw fit to make the BLP sound? Was it not now wiser to submit under the less stringent economic viability constraints of the 2019 NPPF?

Councillor Coppinger responded that he expected the Inspector would ask the council to make major modifications and the council was happy to accept them. He was unsure of the consequences of Mr Bermange’s question; he would therefore provide a written response.

Written response provided after the meeting: Many thanks for the supplementary question. As you will be aware, the Local Plan Inspector has asked over 200 questions to assist in her determination of whether the Borough Local Plan is legally compliant and sound. A few of these questions relate to Policy SP2. I have discussed with experienced officers, and they have confirmed that is not unusual for an Inspector to ask a lot of questions about a complex Local Plan. The Inspector is seeking to ensure that she has a good understanding of all of the key issues, prior to providing her Final Report on the Examination.

I do not see any reason at this time for the Secretary of State to use his powers under Section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. The Borough Council is seeking to assist the Inspector with her Matters, Issues and Questions, and is generally working to support the ongoing Examination of the Borough Local Plan. The Council has asked the Inspector to recommend any changes to the Borough Local Plan that she feels are necessary to enable the Plan to be found sound, and as necessary and appropriate, these recommendations will address Policy SP2.

I am afraid I do not fully understand the final part of the question, in relation to submitting under the 2019 NPPF. The Borough Local Plan has of course passed through the Stage 1 Hearing process, and we are continuing at this time to progress the Plan under the transitional arrangements set out at paragraph 214 of the NPPF (February 2019).

u) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:

Written response:

When setting a balanced budget for 2020/21 almost £5.5m of savings proposals were identified. Each of these savings will have been considered in terms of their deliverability including the actions and steps that would need to be taken to ensure planned delivery. Prior to the budget being agreed at full council in February 2020, it was considered at Corporate Overview and Scrutiny too.

Whilst significant due diligence is undertaken to provide reassurance that all aspects that may affect delivery of any saving have been considered, in the case of the parking permit income it was identified after the budget was set that the intended way to deliver the scheme was incorrect. This will have an impact in the financial year 2020/21 and means the council will have to manage the financial implications of this in year by finding alternative savings and take other steps to manage our resources.

For this financial year, a new tracker has been introduced as part of the budget monitoring process which tracks intended savings delivery and identifies any risks to delivery and identifies any alternative options to manage resources appropriately. This will be included in our publicly available monitoring reports which will be considered at Cabinet on a bi-monthly basis, starting from July.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Bermange congratulated the council for its remedial steps in writing the wrong however he was sceptical that the alternative saving in excess of £100,000 would be found when the Lead Member was unable to identify a £35,000 virement to fund four weeks of free parking. He asked whether the Lead Member intended to dip into the £1.3m contingency budget to fund the error and given other savings and opportunity deliverability issues such as the family hubs project, how much of the contingency fund was left?

Councillor Hilton responded that the £35,000 would be funded from other sources and the service would make savings in other areas. The council would remain very strict in the way it dealt with overspends. The council was sitting in a difficult and different place at the moment due to significant potential overspends as a result of COVID-19. The government had provided £7m of funding. The council would be working on a new Medium Term Financial Strategy and was determined to deliver a balanced budget.

v) Susy Shearer of Clewer East Ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

This will clearly depend on the specific example. Using low carbon building techniques, it is possible to construct buildings that have both low embedded and operational carbon. Existing buildings can be expensive to retrofit and heritage buildings may well have conservation considerations.

We recognise that ‘existing buildings’ make up the vast majority of buildings that we will have in 2050 and we will need to tackle those to get to net zero. As part of our strategy, we will prioritise projects based on a number of factors including how much carbon emission reductions they will deliver. We will also be working with businesses in the Borough to encourage them to consider the buildings they operate from.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Shearer welcomed the suggestions that low carbon building techniques would be used in new construction and recognised the challenges that could be faced in the process of recycling buildings. She asked the Lead Member to confirm that recycling buildings would be typically referred to as a principle in the strategy.

Councillor Stimson responded that a large proportion of existing buildings would still exist in 2050; a lot would need to be retro-fitted to be carbon neutral. There was a large task ahead.

w) Susy Shearer of Clewer East Ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Written response:

The climate strategy sets out an ambition to decarbonise transport and incentivise more use of active transport modes. This will help tackle pollution and carbon emissions issues you set out and improve people’s health and wellbeing. It contains a number of specific measures to achieve this.

Delivery of our current cycling action plan is an important first step. It aims to increase cycling journeys by 50% by 2028. Opportunities for people to walking and cycle more will be identified in new ‘growth areas’ as part of development planning too.

In addition, the strategy sets out public transport usage will be incentivised; through the investigation of options for demand responsive transport in the borough. The climate strategy also recognises that the best way of reducing emissions is to avoid unnecessary travel. It commits to facilitate the roll out of digital infrastructure in the borough to enable flexible working.

The strategy recognises that some journeys will still need to be made by car. To minimise the impact of this, and to further reduce air pollution and carbon emissions issues you set out; we will support the reduction in emissions of these journeys through infrastructure provision for electric vehicles charging.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Shearer commented that she had been pleased that the council had committed to implementing a cycling action plan scheme and would include facilities for cycling in new developments, along with demand responsive public transport. Incentives such as Advantage Card reward points for cycling and walking would be greatly welcomed. Additional provision through government funded safe space interventions would simultaneously help expand cycling and walking route networks and support climate change objectives. Would the Lead Member confirm that safe space interventions would be added to the strategy, particularly as future waves of COVID-19 were a genuine risk.

Councillor Stimson responded that alongside Councillor Clark she would be working on the issue to increase the number of cycling journeys by 50%, which was already in the strategy.

Supporting documents:

Public Questions_written responses, item 8. PDF 424 KB