a)    Deborah Mason of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Does the Lead Member agree that the UK is facing ecological freefall, that biodiversity gain must be the over-riding priority in all natural habitats owned by the Council and that assumptions we have made in the past about public rights must be reassessed in view of this?

b)   Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

Will the Lead Member confirm how much RBWM has collected through the Adult Social Care Precept since its' inception?

c)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ascot:

Will the Lead Member for Finance advise by ward which roads and pavements were improved under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Programme?

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

In 2019 Councillors granted permission to dispose of the 50% freehold in the Nicholson Shopping centre on the understanding of multi-billion pound backing from “ €22bn” Tikehau Capital. When did the Council become aware that funding for the Nicholson Quarter was no longer secured, and when was this reported to Members? 

e)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ascot:

In light of the s114 ‘bankruptcy’ by Slough Borough Council, and their £159m deficit projected for 2024/25 what is RBWM’s equivalent projected year end general fund reserve figure for 2024/25, and does RBWM share any joint ventures/financial interests with SBC that may be affected or miscalculated?

(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)    Deborah Mason of Riverside ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

Does the Lead Member agree that the UK is facing ecological freefall, that biodiversity gain must be the over-riding priority in all natural habitats owned by the Council and that assumptions we have made in the past about public rights must be reassessed in view of this?

Written response: The council is committed to delivering nature recovery and biodiversity net gain.  The Natural Environment is one of the four themes of our strategy with the intent to protect and enhance our natural environment, raise awareness of biodiversity and green our towns and cities.  We have been working closely with stakeholders to develop a borough-wide biodiversity action plan, that will support improved habitats across the borough.  Any decisions that the council makes will be guided by the evidence of the specific case, using our internal and independent expertise, rather than making blanket assumptions.  Allowing some controlled access can reduce overall risks to wildlife and habitats as well as providing valuable opportunities to educate, inform and raise awareness of these critical issues.

By way of a supplementary question, Ms Mason asked whether the Cabinet Member would therefore agree that in the case of Battlemead, the council has already ensured there was sufficient access for the public including the long sought for Millennium Way link between Widbrook Common and the Thames Path and that the unnecessary path across the East Field could wait to be implemented until after ecologists have assessed the bedding in of the ecological management plan in five years’ time. This would prioritise biodiversity gain that would benefit all people of the borough over the desire of a small number of people for another view of Cliveden and set a great example of controlled access for the benefit of nature.

Councillor Stimson responded that Battlemead Common had been a long haul for everyone, but she hoped it was getting to a stage where there was a consensus, though this would not be until 3 August. She recognised that the world was facing significant biodiversity costs; a 75% loss of species since she had been 10 years old. The borough would do everything it could to mitigate against this but the site had been bought for accessibility and biodiversity and was trying to manage both aspects. The ultimate decision had not yet been reached as ecological reports were being read through. She had a good idea the causeway would be opened for half the year, but it had been two years of decision making and she knew exceptionally good biodiversity gains were being made. The council wanted to encourage people to enjoy biodiversity and enjoy the place rather than closing it off entirely.

b)   Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

Will the Lead Member confirm how much RBWM has collected through the Adult Social Care Precept since its' inception?

Written response: I am pleased to confirm that since the inception of the Adult Social Care Precept in 2016-2017, £29,812,493 has been collected over the six years.  This is broken down as follows:

This also shows our determination to collect the necessary funding to increase investment in adult social care and ensure we provide the best for our local residents. 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson asked if the lead member could give some examples of where the money had been spent in Windsor?

Councillor Johnson responded on behalf of Councillor Carroll. He explained that the almost £30m had been spent in three key areas. The funding had been used for more nursing beds for residents suffering with dementia and other complex needs which included two care homes within Windsor (Queens Court and Sandown Park). At Queens Court the council had commissioned 88 frail/elderly nursing beds, 18 dementia beds and 10 residential beds. At Sandown Park the council had commissioned 20 beds and accommodation for the frail and those suffering from dementia. There had also been significant investment in Queens Court when the new contract commenced in 2017. The council also provided grants to the Spencer Denney Day Centre in Windsor and the Old Windsor Day Centre operated by Age Concern Slough and Berkshire East.

c)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ascot:

Will the Lead Member for Finance advise by ward which roads and pavements were improved under the Clewer & Dedworth Improvement Programme?

The table below provides the full details requested:

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Wilson commented that the list was incorrect. For example, Mill Lane was not in Clewer and Dedworth East, nor was Stephenson Drive. He commented that it was no wonder that Cipfa had got some of their conclusions wrong if this was the information the council was providing them with. He requested a revised list with the correct ward details.

Councillor Hilton apologised as he had taken the information he had been provided at face value. He would get the information checked and ensure Mr Wilson was provided with the correct information.

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

In 2019 Councillors granted permission to dispose of the 50% freehold in the Nicholson Shopping centre on the understanding of multi-billion pound backing from “ €22bn” Tikehau Capital. When did the Council become aware that funding for the Nicholson Quarter was no longer secured, and when was this reported to Members? 

Written response: Funding for the Nicholson Quarter is secured and the developer is proceeding, Tickehau and ARELI Reast Estate remain committed to the scheme.

The questioner may have misunderstood how this is being funded. Tikehau Capital is an investment fund and they are funding the redevelopment. Tikehau is however a retail fund so they have always said they would hold the retail assets created. They are now looking for partners in the market at present for the other assets that are to be delivered, including investors and occupiers, as is standard practice for very large mixed-use developments such as this.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that he felt it was ironic that he had been gently accused of misunderstanding how the Nicholson’s deal was being funded. It was probably true as he was not sure that he or any other resident could understand it until all the contracts had been transparently published. Mr Hill referred to a retweet by Councillor Johnson that stated ‘Tikehau Capital and Areli Real Estate are in talks with funding partners for their £500m mixed use redevelopment’. Given that the demolition was approved with all the risks of non-funding falling on residents, Mr Hill asked if RBWM considered sharing in the profits through a joint venture and could he explain clearly which parts of the Nicholson’s Quarter were currently fully funded, and which parts were not.

Councillor Johnson responded that he remained fully confident that the scheme was funded to the point of being able to progress to the next stage. It was for that reason that Cabinet had a number of months previously approved a paper seeking to utilise the council’s powers of compulsory purchase. On 22 July 2021 Cabinet would also be considering powers of appropriation to facilitate the development on the site. It was fair to say however that, as with all major strategic regeneration sites, there was always an element of additional funding to be acquired. He reiterated that he was confident that funding was in place to proceed to the next stage. In terms of the overall phasing over the long time there was a market requirement for funding partners to come forward. It was exactly right that Areli were looking for that to secure the development for the benefit of Maidenhead.

e)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ascot:

In light of the s114 ‘bankruptcy’ by Slough Borough Council, and their £159m deficit projected for 2024/25 what is RBWM’s equivalent projected year end general fund reserve figure for 2024/25, and does RBWM share any joint ventures/financial interests with SBC that may be affected or miscalculated?

Written response: The reserve position for 2024/25 would be at a similar level to the current £6.7m. The newly published Medium Term Financial Plan shows the savings required to achieve balanced budgets each year that would maintain the general reserve at its current level. (As part of the budget each year the s151 would of course review the exact required level). RBWM does not share any joint ventures/financial interests with Slough BC that may be affected or miscalculated due to the recent s114 notice there.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that in the Medium Term Financial Plan, despite there being a £16m black hole in the five-year finances with as yet unidentified savings, the council would nonetheless be aiming to ‘build up the overall general reserves to mitigate against risks’. The answer given made it clear that it was expected that the general reserves would remain static at around £6.7m for years to come. Bearing in mind Slough’s mis-stated reserves fell by around 90% more or less overnight and that risks sometimes did happen, how did the Cabinet Member plan to mitigate against risks when he already knew that the idea of building up general reserves was a non-starter.

Councillor Hilton responded that he felt Mr Hill had misunderstood what the general reserve did. The general reserve was used to manage day to day risks and changes in accounts. Reserves fell into three categories: unusable reserves, usable reserves, and provisions. Unusable reserves represented the value of capital assets such as buildings and also the pension fund. These were monies that could not be used to support the revenue budget. Usable reserves could be used to support the revenue budget and provisions were set aside to cover anticipated future liabilities. The council published a statement on reserves in its financial report every two months. Usable reserves were £72m but that included some NNDR business rates S31 reserves that were held. Provisions were reported as £9.5m.