a)     Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance:

The River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) was developed in order to give Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor a similar level of flood protection as that enjoyed for eighteen years by Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton.  My question is when was this Council first aware of the requirement for approximately £50m of partnership funding contribution?

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

When were you first aware of the requirement for approximately £50m of partnership funding contribution from RBWM towards the cost of the River Thames Scheme Channel One through Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury?

c)     Councillor Brar will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

Judging from his comments in the local media the lead member seems content with the standard of service now being delivered by Serco. His rosy view is contradicted by reports of difficulties, particularly with assisted collections. What assurances could he give to the most vulnerable residents in the Borough that their collections will return to an acceptable level and when?

d) Councillor Brar will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

For many years the residents of Cookham have been able to leave their Christmas trees for collection and disposal at a drop-off point in the car park on Cookham Moor. Last year service was withdrawn. Will this service be re-introduced for this Christmas season?

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

During the full council on the 28th July you undertook to provide me with a copy of the report on the trial street side EV charging points and the user information and reports from the residents who benefitted from the free EV for one year offer. When am I likely to get this report?

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with Member 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)     Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance:

The River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) was developed in order to give Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor a similar level of flood protection as that enjoyed for eighteen years by Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton.  My question is when was this Council first aware of the requirement for approximately £50m of partnership funding contribution?

Written response: Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee on 26 September 2017 considered recommending to Council a future funding commitment to assist in delivery of the River Thames Scheme.  The minutes record that the Council were aware that the Environment Agency had originally asked for £50m contribution.  

 Council considered a report on 26th September 2017 and resolved:

(i)            £10m, split over four years, is added to the capital programme commencing 2020/21 (subject to delivery of the full scheme).

(ii)           There is an agreement in principle of paying a flood levy of up to £500,000 per annum to the Environment Agency as a contribution to the operating and maintenance costs (subject to new legislation being enacted to make provision for this)

(iii)         A delegation to the Head of Finance in conjunction with the Lead Member for Finance to develop and introduce a flood levy be approved.

Discussions about funding continued internally and with the Environment Agency River Thames Programme Board.  Council considered the 2020/21 capital programme on 25th February 2020 and approved a capital programme which includes £10m over four financial years commencing 2020/21.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe thanked Councillor Hilton for his precise response, from which he saw that the 22 September 2017  minutes of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee (CRSC) recorded that the council was aware the Environment Agency (EA) had originally asked for a £50m contribution. Councillor Larcombe’s original question asked when the council was first aware of the partnership funding requirement. The CRSC meeting began at 5.30pm. The report included a reference to a funding scheme gap of £228m but no reference to the sum of £50m. The minutes recorded that Councillor Love asked how the figure of £10m had been determined and the Chairman explained that the EA had originally asked for £50m which was beyond the means of the local authority. After debate, the CRSC agreed the recommendation. The Council meeting itself commenced at 7.30pm. The CRSC recommendation was item 10. It was Councillor Larcombe’s observation that the Council was not aware of the £50m or that without the Royal Borough funding, it would not progress. After all these years, he asked who precisely was accountable for the failure of a £640m project?

Councillor Hilton responded that the fact that the council could not contribute £50m had not sunk the project; most of it was going ahead downstream. As far back as 2017, in order to fund the £10m, the council would have needed to set a precept or levy to raise the money over a period of time. The government refused to allow councils to set a precept and the money could not be borrowed because the council’s finances did not have the capacity. The figure of £10m remained in the budget and would not be removed. The council would do all it could to fund the project affordably.

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

When were you first aware of the requirement for approximately £50m of partnership funding contribution from RBWM towards the cost of the River Thames Scheme Channel One through Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury?

Written response: I can confirm that I was elected as Ward Councillor for Datchet in November 2018 and then elected as Ward Councillor for Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury in May 2019. At this time I was invited to join the Cabinet as Lead Member for Public Protection. 

In July 2019, at the request of the then Leader of RBWM (Cllr Simon Dudley), I was asked to attend the River Thames Scheme Sponsorship Group, to be held on 22nd July 2019, in his stead. 

It was at this meeting that I first became aware of the details and nature of the proposed funding requirement for the partnership funding, above the £10 million already in our budget line.  

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that apparently at the borough’s Flood Liaison meeting on 29 October 2019, chaired by Councillor Cannon, the Environment Agency stated that Surrey County Council had approved funding and that meant funding for the scheme was now in place. He therefore asked, if Councillor Cannon had been aware of the borough’s partnership funding problem since 22 July 2019 and the contradicting information since October 2019, what action did he take to highlight or remedy the situation.

Councillor Cannon responded that he had been made aware in July 2019 of the funding need. Ever since the council became aware, it was established with officers what communications had been made with the government about the levy. The statements by Surrey, misinterpreted by some people, that the scheme was fully funded, related to their contribution to the scheme being fully funded. At no time had the borough misled anyone over the fact  that any contribution was subject to getting the levy from central government. Unfortunately they had been uncooperative over that matter despite representations by the Lead Member, Managing Director and other officers. The council was unable to fund the £43m required for Channel 1 to go ahead, but the council remained fully committed to the project and any funding needed when it could be afforded.

c)     Councillor Brar asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

Judging from his comments in the local media the lead member seems content with the standard of service now being delivered by Serco. His rosy view is contradicted by reports of difficulties, particularly with assisted collections. What assurances could he give to the most vulnerable residents in the Borough that their collections will return to an acceptable level and when?

Written response: We are aware that the standard of service offered to some residents receiving an assisted collection has been unacceptable and that there have been missed collections. We are working with Serco to focus on the areas of service that still need to improve. Work is ongoing to ensure that all crews are aware of the locations of assisted collections and that they are collecting and returning the bins of those residents receiving this service, on the scheduled collection day.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Brar referred to Bigfrith Lane, Lower Road, and Anchor Court. She asked Councillor Coppinger to refer these specific locations to SERCO and advise her when this had been done.

Councillor Coppinger responded that he had given all councillors a full update earlier that day. He acknowledged that a number of areas in the borough had suffered the worst, including Eton, Windsor, Sunningdale and Bisham & Cookham. The service was now where it should be but there was always room to improve. SERCO had responded well to his requests to get the service back to where it should be.

d) Councillor Brar asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

For many years the residents of Cookham have been able to leave their Christmas trees for collection and disposal at a drop-off point in the car park on Cookham Moor. Last year service was withdrawn. Will this service be re-introduced for this Christmas season?

Written response: Last year the owners of the car park on Cookham Moor did not give permission for the site to be used as a drop off point. This year permission has been given and the site will be available as a drop off point for local residents.

The following locations will be available across the borough from 4^th-17^th January. In addition Alexander Devine Children’s Hospice and Thames Hospice will be offering collections of Christmas trees to raise money for the great work they do, on the 6^th, 7^th, 8^th and 9^th January. Details of how to book collectionscan be found on their websites. Residents who have a garden waste subscription will also be able to put their tree in their garden waste bin to be collected during January.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Brar commented that every Member would welcome the useful list of locations. She asked how far in advance collection points were agreed and could the list be issued for 2021 at the earliest possible moment

Councillor Coppinger responded that he was sure that officers would issue the list as soon as possible, but negotiations with parties concerned took time and they often did not want to commit too early. He referred to the fantastic service offered by the Alexander Devine hospice and Thames Hospice to collect trees in exchange for a donation.

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

During the full council on the 28th July you undertook to provide me with a copy of the report on the trial street side EV charging points and the user information and reports from the residents who benefitted from the free EV for one year offer. When am I likely to get this report?

Written response:  Connected Kerb have provided a briefing note to us capturing the headline outcomes from the trial, I have asked for some more information and this will be shared with Cllr Knowles once received; I anticipate this will be before the Christmas break.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Knowles explained that the reason he was pushing for it was because he had heard from residents in the Boltons area that they had seen no effective kerb side charging, which had been an obstacle to electric vehicle ownership. It was not practical if you lived in a Victorian terrace on Bolton Avenue to run a cable across the street ,so infrastructure needed to be in place. He was keen that the trial gained traction.

Councillor Clark responded that he had some information from the trial but he would have a lot more by the end of the week. He would be happy to share this with Councillor Knowles and to see how it could benefit residents especially those who did not have the option of off-street charging.

Councillor McWilliams raised a point of order. He had been sent a clip of an earlier section of the meeting in which his speech had been interrupted by Councillor Baldwin. He would be seeking advice from the Monitoring Officer on what he considered to be an offensive personal attack.