The deadline for public questions (directly relating to an item on the agenda) is 12noon on Tuesday 22 September 2020.

For information contact karen.shepherd@rbwm.gov.uk or 01628 796529.

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to 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).

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

The MCC submitted an Asset of Community Value nomination on May 11th 2020. By law the site MUST be designated or refused ACV status within 8 weeks. Was the RVS site designated an ACV (or not) under regulation 7 of the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012, and on what date?

Written response: Thank you for your question Mr Hill. There has been a delay in determining the application. An apology was provided to MCC as their email with the application was not picked up for a number of weeks due to staff being refocused on to the Council’s response to COVID 19. Subsequent to that due to the existence of a development agreement and planning permission relating to the site specialist legal advice has had to be commissioned to support determination of the application. We are sorry for the delay and the application will shortly be determined.

By way of supplementary question, Mr Hill referred to paragraph 2.12 of the report where it stated that the ACV application was being considered in line with the relevant legislation yet in the written response to his question it was stated that this was not true and in fact regulation 7 had been breached. Worse still, it appeared that Councillor Johnson intended to go on defying the statutory deadline. Section 5 of the report (legal implications) did not inform Members of the statutory breaches. Mr Hill asked why this was the case and why had RBWM decided not to comply with all statutory requirements?

Councillor Johnson responded by restating that the reason the application had not been determined in the required timescale was due to the reallocation of resources to tackle the more immediate issue of COVID-19. The council would be determining the application in line with its statutory obligations. Although this was delayed, it did not mean the council would not pay regard to the due process going forward. It was also fair to say that the council had arrived at a solution which would be discussed later in the agenda; the question was somewhat academic given the information now in Part I.

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

It is outrageous that the location for the proposed centre is “part 2” confidential. Councillors gave planning consent conditional on the understanding that Countryside would enter a legal contract for MCC's move: to pay £650,000 to improve the Desborough Suite. Is Countryside still obliged to pay £650,000 (s106), and what community facilities will it be spent on?  

Written response: Thank you for your question Mr Hill. The proposed location was Part II so that the confidential discussions with the relevant parties could be completed. As soon as we can, this information will be made available in Part I.

Countryside are required to pay the contribution of £650,000 for improving the Desborough Suite or such other community scheme located within 5km of the development that has similar objects and purpose of use of the Desborough Suite in line with the S106. The Council will determine how this is best used in line with the S106 and we are currently considering that as part of our wider work to improve the town.

By way of supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that in reports published earlier that day the intention was to move the youth centre from 4 Marlow Road even though seven days earlier the council had been consulting on retention of the youth centre on the same site because it was close to rail and bus links. He asked whether the council had potentially rendered that consultation unlawful and would he commit to holding a third consultation on the youth and children’s centres and put the £650,000 windfall into saving the children’s and youth centres?

Councillor Johnson responded that both parts of the question suggested Mr Hill did not wish to see the relocation go smoothly. He assured Mr Hill that full consideration had been given to the current consultation on youth service provision. The youth service currently used 4 Marlow Road as its office base and to deliver some sessions; when the family hub consultation began it was with the view that some of this service would continue to be delivered from the site. In recent weeks however, following discussions with the Property Company and as noted in the report, the opportunity to support the community option fitted in well with the strategy to refocus council services on vulnerable groups and shared locations. Therefore the council looked forward to discussion of options with MCC in due course on how to take this forward in a collaborative approach. Further work to confirm office space to deliver sessions in the centre of Maidenhead was needed, and this was dependent on the outcome of the family hubs consultation.