Agenda item

Public Questions

a)    Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Does the Leader of the Council believe he owes a fiduciary duty to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in relation to the latter’s powers under Schedule 1, Sub-Paragraph 2(5)(c) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and, if so, will he urgently write to the Ministry to disclose fully the findings of the CIPFA investigation?

  

b)   Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking

 

Would the Lead Member confirm the current legal and contractual basis for parking enforcement within self-administered Residents’ Parking Zones and whether it is the Council’s intention to withdraw enforcement in those streets that decline to become designated as Council-administered schemes? If so, when?

 

c)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor

 

Will the Lead Member provide details of the demise of the Legacy Leisure Trust and outline the governance arrangements of Leisure Focus.

 

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

 

For the sake of transparency will the Royal Borough provide the terms of reference for the review of financial governance that it requested from CIPFA?

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

Why were Members not informed in the Council report of July 2019 that surveyors Knight Frank had, in March 2019, given an Existing Use Value (EUV) for the Nicholson Shopping Centre (excluding hope value) of £18m?

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

During any pre-application meetings for major developments, is it standard protocol for officers to advise applicants that the approved tall building policy in the Maidenhead Area Action Plan (para 3.40) limits maximum building heights to 12 storeys in order “to respect the size and compact nature of Maidenhead and respect visibility from the surrounding countryside to the existing level”?

 

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutesto deal with public questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances.

The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting.

The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

Minutes:

a)    Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

Does the Leader of the Council believe he owes a fiduciary duty to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in relation to the latter’s powers under Schedule 1, Sub-Paragraph 2(5)(c) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and, if so, will he urgently write to the Ministry to disclose fully the findings of the CIPFA investigation?

 

Written response: The review of financial governance that was undertaken by CIPFA and the results of that review are publicly available on our website and therefore available for anyone who wishes to view the information contained within it.

  

Mr Bermange stated that he did not have a supplementary question, but would contact Councillor Johnson offline.

 

b)   Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking

 

Would the Lead Member confirm the current legal and contractual basis for parking enforcement within self-administered Residents’ Parking Zones and whether it is the Council’s intention to withdraw enforcement in those streets that decline to become designated as Council-administered schemes? If so, when?

 

Written response: The Parking Principal will be writing to all administrators of self-administered schemes during July and August advising of the 2 options which are available from April 1 2021.

 

These options are:

1.       Become a council administered scheme and apply the relevant permit fees

2.       Request the removal of the scheme, remove the permit parking restriction and for enforcement to cease

 

Self-administered schemes form part of the Traffic Regulation Order relating to a particular area. The same order and conditions also apply to Royal Borough administered schemes. The difference between self-administered and Royal Borough schemes is that permission is granted by the Royal Borough to the administrator of self-administered schemes to set local scheme rules including the number of permits permitted per household.

 

In the Traffic Regulation Order the definition of permit includes the wording “any other body with Councils approval and permission”. This definition is applicable and covers self-administered schemes.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Bermange thanked the Lead Member for taking the time to provide his comprehensive answer, which provided some much-needed clarity.

 

Having spoken with a number of residents who served as administrators for their streets Mr Bermange commented that, whilst some had fully constituted associations to assist decision making others, such the one in Laburnham Road, Boyn Hill, had only informal arrangements.

 

Mr Bermange asked if the Lead Member could therefore commit to providing council assistance to those schemes in consulting and holding referenda, where required, and would he also consider extending the opportunity to decide on the future of schemes to those currently under council control too?

 

Councillor Cannon responded that all schemes, at any stage, were subject to residents’ consent. If the majority of any residents in a scheme wished to change it, that just had to be brought to the attention of the parking team and then the council would look to make the changes. Schemes were only put in at resident’s request; if the majority no longer wanted a scheme it could be adjusted or removed. A formal process was not needed, it could be done easily by letter or petition.

 

c)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Resident and Leisure Services, HR, IT, Legal, Performance Management and Windsor

 

Will the Lead Member provide details of the demise of the Legacy Leisure Trust and outline the governance arrangements of Leisure Focus.

 

Written response: Parkwood Leisure entered into a contract with RBWM to operate our Leisure Centres with effect from January 2015, and the day to day operation of the centres has been delivered by their charitable arm Legacy Leisure since that contract began.

Following the closure of the leisure centres across the country with effect from 21 March 2020, as the result of guidance from Government responding to the COVID19 pandemic, Parkwood Leisure gave notice to the Borough to terminate their contract with RBWM as they considered Force Majeure applied and as such they did not consider it possible for the Centres to generate the income necessary to continue to pay the contract concession fee to RBWM.

Although the Borough rejected the notice to terminate at the time it was served, after taking legal advice, and considering the wider impacts on the leisure market across the county, and the ongoing impacts on Parkwood Leisure and their operations, the Borough recognised Parkwood could give a valid termination in June, and it would be better to negotiate ad managed contract termination and transfer.

The Legacy Leisure Trust has not ceased to operate but it was agreed that the contract between RBWM and Parkwood Leisure would come to a managed end, as the alternative proposal Parkwood offered, was not considered value for money for RBWM.

A range of options were therefore investigated and reviewed and the most advantageous option identified was to create a new Charitable Incorporate Organisation (CIO) who could take on the contract to the run the leisure centres when the contract with RBWM ends. This CIO has been established and is Leisure Focus.

A managed transfer by means of a Business Transfer Agreement have been prepared to deal with the contractual issues, and a new contract will commence on 1st August when the contract with Parkwood Leisure ends on 31st July 2020.

Leisure Focus Trust is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) which is regulated by the Charity Commission; the details for Leisure Focus Trust can be found via the link provided below.

 

https://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1190095&SubsidiaryNumber=0

 

As a CIO, Leisure Focus Trust is completely independent from the Council.

The relationship between Leisure Focus and the Council is governed by a contract between the parties. The Contract is a concession contract where the Council has outsourced the management of its leisure facilities to Leisure Focus Trust who have the right to run the leisure centres and retain the revenue (subject to the payment of a fee to the Council).

The Contract with Leisure Focus Trust will contain various mechanisms in terms of how the Council will maintain governance in respect of monitoring and reporting of the Leisure Services, these will include:

·         Monthly review Meetings with the Council's Contract Manager;

·         Quarterly review Meetings with the Council's relevant Director or Head of Service;

·         Attendance by the Trust at meetings of elected Members to review contract performance and to present service development plans as part of the annual service planning process.

This arrangement reflects the arrangements that have worked well for the last five years.

 

Mr Wilson was not present therefore his supplementary question was read out by officers:

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question and for providing the background to the demise of the council’s arrangement with Parkwood Leisure.

 

The Council’s press release failed to mention this point or the associated action taken by Parkwood.  Will the Lead Member confirm that Parkwood have agreed to meet all of their payments to the council up to the transfer to Leisure Focus?

 

Councillor Rayner responded that the council and Parkwood had finished their negotiations and everything had been agreed. If there were any further questions, Mr Wilson was welcome to write to Councillor Rayner and she would ensure he received a response.

 

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

 

For the sake of transparency will the Royal Borough provide the terms of reference for the review of financial governance that it requested from CIPFA?

 

Written response: The document provided (see below) sets out the agreed process for the Review of Financial Governance undertaken by CIPFA.

 

Mr Wilson was not present therefore his supplementary question was read out by officers:

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question and for confirming that the Royal Borough did not issue or agree a term of reference for his report. 

 

Given the absence of such a document how can residents be assured that the CIPFA report was comprehensive, robust and met the objectives set by the Managing Director who commissioned it?

 

Councillor Johnson responded that he was able to give full assurance that the document was indeed comprehensive, robust and was in line with the objectives set. The document had been considered once already by Cabinet, and also by Overview and Scrutiny the day before during an in-depth and rigorous debate. Cabinet would again consider the report including any recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny at its meeting later in the week. CIPFA was a well-regarded organisation and had been eminently helpful in uncovering historical irregularities.

e)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council.

Why were Members not informed in the Council report of July 2019 that surveyors Knight Frank had, in March 2019, given an Existing Use Value (EUV) for the Nicholson Shopping Centre (excluding hope value) of £18m?

Written response:Thank you for your question. 

 

This is not something the Council has had access to until recently where it was referenced in the planning information, as part of the Financial Viability Assessment.

 

This is an existing use valuation, commissioned by Denhead (the company set up by Arelli and Tikehau), that covers the Nicholsons shopping centre including the ownerships of Denhead relating to their freehold interest in the site and their long leasehold interest until 2135 on the whole shopping centre site which included the income producing assets, in addition to the part of freehold that the Council owns.

 

Denhead purchased their freehold and the long leasehold interest of the whole site from the receivers of Vixcroft (Maidenhead) Ltd.

 

The long leasehold (115 years remaining), also includes the ability for them to develop the whole site, without permission being unreasonably withheld from the freeholder (the council).

 

In regards to the Council’s freehold interests they were valued via an independent valuation (a section 123 report) by Lambert Smith Hampton and the conditional contract that was negotiated with Denhead for their sale is in line with that. From the information we have seen in the Financial Viability Assessment it is also in line with that.  The Knight Frank Valuation is not in the public domain, but would have been used to support the Financial Viability Assessment.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that the council still owned the freehold land of 50% of the Nicholson’s shopping centre. In February officers informed Council that in March 2019 all the land had been essentially considered worthless, using the technical term ‘de minimus’. In the same month an Existing Use Valuation of the land by objective surveyors Knight Frank put a capital figure of £18m on the shopping centre. The land appeared to be either worthless or worth £18m. This was before anyone considered an Alternative Use Valuation when it was redeveloped as luxury flats. Did the Lead Member agree with him that it was now in the public interest that all the 2009 valuation documents be transparently published?

 

Councillor Johnson responded highlighted that this related to a live planning application and he did not wish to undermine any potential discussions in relation to the applicant’s viability assessment or officers’ analysis of that. Discussions were ongoing in the lead up to the determination of the planning application. The FVA would provide a core document in terms of its assessment of the land value and as a guide marker for discussions on other issues such as developer contributions and affordable housing.

 

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

During any pre-application meetings for major developments, is it standard protocol for officers to advise applicants that the approved tall building policy in the Maidenhead Area Action Plan (para 3.40) limits maximum building heights to 12 storeys in order “to respect the size and compact nature of Maidenhead and respect visibility from the surrounding countryside to the existing level”?


Written response: It is standard practice to reference the adopted Maidenhead Town Centre AAP, including its policy on tall buildings, if relevant to the scheme in question. It is also standard practice, for pre-application advice to refer to emerging policy, evidence base work and other material considerations. While emerging policies have limited weight at this time, they set out the Royal Borough’s strategic intentions for sites within Maidenhead Town Centre and are relevant when advising on major schemes.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that The Landing was approved despite being far higher than the local plan’s maximum height of 12 storeys. Since then the unadopted 2019 RBWM Tall Buildings Policy stated that the maximum height of one landmark building would be 19 storeys. Did the words ‘no more than 19 storeys’ in the policy mean the LPA would not approve any building in the borough that was higher than 19 storeys?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded it was difficult to make statements when there was a live planning application. It was not his role to pre-empt or guess what officers would decide to do.

Supporting documents: