a)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

When you get an email from a grandmother concerned about the health of her grandchild, you have to ask the question: What can RBWM do to ensure 5G Masts are not positioned outside schools?

b)    Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead:

The former cafe at Kidwell's Park which has been discussed for nearly 4 years. Are there plans to bring this back into use as a useful public amenity? Please can you explain in detail what the plan is?

c)    Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

Signs have gone up recently to remove the free parking at four Marlow Road used by the community centre and local charity organisation. This will impact users of the community facilities. Please can you explain the rationale for this change and why were ward Councillors not informed? 

d)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

In the recently adopted Borough Local Plan flood policy NR1 supersedes previous BLP flood policy F1 - which limited residential extension covered floor area in flood zones to an additional 30 sq m maximum.  How does new policy NR1 similarly limit flood plain development?

(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 Davey asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

When you get an email from a grandmother concerned about the health of her grandchild, you have to ask the question: What can RBWM do to ensure 5G Masts are not positioned outside schools?

Written response: The Local Planning Authority has a duty to determine applications submitted to it and is required to do so in accordance with adopted planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF sets out that installations should accord with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and prevents authorities from setting different or alternative health safeguards.

RBWM can do nothing to prevent the installation of telecommunications infrastructure in the vicinity of schools as there would be no issue with the principle or safety of such an installation under the planning policy framework.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey commented that the Town and Country Planning Act, which superseded policy, looked for a balance of opinion. It had been used by residents in Brighton to prevent a mast going up outside a school; the judicial review was permitted because the council had failed to address the health impacts of the proposal. ICNIRP pointed to Ofcom; Ofcom pointed to Public Health England (PHE). Nobody wanted the hot potato. PHE had recognised that some studies had shown ongoing health impacts at higher than usual levels of magnetic field exposures. Where there was a will, there was a way. In the UK, Belgium, Russia, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, California, Australia and Germany, local councils were showing caution, many adopting the ‘Precautionary Principle’. There were steps that could be taken to protect young people. Councillor Davey asked if Councillor Haseler would work with him to find the first step.

Councillor Haseler responded that the erection of masts was governed by policy as detailed in the written response. He was unsure what working with Councillor Davey would achieve or what he was after. Each case was decided on its own merits based on the policy. Councillor Haseler agreed to speak to Councillor Davey outside the meeting.

b) Councillor Singh asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead:

The former cafe at Kidwell's Park which has been discussed for nearly 4 years. Are there plans to bring this back into use as a useful public amenity? Please can you explain in detail what the plan is?

Written response:The former café building at Kidwells Park is being looked at in conjunction with the public tennis courts provided in the park to examine the best option for the area. There have been discussions with the Lawn Tennis Association to look at possible options for the tennis courts to improve the offer to users of the facilities here. This may have impacts on the building. There is also an option to do a tendering exercise to ask for expressions of interest to use the building for a café or other facility.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Singh asked if the discussions were ongoing given the fact that just a hundred yards away the Summerleaze Park tennis courts had just opened.

Councillor Coppinger responded that he was unable to provide a response at the meeting but would do so afterwards via officers. He would welcome Councillor Singh’s thoughts on the proposals.

c) Councillor Singh asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

Signs have gone up recently to remove the free parking at four Marlow Road used by the community centre and local charity organisation. This will impact users of the community facilities. Please can you explain the rationale for this change and why were ward Councillors not informed? 

Written response:This was actioned in error, due to the information on the spreadsheet supplied to our contractors being incorrect.

The error has now been rectified and the free parking reinstated as it was previously.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Singh asked if this was an impressive U-turn or a genuine error. If it were an error, would residents who had paid for car park during the two weeks the signs were wrong be reimbursed?

Councillor Haseler responded that he was privy to an email between Councillor Singh, the Parking Manager, and the Community Centre, in which it had been confirmed to Councillor Singh that an error had been made as the spreadsheet sent to the contractors had been incorrect. This had been identified by the Community Centre and was remedied straight away. Residents would need to apply for a refund of any parking payments made.

d) Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport:

In the recently adopted Borough Local Plan flood policy NR1 supersedes previous BLP flood policy F1 - which limited residential extension covered floor area in flood zones to an additional 30 sq m maximum.  How does new policy NR1 similarly limit flood plain development?

Written response: Policy F1 (and its accompanying SPG) of the previous development plan did not serve to limit the floor area of a residential extension to 30 sq m. The actual effect of the policy was that extensions of up to 30 sq m were always deemed to be acceptable on flood risk grounds and larger extensions were required to demonstrate they did not have adverse implications relating to flooding.

The approach now set out within policy NR1 of the BLP is that all household extensions (under 250sqm) would be assessed against the Environment Agency’s advice for minor extensions. A site specific FRA is to be submitted at the planning application stage which would need to be appropriate to the scale and impacts of the development.

The approach set out within the newly adopted Borough Local Plan is actually more stringent as extensions under 30 sq m are no longer exempt from the requirements.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe highlighted that 2022 was the 75^th anniversary of the 1947 flooding event. His ward had been flooded three times in the last 20 years. Climate change, local development including two flood alleviation schemes upstream, and a lack of land drainage and infrastructure maintenance had led to a cumulative increase in the problems of flooding in his ward. Councillor Larcombe asked Councillor Haseler if he agreed with this analysis.

Councillor Haseler responded that Councillor Larcombe lived in the area and was a specialist in flooding, whereas he was not, therefore he would take Councillor Larcombe’s word for it.