To consider the Panel’s work programme for the remainder of the municipal year and view the scoping document on CIL produced by the former Infrastructure Overview & Scrutiny Panel.

The clerk suggested that the panel viewed and discussed the scoping document that the Infrastructure Overview & Scrutiny panel had produced on CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy). This was attached to the agenda pack. The clerk outlined to the panel how this document had been produced and agreed to by the former panel. The clerk asked for a nominated member to be appointed for this document as

Councillor Haseler, who was the former designated member, was no longer apart of the panel. It was agreed that Councillor Baldwin’s name would be attached to this as the idea had originated from him. The panel agreed to this after the clerk explained that this was merely an administrative task.

ACTION: Clerk to add Councillor Baldwin’s name to the CIL scoping document in place of Councillor Haseler.

The clerk then explained the next steps to panel members with regards to this scoping document and asked if anybody had any questions for Chris Joyce upon viewing the feedback that he had provided on the document. The Chairman read out the feedback from both Chris Joyce and Adrien Waite, Head of Planning. The panel agreed with the comments of the officers and said that it should be looked at across the whole borough and not just Maidenhead town centre.

Councillor Singh wanted to ensure that Maidenhead town centre was not forgotten with regards to this, but he was assured by the panel that the whole borough would be focussed upon.

Councillor Baldwin acknowledged the feedback that had been received and stated that new legislation could be introduced soon, which would scrap Section 106 agreements and CIL and introduce a new levy. He said that it was still a valid piece of work to carry out and that a new scoping document needed to be formed that reflected on the comments that had been made.

Parish Councillor Pat McDonald (Co-Optee) said that CIL money was very important to parishes.

Councillor Sharpe said that a review was very important and that the system that was currently in place was slightly skewed. He said that a review of infrastructure requirements was needed so that a clear focus could be obtained as to what the CIL money would be spent on if it was acquired, and what funding levels would be needed.

Councillor Luxton wanted to echo Councillor Singh’s point that the original scoping document was designed for Maidenhead town centre specifically but endorsed the idea of the whole borough being focused upon.

Councillor Baldwin wanted to clarify that this piece of work was not to plan new infrastructure projects and instead it was to ensure that the opportunities to maximise CIL and Section 106 agreements were taken. He said that it was important to note how CIL was collected and how Section 106 agreements were formed.

Councillor Walters asked for a definition of the extent to what Section 106 agreements could cover. Andrew Durrant replied by saying that there were specifications agreed with the planning department once a development was approved.

Chris Joyce said that Section 106 agreements needed to be related to the development, however it could be spent on anything that was agreed with the developer. It could be collected through a wide range of things and could include improvements to junctions and public transport to the location for example. He agreed with Councillor Baldwin’s point on maximising contributions and that it should be directed at the most important things for the borough.

Councillor Walters presented Chris Joyce with a hypothetical situation and asked what responsibility the developer would have in terms of expenditure.

Chris Joyce replied by saying that the expenditure would have to relate to the scale and nature of the development. If for example the development was generating a lot of traffic and caused the junction to go over capacity, then it would be reasonable to ask the developer to fund improvement works to that junction to increase the performance level back to its pre-development level. He noted that this would have to be a negotiation but added that it would have to mitigate the impact of the development. CIL was a different process that would be set ahead of time, as opposed to Section 106 agreements as discussed above.

Councillor Walters asked if there was a formula for this. Chris Joyce replied by saying that there was not, but Section 106 was to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Councillor Sharpe said it was important to understand how much the council could charge for CIL, or was it set by central government.

Chris Joyce said that the charging schedule could be changed by going through a public examination and producing an evidence base, which would be conducted by an independent inspector. The evidence base would include the infrastructure needs and the viability of developments. A CIL rate couldn’t be made that would make the development unviable. It was agreed that CIL would not be charged in Maidenhead town centre based upon the evidence at the time of the public CIL examination and the more recent evidence in the adopted Borough Local Plan, which continued to show similar challenges around viability. He added that this review’s main focus would be to see if this evidence had now changed.

Councillor Baldwin used the example of Bray Film Studios in terms of the Section 106 agreement. It included improvement works to cycle ways and footpaths, a new roundabout on the A308 and a provision to fund a council officer for 2 years as a media liaison officer. He said that they were quite flexible and that opportunities could be exploited by the borough to make steps forward.

The Chairman then noted the upcoming meeting dates and asked David Scott, Head of Communities, if the meeting on 12 April 2023 would need to be moved due to the local elections commencing in May 2023. It was confirmed that this would be discussed offline.

The Chairman asked a member of the former Infrastructure Overview & Scrutiny panel to shed some light on the ‘Review of Street Lighting’ item that was not yet programmed. Councillor Luxton gave a brief overview of this item and explained it was to do with poor lighting in areas of the borough especially in her ward, where young girls would walk home at night with poor visibility.

Councillor Davey added some further insight into the item to do with the new digital lighting that had been implemented. This was dimmer but easier to maintain, so it showed a compromise. He added that the Youth Council had written a paper on something very similar to this and that they should be invited to the panel to discuss their paper. The Chairman said that if this occurred, the report should be circulated before the panel met so that questions could be put to the Youth Council.

Councillor Luxton said that she did not feel it was the best option to have the Youth Council address the panel on this matter. She said alternatively the scope could be carried out through getting feedback from schools on where they believe there was poor lighting and potential concerns regarding this.

Andrew Durrant responded by saying that it could help with framing the context of the issue as the Youth Council could provide a good picture to the panel as to what the issues were from a young person’s point of view. He said that it tied in nicely with a goal in the corporate plan which was the safety of women and girls.

The clerk suggested that the rest of the items on the work programme could be discussed offline amongst the panel. Councillor Davey agreed and implored for the panel to be productive in the upcoming municipal year. The Chairman also agreed with the clerk’s suggestion.

The Chairman suggested that the waste management strategy, the SERCO update, and the Tivoli update could be combined into one item. The clerk then reminded the panel that panel members were able to produce a scoping document on any item that they desired to be scrutinised. This could then be presented to the panel for approval and inclusion on a future agenda.

Councillor Baldwin agreed that it should be taken offline and asked if any body of work had been conducted for any of the Communities Overview & Scrutiny items that were on the work programme list. The clerk confirmed that there were no outstanding works on items from that panel.

Councillor Shelim said that it was important to understand why each of these items were on the list and then if valid reasons were to be given, then they could be included on future agendas.

Councillor Taylor asked if a short brief for each item could be sent around to panel members via email to establish why these were included in the first place and what their aims were.

The clerk outlined the scoping document to the panel and explained that each item would go through this process to ensure that the item was suitable for scrutiny. Update items were also to be provided offline through member briefings going forward too as this did not previously amount to any scrutiny occurring. Panel members were informed that they would have to write the scoping documents, but officers were there to assist in the process to guide and advise them, especially new panel members.

Councillor Davey complimented Oran Norris-Browne for his hard work, efficiency, and his involvement in various projects over the last year or so, since joining the council.

Councillor Bhangra agreed with all that had been said and noted that it was important for the panel to have a clear focus moving forward as the Communities Overview & Scrutiny panel ended up with many items and multiple meetings occurring.

The clerk said that he would look offline at potential dates during the summer period, and he would inform panel members of these dates to assess their availability. The panel agreed that it would be a majority, as getting 11 members to agree to one time and day, could prove difficult.

Councillor Baldwin asked for the option of various start times of the day to be considered due to full-time workers. The clerk said he would consider this.

The Chairman thanked all officers and members for their attendance.