a)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection:

Apparently a further £13k of public money has recently been spent on maintaining a riparian owned ancient ordinary watercourse in Wraysbury.  Can you please confirm that this money has been or will be recovered from the riparian owner?

b)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation:

What percentage of RBWM primary school children are taught to swim at school?

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

Despite a petition, signed by over 2000 residents, and two years of engagement with officers and lead members we have still taken no action to provide a pedestrian refuge at the site of a fatality. Why has this obvious and necessary measure not been approved?

d)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Rayner, Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate & Residents Services, Culture & Heritage, & Windsor:

Why does it feel like all council meetings are moving to Maidenhead and what are the reasons for the change?

e)    Councillor Davey will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Why wasn’t Councillor Price given a role on an outside body and instead a resident was put forward by the administration, and is this constitutionally sound?

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

Could we have a progress update on establishing the Maidenhead Town Team to take forward the Maidenhead Vision & Charter and the consultation with the existing Town Partnership please?

(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 Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection:

Apparently a further £13k of public money has recently been spent on maintaining a riparian owned ancient ordinary watercourse in Wraysbury.  Can you please confirm that this money has been or will be recovered from the riparian owner?

Written Response: 

The works at the Wraysbury Drain were undertaken upstream of the Wraysbury Dive Centre in order restore some flow of water to the watercourse. This was done by removing woody debris such as tree branches and other vegetation and fallen trees which were causing an obstruction to the flow of water. RBWM is a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) pursuant to Section 6(7) of The Flood and Water Management Act 2010.  

As a Lead Local Flood Authority, the Council is given powers through the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the works at the Wraysbury Drain were undertaken using our powers under the section 6(7) of the Land Drainage Act 1991, allowing us to carry out works to manage local flood risk in the borough. As a result of this work, a small flow of water has been re-established in the channel where there previously had not been any flow. 

The Council has additional powers under sections 24 and 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 where it can enforce removal of unconsented structures and enforcement of maintenance work by landowners. Further tasks at the Wraysbury Drain are being planned over the next year which will include enforcement where landowners have deliberately obstructed the watercourse. This programme of work will be compiled over the next couple of months. 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that he imagined that the long-term failure of RBWM to ensure maintenance of the land drainage infrastructure was simply due to legislative shortcomings. After the 2007 floods, the Pitt Review, and the Floods and Water Management Act 2010, which clearly identified the newly created Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) as the body responsible for ordinary watercourse and groundwater and appropriate permissive and enforcement powers, he had looked forward to improvement. Unfortunately, there was no legal duty on the authority to monitor the condition of ordinary watercourses or to use the available powers. An ancient watercourse, 220 years old, had ceased to flow properly. The borough had failed for years despite hundreds of thousands of pounds. It was still not fixed. He therefore asked when it would be fit for purpose.

Councillor Cannon responded that the answer had been given in the original response which explained that the Wraysbury Drain was subject to a scheme of works and would be progressed as officers had already advised.

b) Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation:

What percentage of RBWM primary school children are taught to swim at school?

Written Response: 

Thank you for your question Councillor Larcombe.  All primary schools offer swimming or water safety lessons at some point in the years 1-6 of school.  However we cannot confirm the number of children who have taken up the offer.  The teaching is designed to enable a pupil to:   swim competently, confidently and proficiently over a distance of at least 25 metres and perform safe self-rescue in different water based situations. 

The full guidance for schools can be found at:  

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study 

Councillor Larcombe stated he did not wish to ask a supplementary question given it was a sensitive issue at the moment in Datchet.

b)    Councillor Brar asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport:

Despite a petition, signed by over 2000 residents, and two years of engagement with officers and lead members we have still taken no action to provide a pedestrian refuge at the site of a fatality. Why has this obvious and necessary measure not been approved?

Written Response: 

I recognise and understand the strength of feeling in the community demonstrated by the support for the petition.  The tragic loss of life was caused by the driver of the vehicle who was driving under the influence of drugs at excessive speed, reported as being in the region of 70mph. 

The petition itself reproduced below, does not ask for a crossing at the site of the accident and the road widening required to deliver it is likely to reduce the width of footway for those walking alongside the main road: 

We the undersigned petition the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to urgently introduce traffic calming measures and upgrade existing crossing point to a controlled crossing at Maidenhead Road near the railway bridge, introduce a new controlled crossing point on Switchback Road adjacent to the shops and reduce speed limit and install cameras/calming measures. 

In response to the petition a new zebra crossing has been installed at the shops as requested and the 40mph limit has been reviewed by officers.  The professional view of the road safety team is that the setting and rural nature of the road mean that a further reduction in speed limit are not appropriate but proposals are being developed to reinforce the existing 40mph with new traffic calming measures as well as looking at developing the design for an enhanced crossing between Maidenhead Road and Whiteladyes Lane. 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Brar commented that some councils might take the view that it was right to mitigate the impact of dangerous driving with physical measures rather than a reminder of the speed limit which a driver who was impaired might well ignore. A refuge island would require the highway to be widened by around 4-5 feet. At the site discussed, there was 14 feet of verge on one side and 4 on the other, and the owner of the larger verge had told Councillor Brar he was open to the idea of cooperating with RBWM. She asked what discussion had been had with the landowners, and what was the outcome?

As Councillor Haseler was not present, the Mayor agreed that a written response would be provided.

c)    Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Rayner, Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate & Residents Services, Culture & Heritage, & Windsor:

Why does it feel like all council meetings are moving to Maidenhead and what are the reasons for the change?

Written Response:

It is not correct that all council meetings will take place in Maidenhead. Meetings will be held in either Windsor or Maidenhead; the council is pleased to have two great venues in the two major towns and looks forward to both being used for meetings.  

A new audio-visual system has recently been installed in the Council Chamber in the Town Hall, Maidenhead. This followed feedback from Members, officers, and residents about the visual and sound quality of in-person meetings that were live-streamed to the council’s YouTube page from this venue. This welcome investment and additional functionality will improve the meeting experience for those attending in person in the Council Chamber, virtual participants, and those watching the livestream on YouTube. Meetings will continue to be held in Windsor including Cabinet and those that are Windsor-focussed such as the Windsor Town Forum and the Windsor and Ascot Development Management Committee. 

Councillor Davey stated he did not wish to ask a supplementary question.

e) Councillor Davey asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

Why wasn’t Councillor Price given a role on an outside body and instead a resident was put forward by the administration, and is this constitutionally sound?

Written Response:

Under the constitution, Cabinet has the power to both make and revoke appointments to outside bodies. Unless the outside body's constitution states the council representative must be an elected Member, then Cabinet can choose to appoint a non-councillor if it believes this to be a more appropriate appointment, based on the skills and knowledge of the individual. 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey stated that the key concern he had was that if the roles were given to residents, but they were not accountable to the electorate, they had no official mandate from the people. There was something wrong with the policy and it needed revision. He asked how the Cabinet appraised Councillor Price’s skills and knowledge, for example was there a written test; did the Cabinet consult with CIPFA to see if they had any concerns over appointments; and how were the opportunities promoted to the wider public to ensure the best candidates were found.

Councillor Johnson responded that appointments were made on merit. He meant no disrespect to Councillor Price, but Cabinet had felt the incumbent was more suitable for the role. However, he took on board the points raised by Councillor Davey and suggested they could be considered when appointments were next refreshed.

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

Could we have a progress update on establishing the Maidenhead Town Team to take forward the Maidenhead Vision & Charter and the consultation with the existing Town Partnership please?

Written Response:

Following extensive consultation with the already existing Town Partnership, the Town Team is moving forward with the desire to involve a broader range of people to deliver the Vision and Charter. The Maidenhead Town Partnership will continue alongside the Maidenhead Town Team, which will benefit from MTP’s already existing structure and direction.

 
There will be a brainstorming session at the MTP October meeting to agree the details of how the Town Team and MTP will work together moving forward.
 
As laid out in the Town Team paper (June 22) we will now move to relaunch the Maidenhead Vision and Charter and begin the advertisement for the new town team roles. The newly appointed Town Team community representatives will, alongside the MTP, enhance the work of the existing partnership and provide wider view and opinions.

 
Following the successful appointment of our community representatives the inaugural Maidenhead Town Team meeting will take place. From the relaunch of the Vison and Charter we expect the process to take around 3 months, with the first Town Team meeting taking place in the new year.

Councillor Bond stated that he did not wish to ask a supplementary question.