To consider referrals from other bodies (e.g. Cabinet)

i)          COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW - WINDSOR TOWN COUNCIL - FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Members considered the recommendations of the Community Governance Review Working Group.

 

Councillor Hilton introduced the item by stating that he wished to move the motion to establish a new town council for Windsor as detailed in Appendix A. He explained that in September 2019 an e-petition was started seeking support for the formation of a Windsor Town Council. The petition gained just over 600 valid signatures; some way short of the 1,661 needed to trigger a Governance Review. However, at its meeting on 28 July 2020, the council committed to undertake a review and approved the terms of reference.

 

It was agreed that responsibility for composing the recommendations would be delegated to a cross-party, Member-led Working Group comprising Councillor Shelim as Chairman, Councillor Cannon as Vice Chairman, Councillor Davies, Councillor Knowles, and himself, replacing Councillor Story when he had taken up his mayoral duties.

 

A consultation took place on the Terms of Reference and informed by this the working group developed the public consultation into the creation of a Windsor Town Council. This would not have been possible without the incredible support from the Head of Governance, Service Lead - Information Governance and Electoral Services, and Project Management Officer.  On behalf of all Members of the Working Group he thanked the officers for their support, advice and expertise.

 

The second consultation made recommendations on proposed electoral arrangements including a single Town Council comprising 12 polling districts, 21 elected representatives and 10 wards with the first elections to take place in May 2023. Ten wards were proposed across the unparished parts of Windsor and to ensure fair representation twelve polling districts spanning the wards of Clewer & Dedworth East, Clewer & Dedworth West, Clewer East, Eton & Castle and Old Windsor, enabled the number of the electorate per Town Councillor to be broadly similar and within acceptable limits.  The consultation also included sections on the powers of a Town Council and the likely financial implications.

The consultation process was described in section 8 of the report and included a leaflet with details of the proposals to all households in the review area, placing an advert in the Windsor Observer, use of the Residents Newsletter, the council’s social media channels and a letter in the local press from a member of the Working Group.

 Every effort was made to ensure that residents were aware of the consultation and the multiple means through which they could respond. A total of 679 responses were received during the consultation period. Residents were asked three questions: whether they agreed that the proposals would deliver effective and convenient local government, whether they supported the proposed electoral arrangements and if they supported the creation of a Windsor Town Council as an additional layer of local government or believed the existing governance arrangements were sufficient. Roughly 520 said yes to these questions, 100 said no and ‘don’t know/no answer’ varied between 11 and 60.

On the basis of the consultation the Working Group, by a majority vote, decided to recommend to Council the formation of a Windsor Town Council under the electoral arrangements detailed in the Appendices to the report.

 

Councillor Hilton detailed some of the issues considered by the Working Group in arriving at their conclusion. Only 3% of the 21,000-electorate responded to the consultation which questioned whether there was a mandate for a significant electoral and financial change. However, the Working Group accepted that most residents were supported by a parish council so, in principle, the formation of a Town Council was reasonable.

 

Some who responded had misunderstood the scope of the consultation and in Councillor Hilton’s own words were seeking a ‘unilateral declaration of independence’ for Windsor rather than a Town Council with limited powers that would work with the borough council.

 

Residents of Windsor felt that their unique set of requirements as a tourism generating town were not adequately met with the current representation provided at borough level only, where the majority of councillors represented Maidenhead.

 

Councillor Hilton concluded that the Working Group’s task was now complete, only Council had the authority to make the final decision and it therefore now needed to debate the Motion.

 

Councillor Knowles seconded the motion.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa stated that he was honoured to speak in favour of the proposal submitted by the Community Governance Review Committee after a very thorough and productive process. For over 700 years a town council for Windsor had existed, for the last half a century there had been a huge gap in the representation of local interests. There was now a historic opportunity to return a town council to the people of Windsor. 

 

The formation of the Royal Borough with the Local Government Act of 1972 made sense to many although bizarrely left the whole of Windsor without localised representation, this despite 15 other parishes and towns in the borough retaining theirs. This was a huge anomaly which had left a democratic deficit for twenty thousand local people. Councillor W. Da Costa commented that surely the council trusted the people of Windsor enough to enable them to receive the same democratic representation as the other 130,000 borough residents.

 

When Berkshire County Council was dissolved in 1998 many of its services were devolved to the borough including education, refuse collection, housing and adult social care. Many of these issues discussed over the recent budget debates were centred around these core and important issues. However, the offset of this was that more localised issues such as the upkeep of Knights Close play park or zebra crossings at key areas including outside Dedworth Middle School had fallen outside the council’s budgetary priorities and requests for investment from himself, Councillor Carole Da Costa and Councillor Davey were regularly ignored.

 

The benefit of a Windsor Town Council was that it would be able to support the borough to deliver a gold standard service across the town, by addressing areas which were simply out of reach of the borough. In Clewer and Dedworth there was much good work going on including the West Windsor Hub and the Clewer and Dedworth project and yet there was still some scope for more; a unified community response based on a single point of contact with democratic accountability would strengthen these community activities further.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa highlighted that there were 15 parish councils across the borough. The arguments against bringing the same democratic accountability to the people of Windsor, seemed to denigrate their importance and impact. In a recent paper on the libraries the lead member was celebrating the effect parish and town councils had in ensuring this valuable resource was maintained. In Datchet to the East and in Boyn Hill to the West, the Parish Council was lauded as being very influential in mobilising the community to ensure that the service was maintained.  These parish councils retained the element of democratic accountability missing in so many community groups, they were therefore accountable to the whole community and not just a few selected people, truly plural and representative organisations.

 

The report presented to Members was thorough and well produced and the response rate was high considering the demands of the pandemic and the dryness of the constitutional matter. Fortunately, Windsor residents had been able to overlook the misinformation which was shared in earlier reports, such as a Windsor Town Council only being responsible for allotments, or that unlike other parishes a Windsor Town Council would be responsible for the cost of street lighting thus increasing the precept considerably. Councillor W. Da Costa felt that Windsor residents deserved more trust and respect than this and steps should be put in place to ensure they were not misled in this way in any future report.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa was delighted however that the Community Governance Review had tackled this misinformation head on and should be commended for doing so, however he hoped this had not affected individual responses. He was delighted that following this the public responses delivered a six to one mandate in favour of overturning a fifty-year hiatus and bringing local democratic representation back to the people of Windsor. When speaking to local people, or reviewing the posts on social media, the word which regularly appeared was 'pride'. Councillor W. Da Costa did not expect those who did not live in the town or who were already supported by parish or town council representation to fully understand why or how Windsorians such as himself felt this was so important. However, he urged council to show the ambition which Windsor, a nationally and internationally recognised town, deserved and support the very important motion. 

 

Councillor Cannon explained that he was part of the Community Governance Review Working Group, which had been an excellent example of cross-party working. A lot had been discussed and the consultation had been put out to every premises that would have been affected. 21,000 people would be impacted by the council’s decision on the issue but there had been a 3% return rate of people responding to the consultation. This had not been a referendum, but a consultation designed to inform the Working Group of people’s views, not just a binary yes/no but also any other ideas that could be considered.

 

There had been lots of misinformation, much from people with their own agenda of wanting a Windsor Town Council regardless. If a Windsor Town Council was formed, there would be an increase in the precept for residents from day one. The money the town council would receive equivalent to the Special Area Expenses would pay for services. This would not account for clerking costs, office accommodation, meetings or councillor expenses. 21,000 people would be looked after by this Town Council. Other parish councils of a similar size had three or four members of staff. He did not believe that a mandate of 3% was sufficient justification to increase council tax for 21,000 people. In addition, the work a Town Council would take away from the borough would impact on the wider contracts that covered the whole borough. This would likely increase costs for the Town Council but also for the remaining element for the borough. This would put financial pressure on the residents in the rest of the borough.

 

Councillor Cannon stated that he did not think that the council had heard a cry for a Town Council from the residents of Windsor. It had heard a cry from several people who had claimed to serve the residents of Windsor and he failed to see that this had been evidenced in any way.

 

Councillor Davies commented that as a Windsorian and representing a Windsor ward, it had been a privilege to take part in the Community Governance Review into the formation of a Windsor Town Council. She thanked Councillor Shelim in his absence for his excellent chairmanship of the Review, which made possible positive, full, and frank discussions. She also thanked the officers, especially the Service Lead – Information Governance and Electoral Services, and Head of Governance for their expert advice and guidance.

 

When the Community Governance Review process started, like all the group Members Councillor Davies had undertaken to not prejudge the decision but to make it based on the evidence placed before her: the responses from residents and from organisations and businesses with a stake in Windsor. The Group had received some extremely detailed and considered responses from both individuals and organisations and she thanked everyone who had taken the time to share their views.

 

Councillor Davies stated that she was quite clear that the process followed was sound and the analysis of the responses was rigorous. Approximately 700 responses to a consultation which affected only 12 polling districts and on a topic which was, as yet, an abstract concept rather than an already-existing service or entity was, she believed, very positive proof of the level of interest and support. The overwhelming majority of Windsorians who responded to the consultation were in favour of creating one town council to cover the whole unparished area.

 

As a Liberal Democrat Councillor Davies supported the principle of devolving power to the lowest practicable level and the excellent work done by 15 Parish and Town Councils in other parts of the borough, and the commitment shown by an army of Parish and Town Councillors, were an exemplar of civic society at its best. Improving the physical environment, supporting libraries, speaking for the community on planning issues, providing support to the vulnerable in times of emergency such as flooding and Covid; these were just a few examples, and the currently unparished area of Windsor would undoubtedly benefit greatly from gaining a similar cohort of town councillors. Many councillors were aware of this as they had been parish and town councillors in their own area for many years. Councillor Davies concluded that she therefore had no hesitation in supporting the recommendation for the formation of one Windsor Town Council to cover the currently unparished area.

 

Councillor Bowden stated that he lived in central Windsor; he had lived in the same street for 25 years. When he moved to the area, he had already heard of Datchet as he had travelled on the trainline and was also involved in an organisation based there. He then started hearing about a place called Dedworth and Clewer. He later heard of other areas to the west of the borough. He was learning all the time. He became a councillor in 2015 for Clewer East ward. He then became ward councillor for his own ward of Castle in 2019. In his ward there were nearly 5000 people on the electoral role. Councillor Bowden highlighted that 600 people responded to the consultation. Every day as he went around his ward he got stopped by people, including business people, and he asked them what they knew of a Windsor Town Council. The reply had always been ‘What’s that?’ When he explained what it was, including that there would be an additional 21 councillors, people had asked what they were for. He had encouraged people to respond to the consultation. The proposal would see an additional 21 councillors, twice as many as currently existed for the area at borough level. Councillor Bowden felt this was nonsensical. The number of borough councillors had been reduced following the boundary review in 2019. Now the number would be blossoming with another 21.

 

Councillor Price asked if giving more say and power to local communities was the direction of travel the borough was intent on.   A resounding yes if the Transformation Strategy and the proposed Corporate Plan were to be believed.   She quoted from each to explain why the formation of a Windsor Town Council was exactly the direction of travel RBWM claimed it was following.

 

The approved Transformation Strategy stated that it set out the vision of ‘building a community centric borough of opportunity and innovation’. The Strategy set out three key enablers to deliver that vision, one of which was ‘Transforming our services by developing new community centric ways of working that empower residents and stakeholders to work alongside us to achieve our vision.’

 

The refreshed Corporate Plan was being considered later in the week by Cabinet.  In this it stated the approach was to ‘Empower individuals, communities and businesses to maximise their potential. Shape our service delivery around our communities’ diverse needs’ and ‘get things right first time’.

It went on to build on the Transformation Strategy by stating ‘Community centric service redesign is at the centre of the council’s transformational thinking. Rather than change a service or system based on existing technologies or “how we have always done it”, we will focus on the benefit for the customer or community. The move towards communities and partnership, creating a true borough council, will build a working culture of community empowerment and creativity. To do this we need to harness the power and talents of all stakeholders, from councillors and council staff, to our citizens, community groups, businesses and employers.’

 

Councillor Price stated that supporting the establishment of the Windsor Town Council would involve more of the Windsor community having a direct involvement in shaping Windsor and would show that Members truly understood the changes which were required to deliver the Transformation Strategy and Corporate Plan.  It would show Members understood that to deliver a different borough required changes to be made, and the creation of the Windsor Town Council was one of those changes. 

 

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that there were a number of wards in Windsor which had an overlapping parish council, for example Eton and Castle where the Eton part was parished. The aim was to level the playing field to give everyone the opportunity so that in the invent of another issue such as a pandemic, there would be another level of community that could respond promptly to local needs.

 

Councillor Jones commented that this was not just a chance to improve local democracy but also to increase the access to local democracy. She was also a parish councillor and understood the benefits of having a parish council. As a borough councillor she worked with the parish council to improve the life of the local residents. Old Windsor was one of the first to implement support to the vulnerable during covid and did not have to ask for resources from the borough. The ease of access to the clerk and parish/town councillors, who were all local residents, could improve the relationship between local government and their residents. The town council could also act as a conduit for residents, saving time for both residents and the borough council.

 

Councillor Jones believed that a town council for the unparished areas of Windsor could bring benefits for both residents and the borough council. There had been mention of costs. It was very easy to mention large figures, but when this was broken down, if there was an annual cost of £100,000 for a clerk and office divided by the number of households, it was not very much at all. She asked how much this would equate to per household. She supported the recommendations put forward by the Working Group based on their robust analysis.

 

Councillor Davey welcomed the formation of the Windsor Town Council. There would be 21 additional voluntary councillors with a passion for helping others. He had seen the positive impact of Bray Parish council on his own ward as many hands made light work and it was local people dealing with local issues. If there was a problem with a contractor then the clerk was easy to find, they knew who to speak to at the borough with answers and solutions swiftly following. Contracts could be more easily shared out with local tradespeople, the regional economic multiplier effect given the opportunity to shine through, where £1 went to six other businesses locally. The precept could be grown, for items identified by the community as a benefit, through consultations. He urged Members to vote for a Windsor Town Council.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that given the 500 people that responded, this was one councillor per 23 people who responded. Councillor Carole Da Costa had spoken about the Dedworth community project. This had not come from the council but from a new way of doing things in the existing structure. She felt that, instead of creating another layer of council, it was important to look at another way of doing things thanks to the new strategy.

 

Councillor Clark stated that as he was not a Windsorian, he could look at the issue with an open mind. Adding an additional layer of governance and the additional cost for residents was not something he took lightly. He would therefore wish to identify the benefits of such a proposal. A response of about 500 had been in support. 20,000 not expressing support but potentially baring the burden of costs and not supporting the proposal was not something he felt he could support. Councillor Price had quoted from the council’s transformation agenda; Councillor Clark emphasised that it was the council that would deliver the transformation through the existing structures and by the existing councillors.

 

Councillor C Da Costa requested a personal explanation. She stated that the work done in Dedworth at the start of the pandemic and the creation of the West Windsor Hub was not done by the council but by the community working in partnership with churches and other community groups. It had been supported by, but not introduced or helped along by, the council.

 

Councillor Brar commented that as a Parish Councillor for Cookham Rise Ward for the past 29 years she believed that parish councils played a very important role in the local community as the eyes and ears of the local authority they served. In her ward she had two parishes, Bisham and Cookham, and each of these parishes looked after allotments, footpaths, lighting, cemeteries, flooding and commented on planning applications. She believed creating a Windsor Town Council would be a breath of fresh air for Windsor and its residents. If the borough decided not to support the Windsor Town Council then the other 15 parishes in the borough might be under threat. In that case she would be supporting the paper.

 

Councillor Tisi explained that she had grown up in Weymouth. It was a wonderful town steeped in history, which had its own distinct personality. It was not so different from Windsor in that respect. Although nearby in terms of geography to Portland, the two places were very different and people had a strong sense of where they were from, just like people in Windsor and Maidenhead identified strongly with their own towns. With the formation of a new Dorset council, Weymouth and Portland Borough council was disbanded and a new Weymouth Town Council was formed in 2019 to improve the town, look after many services and organise events.  

 

In Weymouth, at the equivalent stage of consultation they had received 532 responses, with 68% pro-Town Council. This was deemed good enough to constitute a Weymouth Town Council. The recent consultation in the borough received around 700 responses; with 500 positive. It was worth noting that the population of Weymouth was 53,000 compared to 21,000 for the unparished part of Windsor, therefore the borough response rate was considerably higher; 3% compared to 1%. 

 

On the number of respondents for the consultation, the statutory guidance did not mention what a good number was nor did it say anything about low response rates being a reason to assume the recommendation was not in the best interests of the majority of voters. The Working Group had reached a conclusion they believed was in the best interests of the people of Windsor.  Councillor Tisi felt it was frankly insulting of previous speakers to suggest that there was no call from residents in Windsor for a town council and that there were some dark elements seeking this for their own means. Councillor Tisi explained that along with Councillor Davies, she had made an electoral promise to give residents the chance to have their say on this matter.  Perhaps if the residents in Eton and Castle knew nothing about the proposals, the ward councillor could have worked a little harder to keep them informed.

 

Councillor Tisi stated that she wanted to talk about the town that she had called home for 10 years, the town where she was married, and was now raising her family. It was a wonderful place, with a strong sense of community that welcomed newcomers and kept families tied for generations.  Windsor was home to incredible charities that put their arms around people at their lowest ebb. There were thriving local business that were supported by the community, like The Swan pub and Cinnamon Cafe. People cared so much about their town that they had volunteered their time for years to get a neighbourhood plan adopted.

 

Councillor Tisi was proud to now call herself a Windsorian. She was highlighting this to show that the people of Windsor already organised and fought to demand better for their town and their residents and this was why they should have a town council. She had seen efforts to frighten Windsor residents into rejecting the proposed town council in case the precept was suddenly pushed up to astronomical levels to pay for future schemes. This argument held no weight when it was remembered that the council would be made up of the wonderful people from the community she had just described. Councillor Tisi commented that they themselves would be paying any such precept, so she questioned why they would they want to sabotage their efforts by alienating those who voted for them.

 

Councillor Tisi urged Members to do the right thing, give the people of Windsor the chance to do more to shape their community and support the Working Group recommendations. 

 

Councillor Rayner thanked residents who had taken part in each stage of the governance review, in her capacity as Cabinet Member for Windsor. She had listened to their views and she appreciated there were some things that needed to be done together to make local decision making and community engagement better, though she did not think that adding an extra layer of democracy was the right way forward. Along with Councillors Shelim and Bowden, she represented part of the unparished area affected. The process had been long and detailed and had been debated widely with lots of local engagement. The electorate of 21,000 all received a leaflet and were given the opportunity to give their view. The first consultation had received 69 responses. The second consultation had received 679 responses; of those, 524 had indicated that they supported the formation of a town council. Therefore, very few of those who would be affected had taken part to vote for a town council. She did not believe this gave the appropriate mandate to establish a town council. However, it did indicate a wish for change and she would ask officers to look at how the council could do better and make improvements to the current system to do better. No-one knew how much the precept would change but it would have to fund administration, office and staffing costs and the costs of future elections. The current precept was included in the council budget and was detailed by service area. Another reason given for establishing a town council was to create a better community spirit and events. Councillor Rayner felt extremely fortunate in Windsor to have active groups such as the Lions and Rotary Club who organised events. She would be happy to work with the Windsor Town Council Steering Group to form a local residents association to raise funds for events and other activities.

 

Councillor Rayner explained that when she had first been elected this was in the ward of Eton Wick and she had encouraged the establishment of a village association and a waterways group, both of which were now thriving and engaged in community projects. Both the village association and community association had been critical in the pandemic as they had the structure in place. Both raised funds, organised business events, street parties, litter picks and many more things to improve the area. As an independent group, there was a huge amount that could be achieved. The council needed to listen to residents to make improvements, but she did not feel that adding another layer of democracy was the right approach.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that he regretted that the Chairman of the Working Group was absent.  No-one he had spoken to had had a bad word to say about his Chairmanship and he had been looking forward to hearing Councillor Shelim’s remarks. Councillor Baldwin felt he would surely have been more positive than his understudy, which probably explained why he was not present. The proposer’s lacklustre effort and the other negative contributions from Conservative Members had left Councillor Baldwin with a sense that all was not well. He asked if it were possible that they all intended to vote against the motion? Councillor Baldwin recalled a time when their enthusiasm for the idea had been near boundless. On 26 May 2020, upon announcing his intention to set up the review, their Leader was heard to say “However, on the fundamental issue of democracy, I have heard tonight the phrase ‘Maidenhead Councillors taking decisions about Windsor’ or ‘We don’t have a Town Council representing us’, that somehow, we do not believe in local democracy, localism or empowerment.  This is categorically untrue.”

 

He had been so keen to get started that he waived the formality of an e-petition triggering a motion and announced that a Governance Review would be undertaken. He re-took the oath when he seconded the motion before Council on 28 July 2020 and said: “I very much look forward to having the debate and seeing the recommendations come forward from the Working Group.” He even expressed his ‘absolute confidence’ in his choice for Chairman.  Councillor Baldwin wondered if that had now changed.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that he had learnt in the last two years that by design the Conservative administration limited debate, made it harder for the voices of petitioners and consultees to be heard and practiced their own version of double think. Yet even by their own Orwellian standards the apparent and very abrupt flip-flop took the biscuit.  If Conservatives members voted en-bloc to reject the recommendations then they would hear an outcry from all those who contributed to the Steering Group and the consultation.  Countless hours of residents’, Members’, and officers’ time had been wasted. What the voters would see was an administration that did allow their Maidenhead Councillors to take decisions for Windsor.  What they would find was that they would not have a Town Council representing them. Instead, they would have a borough council led by Members who did not believe in local democracy, localism or empowerment.

 

Councillor Targowski said that he felt genuinely conflicted. He believed in localism however he had genuine concerns about the 3% consultation response. He also had concerns about the precept.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that parish councils had been historically created to rationalise basic units of government, particularly in rural areas. This was an issue of democratic deficit at the time and about the efficiency of service delivery. The creation of a new tier of government should always be approached with caution as although it could do great things, it was not the answer to all problems. There did not appear to be specific problems that needed fixing by a new layer of government that could not be dealt with by the representatives already in post. There was a group who did want a town council but he did not fell that was enough in itself to create one. He had lived in both parished and unparished areas. The parish council in Cox Green, a relatively rural area, worked well, but in town centres all were closer to services that were available. Councillors in urban areas could be the change they wanted to see. Community partnerships were possible to take forward schemes. Residents could decide on their representatives every four years. If the issue was not democracy or a specific problem, then the council must look at public opinion. If it saw huge amounts of support for a town council or there was a referendum, or an overwhelming vote for a party that wanted a referendum then perhaps the council could say a majority of people wanted a town council. 2.58% was no way a majority of the people of Windsor. He had heard that another layer of government would be created, not so solve a specific problem or resolve a heinous issue of a lack of democracy but because 2.5% of people wanted it. He did not think that was sufficient to create another layer of government. 

 

Councillor Knowles commented that at the heart of the issue was equality. The actual response rate was 3.23%. When refined down to those liable to pay the precept, this came to 5%. Councillor Knowles referred to recent consultations. The library changes consultation had received 1000 responses from a potential population of 151,400. This was 1.67%, which was enough to guide the Cabinet to vary the plan. The consultation to create a pedestrian area around the Castle had received 350 responses representing 1.67%. The budget consultation had 820 responses from the whole borough, representing 0.54%. The climate change policy consultation came in at 0.23%. Set against these figures, the response rate for the Windsor Town Council consultation was quite good.  A Community Governance Review was a legal process which did not require a threshold for response rates. The Working Group had tested the robustness of this with officers as the process went on. It was worth noting that it was not a vote for or against a town council, it was not a referendum. Instead, it was to inform the Working Group about views on the draft recommendations. No mandate was needed. Councillor Knowles asked, if thresholds were going to be set for future consultations, that they be published in the council constitution.

 

Councillor Knowles explained that his ward was part parished and part unparished. The ability to react quickly to local needs was the benefit of a parish council. This was clearly demonstrated by the town and parish councils being able to provide the framework of volunteers and administration during the pandemic. In contrast West Windsor had to start from scratch. Parish and town councils therefore played an important role in ‘Big Society’. The reliance would only increase in the future and having the framework in place was the key enabler. The misinformation around the costs to residents was disappointing from both sides. No one could forecast what the precept would actually be in future; only the first year was clear where the precept would remain the same because all the services would still need to be run by the town council. The only addition would be the clerk and premises, which he had costed at £3.25 per head. That was the cost of local democracy.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that during the consultation it had become clear that the people of Windsor felt disconnected from other parts of the borough, felt they had no control and were used as a cash cow for Maidenhead. Although some residents had exaggerated the view over the process and the outcome, this feeling would not go away. Supporting the recommendation in the report would go a long way to satisfy the need to engage.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that, knowing the decision would be taken by full Council, he had felt obligated to ensure that he had presented it in a balanced way. He thanked all Members of the Working Group. He also thanked all the residents who made representations, particularly those who provided an explanation for their views. It had been suggested that a town council could put in pedestrian crossings. This was not correct as this would be managed by the highways team at the borough. This demonstrated the misunderstandings of the powers of a parish or town council. 

 

Councillor Hilton commented that in July 2020 the administration had given those who wanted a town council the opportunity to gain support for it. This was assisted in every way, including a leaflet delivered to every home within the area, material in council newsletters and though social media channels. The desire on the part of everyone involved was to engage enough people to be certain that what was done was the right thing. Despite all the promotion, less people decided to respond to the consultation than signed the petition (600), which had never formally been submitted to the council.

 

Councillor Knowles stated he wished to raise a point of order that Councillor Hilton had presented the report but was now indicating he would vote against it. The Monitoring Officer explained that it was appropriate for a Member to make a proposal for recommendation and then change their mind during the course of the debate. It was important that councillors listened to all viewpoints given in the chamber. A Member proposing a motion was simply doing so to enable the debate to begin.

 

Councillor Davey commented that he wished to challenge the figures quoted as misinformation as there had been 600 online petition signatures but 1400 offline signatures.

 

On being put to the vote, 15 councillors voted for the motion; 20 councillors voted against the motion. The motion therefore fell.

 

Councillor Baldwin raised a point of order. He referred to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 which required the council to formally agree the reasons for rejecting the proposal. The Monitoring Officer had advised him that the comments of Members in the debate would be sufficient once they were reduced into minutes and published. However the comments from those who had voted against the motion had all concentrated on either the sufficiency of the response to the consultation or the number of new councillors that would be created. He felt that none of those comments were covered by section 93 of the Act and under those circumstances the debate and the responses in the debate would not meet the burden of both publishing the decision and the reasons for making the decision. He urged the Mayor to ensure compliance with the law to seek a motion so worded that it could be agreed and meet the legal burden.

 

The Monitoring Officer responded that the requirement on the council was to give reasons where it made a decision on a CGR. There had been a substantial debate and Members had had sight of detailed papers in advance. The council’s duty was to decide whether or not a Town Council for Windsor constituted effective and convenient government. There had been comments during the debate on the effectiveness and convenience of service delivery. Members had also spoken about the wishes of the local community whish was something relevant to take into account under the statutory guidance. As Monitoring Officer she was satisfied that Members had considered and given reasons within the debate, which would be satisfactory for the discharge of the council’s legal duties.

 

At 8.45pm, the meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes. The meeting began again at 8.50pm.

 

Councillors W. Da Costa and C. Da Costa left the meeting.

 

ii)         ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE AUDIT AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

 

Members considered the annual report from the Audit and Governance Committee.

 

Councillor Bateson explained that the Audit and Governance Committee had been re-established in 2020 in response to the CIPFA report on financial governance. This was to enable increased Member oversight of key financial processes and governance issues. The Audit and Governance Committee provided important assurance to the authority and to external auditors. Its function was to provide an independent and high-level resource to support good governance and strong public financial control. Within the wider control environment, the audit committee held a responsibility to ensure probity, and held oversight responsibility for the finance system in general, alongside governance and audit arrangements. It was concerned with the robustness of the authority’s arrangements to implement its policies and to manage its resources.

At each meeting the Members of the committee received reports from the Finance team, and both internal and external auditors. The committee approved the financial year end accounts and received the external auditors’ reports on the accounts. It also received quarterly progress reports from the Internal Auditors. It oversaw risk management and had addressed the CIPFA report’s concerns around other issues, ensuring that the authority reported properly on Treasury Management and the development of an appropriate Capital Strategy. The committee had received 19 reports in the last year, as detailed in the report.

Councillor Hilton commented that in the run up to the 2019 election, which brought with it a reduction in the number of councillors from 57 to 41, there was a working group set up to consider the number of panels that 41 Members could support. The recommendation was made at the time to merge the Audit Committee with the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel. It was the CIPFA report in 2019 that had recommended its reinstatement, which Councillor Hilton felt was a very sensible thing to do as the Scrutiny function was different to the Audit function. The new Committee was doing a great job to hold relevant parties to account.

 

Councillor Jones thanked the finance team for the increased transparency and the Monitoring Officer for progressing that work. However, there was still work to do and Councillor Jones was unsure if the right structure was in place to ensure good governance and scrutiny. She welcomed the inclusion of training in the proposals for improved working methods.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that the committee had been very useful in adding transparency. Everyone on the committee worked very well together to achieve that aim. There was still work to do and he had no doubt it would progress over the coming years.

 

Councillor Bateson thanked the finance team for their support to the committee. She was confident that in the next year the Committee would be able to make more progress.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bateson, seconded by Councillor Sharpe, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council notes the annual report of the Audit and Governance Committee.

 

iii)        ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE CORPORATE PARENTING FORUM

 

Members considered the annual report of the Corporate Parenting Forum.

 

Councillor Johnson introduced the report on behalf of Councillor Carroll. He thanked the Youth Engagement Officer, Youth Service Manager and the Director of Children's Social Care and Early Help for their energy, deep commitment and ongoing dedication to the Corporate Parenting Forum and moreover the work they did day in and day out to enhance the life chances of so many children and young people across the Royal Borough.  Their enthusiasm, passion and professionalism had been simply awesome and he commended and thanked them for always finding a way to make the system work and to ensure the service had excelled.  He also wished to thank all panel members and attendees of the forum for their commitment and contributions, which were much appreciated and truly valued.  

 

There was nothing more important to the administration than protecting, furthering and advancing the life chances and opportunities of the borough’s young people and of course that had an amplified level of importance for vulnerable children and children in care.  Before touching on some of the achievements of the forum, it was vital to state that the above objectives could only be achieved if the council listened to young people and to their views, thoughts, feelings and insights and in doing so understood what the lived experience really was and what more the council could do to make it better.  That was why ever since becoming Chairman of the Forum Councillor Carroll had placed an unequivocal and emphatic emphasis on ensuring the meetings were open, enjoyable, flexible and collaborative. This was a stance that had been adopted by all Members of the Forum.

 

The Forum had learnt a great deal in the past year, both about the experiences of the young people and how to improve the situation. At times it had been profoundly illuminating and deeply thought provoking. On behalf of all Members, he thanked all the young people who attended the Forum.

 

Young people continued to be centrally involved in the Corporate Parenting Forum meetings and facilitated activities which aimed to highlight to Members how it felt to be a Child in Care or Care Leaver. The Corporate Parenting Forum had been highlighted by regulators as an example of excellent practice in involving children and young people in Council decision making/scrutiny mechanisms. The Corporate Parenting Forum supported the needs of young people within their caring responsibilities. The council remained remain collectively ambitious to evolve the Forum further.

 

Councillor Bhangra welcomed the report and thanked all Members for their involvement and hard work.

 

Councillor Tisi welcomed the report. She echoed the thanks to the Youth Engagement Officer who ran Kickback, the group for young people in care, and the young people who attended the meetings. She also thanked the Youth Services Manager who had compiled the report and the Director of Children's Social Care and Early Help for her continued dedication to the young people in our care. 

 

It was an honour and a privilege to be a corporate parent and be Vice Chairman of the Forum. It was a meeting where Members left their ego at the door. All were working towards a common goal, to action real change to affect the lives of the young people in care, for example council tax support for young people up to age 25 would soon be coming to Cabinet as a recommendation from the Forum. The Forum responded to feedback from young people and made it reflect on the language used and its best intentions. All were learning more about the challenges faced by children in care and how it felt to be in their shoes.

 

Councillor Clark explained that he had been a Member of the Forum for a number of years; it was a privilege to be a Member. He reminded Members that they were all Corporate Parents and should have the aspiration to see the children in care perform as well as they could with the best possible outcomes. He highlighted Councillor Carroll’s excellent chairmanship and that his aspirations for the young people was exemplary.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Bhangra, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the report and:

 

i) Notes the Annual Report from the Corporate Parenting Forum, attached as Appendix A