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

2021/22 ANNUAL REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANELS

 

Members considered the 2021/22 annual reports from the Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

 

Councillor Clark, Chairman of the Corporate O&S Panel, introduced the item. The Panels were required to submit an annual report on their workings and to make recommendations for future work programmes.

 

Councillor Price commented that she accepted that different Chairmen would have different styles to running the panels but if the substance was looked at, as revealed in the reports, there was a wide range of what had been achieved and the work capacity. Councillor Price was concerned that the reports were noted every year but in most cases nothing changed. She asked how the learnings from the recommendations could be taken forward. She hoped this would happen under the new structure, but she felt it all depended on the style of the Chairman. She encouraged training to be provided where relevant to improve the quality of output from the panels.

 

Councillor Werner commented there was another year of scrutiny failing. In his view it all came down to chairmanship. At the last Corporate scrutiny meeting, one of the Conservative councillors made accusations about the origin of a leak; he was allowed to say it again and again and again and yet he was not even a member of the scrutiny panel. This demonstrated weak chairmanship. Councillor Werner commented that at most meetings of Corporate scrutiny he asked the question on an item if the panel could spend time working out what could be learnt from the mistake so it would not be repeated.  Each time there was an excuse why this could not be done. Councillor Werner felt this was another example of weak chairmanship. The worst example was when the chairman forgot their role and defended the administration. There was also a situation that four months into the year the People Overview and Scrutiny Panel still did not have a work programme. Councillor Werner concluded that until Opposition councillors chaired scrutiny, or at least administration councillors who believed in scrutiny, there would not be any improvement

 

Councillor Davey commented that the Infrastructure report showed very little had been achieved in the last year. He hoped whoever was the chair for Place Overview and Scrutiny came with a desire to question decisions made by Cabinet. Essentially waving things through by failing to question them was not a good policy position but one that seemed favoured by the administration. It was definitely not appreciated by residents, as had been demonstrated at Audit and Governance Committee the previous week.

 

Councillor Clark commented that he was sure all councillors took overview and scrutiny seriously. He felt that Councillor Werner’s comments had not been related to the recommendation under consideration. It was correct that Members had the right to fully express their opinions at Overview and Scrutiny.  If debate was dogmatically or swiftly closed down, he felt that the processes would be damaged. He reminded Members of the powers set out in the constitution to have issues examined and to challenge decisions of the executive. If the panels were not working, it was because the issues had not been properly considered or presented at the Panel to elicit positive outcomes.

 

Councillor Hunt commented that she was disappointed at some of the comments, in particular about Chairman forgetting their role. She had chaired the former Adult, Children’s and Health panel and had found it went extremely well. All Members put every effort into the meeting to bring forward the best council could do on the remit.

 

Councillor Werner requested a personal explanation. He stated that the problem in the meeting was that sometimes the chairman forgot they were chairing and defended the administration and were therefore not being a true scrutiny chair. It was not that they forgot they were the chairman, but they were not using their role to provide proper scrutiny. He felt this was a bad way to act and anyone doing so should be dismissed from their role.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Clark, seconded by Councillor Hunt, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the 2021-22 annual reports of the Overview and Scrutiny Panels

 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

 

Members considered a recommendation from the Member Standards Panel to amend the Members’ Code of Conduct.

 

Councillor Rayner introduced the report. She thanked the participants in the Member Standards Panel, who had looked at recommendations in the LGA model code. The constitution was a live document and updates were always welcome to ensure the Code of Conduct was current and clear on the disclosure of interests.

 

Councillor Johnson fully endorsed the recommendation. The council took standards very seriously and it was only right to continually strengthen the position.

 

Councillor Price commented that she supported the proposal but asked why data had been included in the EQIA that did not seem relevant.

 

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

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the report and agrees the recommendation from the Member Standards Panel to amend the Members’ Code of Conduct as detailed in Appendix B.

 

(Councillors C. Da Costa and Price abstained)

 

MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES SCHEME

 

Members considered the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) in relation to the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

 

Councillor Johnson introduced the report. He thanked the Members of the IRP for their time and dedication in undertaking research and interviews and in completing the report. It was not a report that in anyway sought to increase Members’ allowances. It was a tidy up exercise and provided much needed clarity.  Council staff had been given a pay award in 2020/21 and in 2021/22; Members Allowances were index-linked. The report clarified how, if Members did not wish to accept the increase in any year, they could choose to forgo it. The IRP had also provided a useful recommendation to remove the Chairman allowance for the now defunct Boroughwide Development Management Panel. 

 

Councillor Rayner stated that she supported the recommendations which gave clarity as to how Members could decline the indexation.

 

Councillor Bond commented that the intention of the allowance scheme was to ensure people were not discouraged from standing for election because there would be a hit to their family finances.  Full Council had considered a report from the IRP in October 2020. Members had decided that in an environment of austerity an increase in Member allowances would be inappropriate. This new proposal was to allow people to make the decision individually. He felt it was odd that people had to say if they wanted the increase or not. He felt the report did not explain why a collective decision could not be made and he therefore felt it was a backwards step. If all Members decided to forgo the increase, but no-one was aware of this, there was no transparency. If all said publicly they did not wish to take the increase, there could be a race to the bottom for those with independent financial means. This led to working-age people being discouraged to put themselves forward. This was against a backdrop of both residents and businesses struggling with the impact of increased interest rates.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that she supported the proposal providing councillors could continue to have the right to give a proportion of their allowances to charity or anther are of council services.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that it was more complicated than all deciding together, but was fairer. Those who may need the extra finances could receive them; those who did not need the increase could return it or give it to charity.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that he had been interviewed by the IRP. He had made the point that when he had first been a candidate, he had not been aware there were any allowances. It was not on the minds of most of the people he had talked to about becoming a councillor.

 

Councillor Tisi commented that the number of private landlords in the room reflected the level of privilege and wealth amongst councillors and did not reflect what was going on outside. Councillor Hilton’s experience was not the same as hers had been when speaking to people who were thinking of becoming a councillor. She was concerned that there would be a race to the bottom and it could be used as a political weapon for those who decided to take the full allowance to which they were entitled.

 

Councillor Price asked how people with disabilities would be encouraged to stand for election.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that the allowance scheme needed to be designed to improve democracy. It would be important to encourage younger people who were the generation who fully understood the problems they would face in the future. There was a need in future to look to increase the base level to bring in those who may be time poor or financially poor, to enable them to participate in democracy.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that he would not be using the subject of Member allowances for political gain. All were entitled to the allowances and it was down to individuals to consider whether to take an increase or not. This was far more palatable than trying to collectively agree, and by default naming and shaming those who disagreed. Given the financial climate, Councillor Johnson made a commitment to include a pay award in the budget for 2023/24.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That full Council notes the report and:

 

i)               Agrees the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel set out in paragraph 2.3 and detailed in Appendix B

ii)             Where changes to the Members’ Allowance Scheme are approved, delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to amend the scheme in the council’s constitution.

 

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 23 Councillors voted for the motion. No councillors voted against the motion. 12 Councillors abstained.

 

MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY AND PLAN 2023/24 – 2027/28

 

Members considered the recommendation of Cabinet in relation to the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Plan.

 

Councillor Hilton introduced the report, which was an update on the MTFS and MTFP published with the budget in February 2022 with the update approved by Cabinet in July 2022. The most important change was that it now reflected the priorities included in the Corporate Plan 2021-2026 which guided resource allocation decisions and took into account increases in energy costs and levels of inflation.

 

The council had a number of risks, outlined in the report.  These included low reserves although they had been strengthened in the past two years, low levels of income, growing pressure on children’s and adult services and others, including the unknown longer-term impact of the pandemic. Government funding had ceased but the full economic and health effects were yet to be revealed.

 

The pension deficit was an issue but Members would be pleased to learn that in their annual report the Pensions & Investment Research Consultants Ltd. advised that the Royal County of Berkshire Pension Fund was ranked 5^th out of approximately 100 Local Government Pensions funds with a return of 12.5% in 2021/22, which had helped to increase the funding level from 78% to 86%.

 

The MTFS was about delivering a sustainable budget in line with the Corporate Plan Objectives, and six of those objectives were highlighted in the report. The MTFS showed the council needed to save £7.3m to deliver a balance budget next year, an increase of £2.4m from February but after then the numbers had little changed. Over the 4-year period 2023/24 to 2026/27 savings of £15.27m would be required rather than £12.7m reported in the 2022/23 budget papers.

 

Councillor Hilton referenced some of the assumptions used in developing the Medium-Term Financial Plan. Utilities were shown separately because of increased energy costs with assumed inflation of 10%. Any further increases would be mitigated by the Government’s Energy Relief scheme. Contract inflation was generally linked to RPI or CPI which were set at 5.5% and 4.5% in the model for next year. Fees and charges would be brought broadly in line with RPI. It was made clear that the remaining Covid budgets would be used in 2023/24. Interest payments would decrease significantly over the plan period which meant the council would be paying down its debt. In line with the improvement in the funding level of the Royal County of Berkshire Pension Fund, pensions deficit payments did not increase from 2024/25.

 

Business rates or NNDR would decline over the plan period. This was as a consequence of the regeneration of Maidenhead and roughly accounted for £7m of the total savings requirement over the first four years of the plan period.

Councillor Hilton advised that Members should be aware of the potential risks around Adult Social care changes and particularly a cap on social care costs which could add £3m to Adult Social Care costs. He concluded that the revised MTFS provided the basis for developing the 2023/24 budget. That process had started and would be completed by December.

 

Councillor Werner commented that it was difficult at the meeting to undertake a detailed critique of such an important document, so he would focus on a few overarching comments. Firstly he found it absolutely shocking that yet again the administration had decided to ignore not only himself but also many successful councils from across the country. He saw very little focus on the four strands of the council’s financial programme which would stop the continued salami slicing of the budget and actually get ahead:

 

·       Taxing developers in Maidenhead town centre.  There was a CIL rating across the borough except in Maidenhead Town centre where most of the development was.  He had seen a calculation of £40 million lost to the council.

·       Insourcing – Research over the last few years had demonstrated that in-sourcing nowadays actually both saved money and improved services. The procurement plan still contained the bias to out-sourcing.

·       Selling expertise to other councils and organisations. The CCTV control room used to rent out its services, earning a good income. The Customer Service Centre received a good income doing something similar.

·       Making the most of council assets, and not selling them off cheap

 

The council’s financial performance matched that of the national government, with the pound collapsing, inflation rampant, and interest rates on the up. The three factors would devastate the council’s finances and the report did not fully account for them. Paragraph 5.3 attempted to, but in no way did it reflect the new damage being done to the economy by the government.

 

Councillor Werner referenced paragraph 4.10: ‘Making the most effective use of resources – delivering the best value for money’ is included as an underpinning principle of our approach’. He questioned if it was value for money to pay more for less of a waste collection, or, according to the MA be selling land cheap to developers. Councillor Werner felt that the borough was looking at maximum increases to council tat and constant efficiency savings over the next five years. £7m savings were needed next year. The Lead Member knew that without a change in approach, there would be an insurmountable budget gap. He felt it was time for a new approach, a new broom sweeping through the corridors, saving the council from effective bankruptcy and the slow slice to services.

 

Councillor Price asked for assurance that the efficiency savings detailed in the report were actually viable. She also asked in the Cabinet Member was confident that the figure of £7m required savings was the right figure and would remain for next year. She commended officers for the inclusion of the helpful scenarios in Appendix B.  She commented that a double negative in relation to the New Homes bonus on page 138 gave the wrong meaning.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa likened RBM to a ship; the departing First Engineer had managed to stabilise the financed despite pressure on reserves and the pension fund being in deficit. The council had substantial levels of borrowing when the pound was crashing and interest rates were soaring. There were huge pressures on adult and children’s services with an ageing population. The long-term effects of the pandemic had not really been dealt with. The leadership was going in the wrong direction as detailed in the Corporate Plan, heading to a volcano worse than Krakatoa with no preparation for climate change including resilience in buildings and the impact on health.

 

Councillor Johnson thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for their tireless work in challenging circumstances, including a global pandemic, a war in Europe and the significant effect of cost shocks to the council. However, financial stability and rigidity had been brought back and the council had worked with CIPFA to resolve a number of issues. A balanced budget had been delivered for the last three years with a modest underspend each time. Councillor Johnson commented that no credible plan had been put forward by the opposition in the last three budgets. There was also no clarity on how their spending commitments would be funded. In relation to insourcing, he referred to the return of Project Centre. Thanks to the adoption of the Borough Local Plan, the council was in a position to review CIL. The council had no plans to sell off land or other assets cheaply. The council had a clear plan but was in the same position as all other local authorities in needing to take difficult decisions.

 

Councillor Hilton concluded by commenting that over the last three years the council’s finances had been put on an even keel. The delivery of a small surplus each year had been used to increase reserves. In terms of the cost of both adult and children’s services, the borough was a low-cost council.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That Full Council approves:

 

i)               the proposed key themes of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy set out in the report; and

ii)             the Medium-Term Financial Plan set out in Appendix A.

 

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 22 Councillors voted in favour of the motion. 15 Councillors voted against the motion. 1 Councillor abstained.

 

CAPITAL BUDGET ADDITIONS 2022/23

 

Members considered recommendations from Cabinet in relation to capital budget additions for two projects.

 

Councillor Hilton introduced the report, which sought approval from Council to add two projects to the capital programme and budget. The first was the tennis court improvement project which was a fully externally funded capital scheme and represented a great partnership with the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA). In August Cabinet had approved the tennis court improvement scheme which would lead to the investment of approximately £110,000 in tennis courts at Maidenhead’s Kidwells Park, Desborough Park, Oaken Grove and Goswell’s Park and Alexandra Gardens in Windsor.

 

The funding was part of the UK Government and the LTA’s joint investment of more than £30m to refurbish public tennis courts across Britain and support a new generation of players to get into the sport. Subject to finalising the funding agreement with the LTA, work was scheduled to start in autumn 2022. Specific works at each site would depend on the improvements that were needed and would include surface reconditioning, new nets, posts and fencing. The scheme included access-controlled entry gates with an online booking system, now standard at many other venues, which would ensure residents and groups could reserve their slots online before they turned up to play. This would benefit players at peak times, maximise court usage, increase participation and enable a simple low fee charging system which would assist in the maintenance of courts to a high standard.

Importantly, as part of the partnership with the LTA, there would also be an enhanced local tennis programme, including some free sessions.

 

The government and LTA investment was designed to open up the sport to people of all backgrounds, support the government’s commitment to levelling up sports provision across the nation, and provide greater opportunities for children and adults to be active.  In parallel the borough was re-tendering the leisure facilities contract and also developing a sport and leisure strategy with the primary objective of ‘more residents, more active, more often and more healthy’, which would support and inform the future role of the leisure facilities as a key strand to the overall sport and leisure delivery in RBWM.

 

Councillor Hilton explained that the second project was the freehold acquisition from Annington Property Limited of the fully refurbished existing 53 houses and the completed new build flats at Cavalry Crescent in Windsor. The scheme was originally considered by Cabinet on 21 July 2022 and approval was now requested for a capital expenditure budget of £22,550,202 which included interest and fees. Cavalry Crescent was a former Defence Estates property owned by Annington Property Limited, a residential asset management business.  The site had been declared surplus to requirement, was vacant and Annington Homes would sell the freehold site on the open market.

 

The report to July 2022 Cabinet had provided an update on the discussion and negotiations with Annington Property Limited regarding the purchase of the site. The site would provide 53 houses and 10 new apartments to rent. As an investment this would contribute to the proposed Asset Portfolio set out in the Prop Co’s business plan. The strategy was to purchase the freehold of the 53 houses and two infill sites via a Purchase and Development Agreement. The contract would require Annington Property Limited to fully refurbish the properties to an agreed specification to market habitation standards and to obtain planning permission and build the 10 new residential apartments on the infill sites.

 

Managed by the Prop Co, the 53-market rent and 10 at affordable rent properties provided, in collaboration with the borough’s housing department, the opportunity to meet a range of housing need in the borough including moving residents from temporary accommodation into permanent homes. To inform discussions with Annington Property Limited and assess the potential purchase values, independent market valuation advice had been provided. The valuation advice formed part of the wider due diligence that informed the site values, potential income values, and financing requirement.

Councillor Davey commented that the LTA would agree circa £110,000 based on a 15-year license. He believed that RBWM would be responsible for future fixes to the courts, after the cosmetic works, and asked where the budget would come from.The administration had demonstrated that they had no ability to save for a rainy day and constantly relied on handouts. He had asked for greater clarity around the finances but they were still vague, with no agreed pricing or clarity on revenue split.

In relation to Cavalry Crescent Windsor, Councillor Davey asked when would the £22m be paid over? Would this be before the agreed works were completed or before planning permission was agreed to build apartments on what appeared to be the car park areas. He questioned if planning rules would permit that in 2022. The properties had been boarded up for years probably because they were a danger to anyone in them. He asked why the council would waste money on doing them up. He suggested it would be better to just buy the land, demolish and rebuild. The land would come in at around £5m using the current formula and planning could be secured by following the rules and creating quality homes for local workers.

 

Councillor Price commented that she did not feel the title of the report provided residents with sufficient information as to the detail of the report. Councillor Price had concerns about the Cavalry Crescent proposal as the MOD held the freehold on the properties. She considered this to be a potential high risk if the MOD changed the rules of the games. Locals had said the quality of the existing properties was poor therefore the refurbishment costs could be high. She asked what would happen if the costs came in higher than predicted. Councillor Price did not feel there was sufficient information on costs in the report.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that she had been inside some of the properties which were cold and draughty and not fit for purpose. She agreed that knocking them down and starting again would be a better option particularly if the council wanted to ensure that any housing it was involved in was resilient to climate change in the future.

 

Councillor Hill commented that the report lacked detailed information, there was no surveyor’s report, and Members had not undertaken a site visit. He suggested the council should take heed from the response of the markets to the government’s mini budget. It was a risk to take on a development project that would probably fail given the rising interest rates. He felt the proposal was too big a capital risk.

 

Councillor Bowden commented that his daughter had previously lived in a property in Cavalry Crescent. The properties were not unfit for purpose. He had been the ward councillor for the ward where the site was located; the majority of occupants had been army staff. The properties would be fully refurbished subject to a survey before any money was handed over. The properties were necessary to enhance the opportunities for residents on the housing waiting list.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that houses were needed but whether the proposal would deliver truly affordable housing was a different matter. He questioned whether the proposal would ensure retrofitting to deal with climate change. The Cabinet report had contained virtually no details on the financial risks.

 

Councillor Singh commented that if the borough was unable to progress discussions on the tennis courts proposal, there would be further deterioration of the sites. He asked why there was no budget in place to maintain the courts. The courts were well used by residents of his ward, which included one of the most deprived areas in the borough. He highlighted that the council had switched off the floodlights during the evening which was dangerous. People also used the courts to play football and basketball which would not be possible under the new proposals.

 

In relation to Cavalry Crescent, Councillor Singh commented that as a local authority, councillors were not property developers. He had seen the deal for a house in Windsor that had cost £1.6m; he was unsure how much would be lost on that deal. The council had paid £1.2m for a house in Rushington Avenue that was worth £500,000. A plot of land in his ward had planning consent for 434 flats; he suggested the council keep the land and the £22m, say goodbye to the developers and build the properties itself to ensure affordable homes.

 

Councillor Tisi stated that she was ward councillor for Clewer East. When she had first moved to Windsor she had visited the hairdressers and had overheard some army wives moaning about the state of their accommodation. The Liberal Democrats had undertaken surveys of army housing, and in 2009 ran a campaign asking for minimum standards to be adopted. There were two different types of property on the site: older brick-built houses and 1960s properties that were the draughty ones and may not be worth saving.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that at the budget debate earlier in the year the opposition had suggested the council should explore every single opportunity for greater commercialisation of assets. He explained that Cavalry Crescent was a freehold acquisition. The council would not be purchasing the properties unless it was absolutely satisfied. The properties would be refurbished to a minimum EPCC standard. He understood the concern that £22m was a large amount but it would simply allow a revolving credit. If the business case did not stack up the properties would not be purchased. However, if the council did not pursue it, another developer would pick up the site and the opportunity for affordable housing would be lost. The proposal would also deliver a long-term revenue stream and provide certainty that those people nominated would go into decent, safe properties.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that he did not fell that the case being made took into account it was still a competitive process and was subject to market forces.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that the LTA funding was not a done deal. Members had the choice to refuse the funding before a financing structure was developed. However, he felt it was a good opportunity to improve the quality and accessibility of the courts for residents. The 15-year licence meant the council was not selling off the courts. The lease was to ensure the courts were maintained to a certain standard. The proposal would support the objectives in the emerging Sport and Leisure strategy. He would look into the issue of floodlights that had been raised.

 

In relation to Cavalry Crescent, he felt it was commendable that the borough was following through on its adopted housing strategy to be more muscular in the local housing market. He was disappointed that when the opportunity was presented to deliver large scale new affordable housing on council owned stock, Members did not vote unanimously on the Borough Local Plan.

 

It was noted that if Members wished, the two issues could be voted on separately. The reason they were included together was that as they had been debated separately at Cabinet, the decision for full Council was whether or not to add them to the capital programme and therefore the title was accurate.

 

Councillor Davey requested a personal explanation. It was clear that the figure of £110,000 was based on a 15-year licence for them to run the courts, there was however no clarity about how any revenue would be split and there was no financial modelling to allow a clear decision.

 

Councillor Hilton concluded the debate. He felt the tennis courts proposal offered a great deal and would improve facilities for residents.  In relation to Cavalry Crescent, he highlighted that there was a shortage of rented accommodation in the borough and that shortage caused problems in putting people into temporary accommodation, including the need to house people outside the borough.  The Prop Co business Plan had been debated some time ago, Members would recall it included either developing or acquiring 200 homes to fill that gap. Cavalry Crescent represented 63 dwellings. The proposal would allow a credit facility that could be used only if all due diligence was undertaken and the business case stacked up. No money would change hands until all financial details were clear. The Part II documents at Cabinet had included details of the return on investment and pay-back period.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor McWilliams, and in separate votes:

 

RESOLVED: That full Council:

 

i)               Approves the tennis court improvement project as a fully externally funded capital scheme.

ii)             Approves the capital expenditure budget of £22,550,202 (inclusive of interest and fees) to acquire from Annington Homes Limited the freehold acquisition of the fully refurbished existing 53 houses and the 10 new build flats at Cavalry Crescent, Windsor