Public Questions
a) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:
How will the Royal Borough take advantage of the Government’s Changing Places initiative to improve or introduce larger accessible toilets for people who cannot use standard disabled toilets?
b) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:
Highways improvements conducted under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Programme were assessed by officers to form a prioritised programme approved by Cabinet. None of these items were prioritised prior to the budget as the council was approving an area improvement scheme not a set of specific highways improvements.
Should the CIPFA Report commissioned by this council have mentioned this point?
c) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:
With reference to the governance arrangements included in the Environment and Climate Strategy, please could the Lead Member indicate when the current interim board will be replaced by a full Stakeholder Advisory Board, meeting on a bi-monthly basis as stipulated, and will she provide details of the stakeholder organisations to be represented on the Board?
d) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:
Would the Lead Member please indicate whether those Active Travel Measures proposals that did attract public support through consultation, including installing a zebra crossing on Boyn Hill Road, will be prioritised and go ahead as part of the 2021/22 Capital Programme and will these projects be eligible for Department for Transport grant funding?
e) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:
The Wider Area Growth Study part2 was due for delivery last year. Its remit was to "look at supply, capacity and constraints... to identify specific locations within its boundary where housing development could be deliverable and sustainable." Has RBWM received any drafts of this document, and have you now identified which sites could be deliverable and sustainable for housing development?"
f) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:
The demolition of the Nicholson centre was projected to commence as early as July, and will presumably lead to a significant loss of business rate income for several years. What is the estimated loss of income to RBWM during the construction phase, and how will any such losses be balanced in the budget?
(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).
Minutes:
a) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:
How will the Royal Borough take advantage of the Government’s Changing Places initiative to improve or introduce larger accessible toilets for people who cannot use standard disabled toilets?
Written response: The Changing Places Consortium has recently been out to consultation regarding the locations for the new Changing Places toilets using the funding that was announced by Government. The council has responded to the consultation putting the borough forward as a location and this will be followed up by a letter to the consortium from the lead member.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson asked when would RBWM residents know that the borough had obtained funding from the Changing Places scheme and how would the borough advise residents of proposed projects.
Councillor Johnson responded that there was no timetable yet confirmed. Once a definitive timetable had been confirmed, the council would be looking to go out to appropriate consultation on locations. The appropriate Lead Member would liaise with Mr Wilson and indeed all relevant parties at the appropriate time.
b) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:
Highways improvements conducted under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Programme were assessed by officers to form a prioritised programme approved by Cabinet. None of these items were prioritised prior to the budget as the council was approving an area improvement scheme not a set of specific highways improvements.
Should the CIPFA Report commissioned by this council have mentioned this point?
Written response: A copy of the CIPFA report is given in the link below:
All capital schemes are prioritised by officers, regardless of whether the scheme is a specific area scheme or Highway improvement scheme.
In this rare case, the scheme was added as a member request after the prioritisation of the proposed capital programme had been undertaken by budget steering group.
The CIPFA report mentions that the scheme was not subject to a proper prioritisation process. 1.2 of the Executive summary reads as follows.
“The Managing Director was concerned that the scheme failed to meet RBWM’s overall objectives, that it was not subject to a proper prioritisation process, that no business case or plan had been produced regarding the
scheme’s deliverables and that there was no plan to demonstrate how it would be managed.”
This issue has been addressed as part of the governance framework. It has not happened since nor will it happen in the future
By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson commented that Councillor Hilton’s only issued seemed to be that the scheme was included after the proposed capital budget was considered by the Budget Steering Group. His recollection of that meeting may differ from some of the other participants, therefore Mr Wilson asked if he would be prepared to publish the minutes and papers for the relevant meetings and a full list of attendees.
Councillor Hilton responded that he would need to discuss with the Monitoring Officer what could be disclosed. Having said that, had the proper procedures been followed and the £350,000 been approved, it would have been added to the fund for road maintenance, and roads on the reserve list would have been subject to improvement and refurbishment. That may well have included some of the roads in the Clewer and Dedworth Improvement Scheme, but in his view probably not all of them. Councillor Hilton stated that he would get back to Mr Wilson with a written response to his first question.
Written response provided after the meeting: To gain some clarity I listened again to the supplementary question that you raised at Council on Tuesday 27th April 2021. Your question suggested that the only issue was that the Clewer and Dedworth scheme was included after the capital budget had been considered by the Budget Steering Group.
The issue raised by CIPFA was that the request to fund the Clewer and Dedworth scheme was a late addition and was not part of the Highways Team prioritisation process. You will be aware that the highway network is assessed each year for structural condition and skid resistance through machine driven assessments. The results of these surveys are used to formulate a priority list of schemes for each road class based on a condition rating. In addition, all requests by ward members, Parish Councils, residents, and area inspectors are considered to determine local priorities.
The Council has a formal and fair process for determining roads to be resurfaced within the available budget. As I mentioned in responding to your question had the proper process been followed the £350K for Clewer and Dedworth improvement would have been added to the road maintenance capital programme. This would have allowed more roads included in the priority list to be resurfaced which may or may not have included a number of roads in Clewer and Dedworth.
c) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:
With reference to the governance arrangements included in the Environment and Climate Strategy, please could the Lead Member indicate when the current interim board will be replaced by a full Stakeholder Advisory Board, meeting on a bi-monthly basis as stipulated, and will she provide details of the stakeholder organisations to be represented on the Board?
Written response: We are currently reviewing the details of the stakeholder advisory board and the overall governance arrangements for the Environment and Climate Strategy to ensure they are fit for purpose and informed by best practice. We would expect that any board would be formed of experts across all four themes of the strategy with representatives from the public and private sector as well as the community and young people within the borough.
Whilst we put those plans in place, we continue to make progress in delivering the actions within the strategy, including securing £1.2M of grant funding to deliver energy projects across the borough, developing a borough-wide Biodiversity Action Plan and adopting an interim sustainability position paper to support more sustainable outcomes through the planning process. We are currently recruiting two new posts within the team to support delivery of our ambitious plans.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr Bermange commented that a vital addition to the strategy that arose through the consultation was the addition of the emissions trajectory including the ambitious yet necessary target of hitting 50% reduction by 2050. Whilst it was important to acknowledge the positive actions to date, it was troubling to learn that the governance arrangements were still being tinkered with when there was an already adopted strategy. Mr Bermange asked if Councillor Stimson share his concern that every day that went by without an advisory board in place allowing for full strategic oversight and progress monitoring, the chances of hitting the target slipped further out of reach?
Councillor Stimson responded that no, she was not concerned because she was involved in what was going on in the background. She had met the day before with the cross-party working group, the advisory board and another body in the process of gaining momentum. An enormous amount of work had been done in the interim including raising a significant amount of money from the government, the work that was ongoing with the biodiversity action group and recruitment of two new people for the strategy group.
d) Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Clark, Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure:
Would the Lead Member please indicate whether those Active Travel Measures proposals that did attract public support through consultation, including installing a zebra crossing on Boyn Hill Road, will be prioritised and go ahead as part of the 2021/22 Capital Programme and will these projects be eligible for Department for Transport grant funding?
Written response: As part of the consultation process, we committed to undertake further local engagement and consultation before committing to taking forward any of the schemes set out in the active travel consultation. Following discussions with local stakeholders, we are prioritising the schemes which had support in the initial consultation and are now moving to detailed design phase on them. There will be further consultation on these schemes and subject to the ongoing support of the local community and stakeholders for the projects, and confirmation of the funding, we would be able to deliver them during this financial year.
The council will engage and listen to residents’ views as part of a wider ‘big conversation’ about walking and cycling improvements taking place later this year. That public consultation will include the opportunity to put forward ideas on how best to spend a grant of £335,000, which the council successfully secured via the Government’s Active Travel Fund.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr Bermange commented that in relation to the ‘big conversation’ he felt this was certainly encouraging to learn about the renewed drive to engage with the public in a much more collaborative way. He asked the lead member to explain the process by which these ideas would be integrated into a cohesive infrastructure which included walking and cycling interventions already in place and or prioritised for delivery through the existing and emerging policies such as the Cycling Action Plan and the new RWBM Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan.
Councillor Clark responded that it was the Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan that would draw together all the current papers including the Cycling Action Plan, climate and sustainability agenda, promotion of bus and sustainable travel in general and form a holistic plan. The details of the ‘big conversation’, were still be worked through as there was a logistical element with making contact and enabling numbers of residents to input their ideas. There would be an opportunity for members of the public and Councillors to come forward with ideas to promote active travel within each ward and across the borough in general. This would enable the council to build a plan and a prioritised list which would enable the council to interface with government funding under specific criteria.
e) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:
The Wider Area Growth Study part2 was due for delivery last year. Its remit was to "look at supply, capacity and constraints... to identify specific locations within its boundary where housing development could be deliverable and sustainable." Has RBWM received any drafts of this document, and have you now identified which sites could be deliverable and sustainable for housing development?"
Written response: The Wider Area Growth Study is comprised of 2 parts, with Part 1 (Defining the area of search) published in June 2019. Part 2, Spatial options for accommodating future development needs of the Slough/Maidenhead and Windsor urban area, was commenced in May 2020 and was expected to have been completed in late 2020. However, the completion of Part 2 has been delayed due to a number of factors. Firstly, the newly formed Buckinghamshire Council withdrew the South Bucks and Chiltern Plan District Local Plan from Examination. The Council has also withdrawn from various cross boundary studies, including the Growth Study. Secondly, at around the same time, the Government consulted on possible changes to the Standard Method for calculating housing need and so it was considered sensible to wait for this to be clarified before proceeding. However, the Standard Method has now been confirmed (along with the housing need) and Slough and the Royal Borough are committed to completing and publishing the Growth Study as soon as it is completed. No drafts of Part 2 of the Study are currently available. It is important to stress that the WAGS study will not allocate sites, or even recommend sites to allocate, but will instead generate high level spatial development options for consideration in future plan-making
By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that the answer seemed somewhat self-contradictory. The Wider Area Growth Study Report 1 said in plain English that the second report would identify ‘specific locations for sustainable house building. The answer given was at pains to say that was not quite correct. Councillor Hilton had said it was important to stress that the second study would not identify specific locations, instead it would generate ‘high level spatial development options’. The project timeline on the council website which clearly showed they performed a site-specific greenfield opportunity review between June and July last year. Mr Hill asked if the steering group meetings had been provided with details of site-specific greenfield opportunities in the borough in the nine months since they appear to have been identified.
Councillor Coppinger responded that the WAGS group worked at a high level. Individual sites may have been put forward, but it was not looking at site level. It was looking at high level development options to inform future plan making. There was no requirement in fact to look at public consultation because it was at a much too high a level. However, once it was completed it would be published. There was also the need to review the impact of two partners withdrawing. The council was the lead and held the government grant. There was still a need to look at it, but it was difficult to proceed now.
f) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot:
The demolition of the Nicholson centre was projected to commence as early as July, and will presumably lead to a significant loss of business rate income for several years. What is the estimated loss of income to RBWM during the construction phase, and how will any such losses be balanced in the budget?
Written response: The estimated loss of business rates income for the Nicholson’s centre is £1,025,000 per year over the 5 year construction phase, RBWM’s share of this is 49% therefore £502,250 per annum. The units in the Nicholson’s centre that have a tenant are currently covered by the Government funded Expanded retail relief scheme until the 1st of July 2021 at 100% and this will then reduce to 66% relief subject to cash caps, this relief is covered by Section 31 grant paid to the Council from MHCLG. The RBWM income budget for NNDR reduces from £15,004,000 in 2021/22 to £12,129,000 in 2025/26 to reflect the regeneration schemes as shown in the Medium term financial plan included as part of the 21/22 budget that was approved at council in February 2021.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill asked if he had got it right that in July 2019 the council had agreed to sell 50% of the Nicholsons’ freehold for just £1m and even that was subject to costs of £470,000. And now tonight he had learned that far from earning £530,000 for the land, residents also lost almost £3m in business rates from the demolition. If the council had not done the deal with Areli, the council would apparently have been nearly £3m better off over the next few years. It appeared to be actually costing huge sums to give away the land near Crossrail. Mr Hill stated that he could not find any reference to the business rate losses in the documents put to councillors in 2019, in fact the report seemed to suggest it would save £140,000 a year from maintenance. Mr Hill asked Councillor Hilton if, when he was voting for the deal in 2019, was he made aware of the risks of significant losses in business rate income and did it worry him that the council got none of the profits and residents now needed to find £3m worth of savings and cuts to services nonetheless.
Councillor Hilton responded that the loss of NNDR or business rates was factored into the Medium Term Financial Strategy which was approved with the budget in February 2021, so it had been taken into account. The government had recognised that in the current climate businesses may not be able to pay their businesses rates, therefore councils had been given three years over which to load level any losses.
Supporting documents:
PDF 128 KB