Agenda item

Members' Questions

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

 

At Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel Councillor Johnson said he was “curious” why the opposition had challenged Cabinet’s decision to give Maidenhead United many acres of Braywick Park for zero consideration. How else would he suggest we challenge Cabinet decisions that do not have the required detail to ensure the decision is in the best interests of council and residents?

 

b)   Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Why after the COVID-19 Crisis has shown that much office space and some retail space will most likely never be used again and is highly likely to be converted into private dwellings are we as a Borough still proposing to develop Maidenhead Golf Club for housing?

 

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

 

What is the current total of the RBWM River Thames Scheme partnership funding contributions required to ensure that Channel 1 through Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury is progressed?

 

d)   Councillor Brar will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside.

 

The Tyndall Climate Centre has produced a report for RBWM. It is available online. It shows a target of approximately 5Mtons of CO2 not 10 Mtons as in the Climate Strategy document. Why was this scientific advice declined and not mentioned in the strategy especially when the RBWM targets go against the Paris Climate agreement of 1.5 degrees warming?

 

e)    Councillor Baldwin will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor:

 

Despite concerns voiced by opposition members over many years about the sorry state of corporate governance within RBWM we are still routinely issued with agendas lacking crucial reports. It appears the date of the meeting has become the disclosure deadline, making proper preparation impossible. What assurances can the lead member give us that these long-term deficiencies are being addressed?

 

f)     Councillor Jones will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

The RBWM 2018/19 Audit issued a ‘qualified’ conclusion with concerns regarding inadequate resourcing of key governance functions: weaknesses in arrangements of financial sustainability and resilience, ultra vires spend, inadequate reports to council and a culture that discouraged individuals to challenge. Concerns echoed by Cipfa and the Peer Review. What impact have these failures had on the council as an organisation?

 

g)   Councillor Reynolds will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Currently RBWM only has the capacity to power 1% of our homes via renewable energy. To simply keep pace with other local authorities we need 13X more. How will RBWM do this?

 

h)   Councillor Del Campo will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

 

The inspector’s response to the latest version of the Borough Local Plan suggests that even this version is far from “legally compliant and sound”. With eleven areas of concern, some fundamental, and hundreds of questions for clarification, and in light of the climate emergency we declared, has the lead member considered starting the process again? If not, why not?

 

 

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to two minutes to reply to the initial question, and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put the supplementary question)

 

 

Minutes:

As agreed earlier in the meeting, all Member questions (including supplementary questions where submitted) were dealt with by way of written answers provided after the meeting:

 

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

 

At Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel Councillor Johnson said he was “curious” why the opposition had challenged Cabinet’s decision to give Maidenhead United many acres of Braywick Park for zero consideration. How else would he suggest we challenge Cabinet decisions that do not have the required detail to ensure the decision is in the best interests of council and residents?

 

Written response: Sadly, you appear to have taken my words out of context, either on a wilfully deliberate or accidental basis, from that meeting of the Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel which took place on 15th January 2020. 

 

Whilst I appreciate that the meeting was now some time ago please do let me refresh your memory and clarify the position.  

 

As you will recall, given that you were present at the meeting on 15th January 2020, but sadly not at the meeting of Cabinet on 19th December when the issue was discussed and the report approved, I used the phrase “curious” to reference the fact that neither of the members (apart from Cllr Lynne Jones) who called in the application to that committee had been present at the meeting of Cabinet on 19th December. In fact, Cllr Jones as verified by the minutes asked no questions on the item relating to MUFC, with the only questioner being Cllr Helen Price. Furthermore, despite calling-in the application Cllr Jones gave apologies for the 15th January and was substituted by Cllr Hill, who had failed to show up at the 19th December, despite the agenda relating to a significant matter within his ward. 

 

It was to this that I used the word “curious” to describe the situation. Curious that when the issue was discussed at Cabinet on the 19th December that none of those members who had called-in the decision had attended to ask questions and join the discussion. Had they done so it is likely that many of their questions, and indeed concerns, could have been addressed. Yet they did not and only Cllr Helen Price diligently asked a question on the subject. 

 

Perhaps even more “curious” was the fact that Cllr Jones did not ask any questions on the issue, but then decided to call-in the application and failed to attend to meeting to discuss said call-in. As recorded in the minutes Cllr Hill acted as substitute to ask the questions that he, or a colleague, could readily have asked at Cabinet on 19th December. 

 

As I stated on the evening of 15th January, and as the minutes record, “any initial concerns could have been addressed at Cabinet” on 19th December rather than by a call-in request which appeared to look like an attempt to salvage some of the lost initiative caused by a comprehensive failure to ask questions on the 19th December. Questions I would state for the record I would very happily have answered. One hopes that you don’t find this too much of a curious response. 

 

 

b)   Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Why after the COVID-19 Crisis has shown that much office space and some retail space will most likely never be used again and is highly likely to be converted into private dwellings are we as a Borough still proposing to develop Maidenhead Golf Club for housing?

 

Written response: Maidenhead Golf Club is allocated in the emerging Borough Local Plan for 2000 homes (30 % affordable) with supporting infrastructure including a new school and is key to meeting objectively assessed housing need. There is also no evidence yet, that substantial office and retail will be converted into residential, or that even if it was that it would be in the correct place for residential use. Employment and retail space will also be very important for economic recovery.  Housing need and demand in the borough is substantial and new homes are desperately needed to meet that, including affordable housing. The Maidenhead Golf Course site will provide much needed new housing including a significant amount of affordable housing to meet housing need in the Borough in a sustainable location alongside new education and community facilities to support the town. 

 

A supplementary question was not submitted

 

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

 

What is the current total of the RBWM River Thames Scheme partnership funding contributions required to ensure that Channel 1 through Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury is progressed?

 

Written response: To progress the Outline Business Case for the River Thames Scheme which includes the channel through the Royal Borough contributions of £53m from RBWM will be required together with a commitment to a risk sharing agreement for any potential changes in costs.

 

£10m (split over four years commencing in 2020/21) of the Royal Borough’s contribution was approved by Council in September 2017 and forms part of the approved budget for 2020/21.

 

At this stage of the approvals process for the project, the commitment to the financial contributions would require a letter from the Section 151 officer to the Project Sponsoring Board.

 

Supplementary question: When will the S151 Officer be writing to the Project Sponsoring Board?

 

Written response: tbc

 

d)   Councillor Brar asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside.

 

The Tyndall Climate Centre has produced a report for RBWM. It is available online. It shows a target of approximately 5Mtons of CO2 not 10 Mtons as in the Climate Strategy document. Why was this scientific advice declined and not mentioned in the strategy especially when the RBWM targets go against the Paris Climate agreement of 1.5 degrees warming?

 

Written response: The council is thankful for the research the Tyndall Centre has produced and has not declined the advice.  The strategy states we will review their expert guidance and consider it as part of our review of the proposed carbon trajectory.

 

The RBWM target does not go against the Paris Agreement, according to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC, the UK Government independent advisory body on climate change.  The target fully meets the 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.

 

Supplementary question: The Government funded SCATTER TOOL provides RBWM with the ability, at no cost, to build scenarios for emissions reduction. It is based on setting ambition levels for 32 elements of the RBWM carbon footprint and produce pathways or trajectories to 2050.

 

The Current RBWM 5 Year pathway presented is close to the lowest level of ambition from all 32 elements. Why is the ambition so low and why has the tool and output not apparently been used or mentioned in the strategy formulation. It has been available for 11 months?.

 

Written response: We have adopted an initial trajectory in the draft strategy for consultation, which will be subject to consultation and review as a result of those comments.    As stated in the strategy, we have committed to review the trajectory over the next six months working with relevant experts.  This will utilise the best tools and evidence to support that work, guided by our overall commitment to be net zero by 2050 at the latest.  The trajectory is not the only measure of ambition in the strategy and we have set out some ambitious actions and targets over the next five years.  This includes setting a new strategy for the natural environment and transport, as well as ambitious targets to increase renewables generation and increase recycling rates.

 

e)    Councillor Baldwin asked the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor:

 

Despite concerns voiced by opposition members over many years about the sorry state of corporate governance within RBWM we are still routinely issued with agendas lacking crucial reports. It appears the date of the meeting has become the disclosure deadline, making proper preparation impossible. What assurances can the lead member give us that these long-term deficiencies are being addressed?

 

Written response: There are some occasions when an urgent report is required, such as the recent Cabinet report to allow free parking for Advantage Card holders. In this case, to have followed the standard timescales would have delayed implementation of the decision, which would have been to the detriment of residents. There are also occasions when the council is reliant on information or data from a third party that can lead to a delay in publication.

 

However, it is clearly important for both Panel Members and the public that reports are available in good time before a meeting. Meeting work programmes are maintained, which enable Directors and Heads of Service to anticipate future reports and manage officer workloads. This process can most clearly be seen in terms of the Cabinet Forward Plan and the Overview and Scrutiny Panel work programmes. Meeting clerks in Democratic Services liaise with officer colleagues across the council to ensure they are fully aware of agenda publication deadlines and to manage emerging issues such as the requirement for urgent reports.

 

The number of reports marked as ‘to follow’ and the reasons given are monitored on a monthly basis, with details being circulated to the Corporate Leadership Team for review. Excluding the past three months where the number of meetings has been significantly lower due to the COVID-19 situation, the average percentage of reports marked as ‘to follow’ for the preceding 12 months was less than 7%.

 

A supplementary question was not submitted

 

f)     Councillor Jones asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

The RBWM 2018/19 Audit issued a ‘qualified’ conclusion with concerns regarding inadequate resourcing of key governance functions: weaknesses in arrangements of financial sustainability and resilience, ultra vires spend, inadequate reports to council and a culture that discouraged individuals to challenge. Concerns echoed by Cipfa and the Peer Review. What impact have these failures had on the council as an organisation?

 

Written response: RBWM as an organisation has undergone a significant amount of change over the last year to 18 months, particularly with the change in leadership both at a political and officer level.

 

External challenge and review through our annual external audit, peer review and the report on financial governance that we commissioned CIPFA to undertake has meant that we can ensure that we have a full understanding of the issues that we need to tackle and address as a whole organisation.  External challenge is always healthy for any organisation that wants to continue to positively grow and learn and will be something that we need to continue to be committed to undertaking.

 

In the meantime, as an organisation we have not sat back and waited for the results of those reviews.  It would not be acceptable to know that some things were wrong and not look to fix them.

 

Underpinning everything we need to do to move RBWM forwards was a need to tackle a culture that discouraged individuals from speaking up.  As soon as our new permanent MD started at RBWM he committed to listening to all of our staff, to understand the values and behaviours of the organisation that they want to work in and to then ensure that actions are identified to help demonstrate those values and behaviours on a daily basis.

 

Members have also been included in that conversation and are encouraged to continue to be part of that journey.

 

The detailed CIPFA report has been received by RBWM in the last week and has been published, publicly, as soon as possible so that all councillors, staff and residents are able to view their findings.  This demonstrates a desire to change the past culture and ensures transparency of the issues that they found.  Their interim report in 2019 identified these issues but this provides more evidence and analysis as well as demonstrates how a number of actions have already been put into place to tackle past issues.

 

The next most important step is the development of an action plan to address any remaining, outstanding items.  The corporate overview and scrutiny committee have an important role in scrutinising whether the action plan that officers are developing will address the issues raised by CIPFA before cabinet approve that plan.  Scrutiny of the action plan will ensure that the organisation can demonstrate that actions are realistic, deliverable and we can be held to account for delivering on them.

 

The impact of these reviews therefore ensure that RBWM is able to move forwards as an organisation and we are equipped to tackle the very relevant issues that our local residents and businesses are faced with today and in the future.  Having sound governance is integral to delivering for them.

 

A supplementary question was not submitted

 

g)   Councillor Reynolds asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Currently RBWM only has the capacity to power 1% of our homes via renewable energy. To simply keep pace with other local authorities we need 13X more. How will RBWM do this?

 

Written response: The strategy demonstrates we have high ambitions for renewable energy generation; we aim to match local authorities performing well in this regard. 

 

The target in the strategy is to increase renewable capacity 10-fold by 2025.  This will need to be achieved through a variety of means including incentivisation of renewable energy in new build; retrofit of renewable energy systems in existing buildings and support for community energy schemes such as MaidEnergy.

 

A supplementary question was not submitted

 

h)   Councillor Del Campo asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead:

 

The inspector’s response to the latest version of the Borough Local Plan suggests that even this version is far from “legally compliant and sound”. With eleven areas of concern, some fundamental, and hundreds of questions for clarification, and in light of the climate emergency we declared, has the lead member considered starting the process again? If not, why not?

 

Written response: The Borough Local Plan was submitted for Examination in January 2018, with the Stage 1 Hearing sessions taking place in June 2018.  The Inspector subsequently issued her advice, which raised some areas of concern, and asked for further work to be undertaken.

 

This work was completed by Officers, with support from consultants, and an updated version of the Local Plan (presented as ‘Proposed Changes’) was agreed by Councillors in October 2019.  The further work and proposed revisions to the Plan strengthened the document, with a strong emphasis on place-making.

 

The Inspector has considered all the further information submitted by the Council and has determined that it is appropriate for her to proceed with Stage 2 of the examination.

 

As is normal practice, the Inspector has issued her Matters, Issues and Questions to all examination participants, asking for responses to assist in her consideration of the key issues not explored in the Stage 1 hearing sessions. 

 

Officers are working hard to prepare a robust and comprehensive response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions, with a view to supporting the October 2019 version of the Borough Local Plan.  A significant amount of time, effort and money has been spent on getting the Borough Local Plan to this stage, and getting this Local Plan adopted clearly is the right thing to do.  This will give us an up to date set of planning policies and proposals, which take account of the Borough’s current needs, and set a clear framework for delivering on our environmental and place-making agenda.

 

To my mind there is nothing in the Inspectors questions which suggests nay thinking that the plan is unsound, the questions are simply a part of the process. To the contrary I do not think the Inspector would waste public resources by continuing if they had such concerns and I see it as really positive that we are moving forward.

 

A supplementary question was not submitted