a)    Councillor Singh will ask the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside:

 

The pond, waterway cascade feature and wooden bridge in Kidwell's Park has been in a disgraceful state of disrepair over 2.5 years now. Previously I have been told that the money has run out to maintain these features, please can the lead member advise if and when these will be maintained, repaired and brought up to the previous high standard?

 

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

 

The upper floors of the Broadway car park still remain a no-go area for residents to park vehicles and continue to be closed off due to out of control ASB. Please can you explain in detail what the plan is to deal with this issue and when will the upper floors be deemed safe and reopen for public use?

 

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

 

What plans do you have to make the Windsor Town Forum engaging enough for residents to want to attend?

 

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

 

Back in May there was a consultation with residents from the Community Safety Partnership on safety matters, asking for their concerns.   The results have not been published.   One of the Corporate Plan Values is “working openly and transparently, listening to our residents, communities and partners.” Why has this not been published?

 

e)    Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Action & Sustainability:

 

Has the Lead Member for Climate Action & Sustainability applied to central government for grant money to install comprehensive air pollution monitoring throughout the Borough?

 

f) Councillor Price will ask the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, & Sport & Leisure:

Please could you give an update on residents acting as hosts for Ukrainian Refugees in different parts of the Borough, including the current numbers hosted and having left hosts and the reasons why, plans to encourage hosts to continue beyond six months, and what happens to the Refugee family if a host cannot continue?   

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

 

The Datchet Neighbourhood Plan is approaching the finishing line. What are the target dates for referendum and adoption please?

 

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

 

How many 5G masts have been erected within the Borough without ‘prior approval’ permission?

 

(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 Singh asked the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside:

The pond, waterway cascade feature and wooden bridge in Kidwell's Park has been in a disgraceful state of disrepair over 2.5 years now. Previously I have been told that the money has run out to maintain these features, please can the lead member advise if and when these will be maintained, repaired and brought up to the previous high standard?

 

Written response: Officers have been exploring options for these features to look at what would be possible to bring them back into use. Unfortunately the cost of repairing the upper pond and associated streams is not something that can be covered. However, following options appraisal for the leaking top pond and associated streams at Kidwell’s Park, we are now in a position to have the pond and streams removed. The bottom pond and fountain will remain, still giving park users a sensory water experience while the top pond/streams/bridge which have been out of repair for some time, will be removed and laid back to grass. This is a low cost solution with simpler maintenance going forward.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Singh commented that the issue had been ongoing for two and a half years and there were lots of complaints from residents. The answer was ridiculous as it was all about money. A huge amount of investment had gone into the pond and the surrounding infrastructure including cabling and a bridge. The investment would go to waste if the pond was backfilled. Councillor Singh asked the Lead Member if he would meet with him, Councillor Stimson, and officers to discuss options including alternative features such as rocks and plants.

 

Councillor Bhangra responded that officers had assessed the question, but he would be happy to meet at the park. Councillor Stimson had also raised the issue with him.

 

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

The upper floors of the Broadway car park still remain a no-go area for residents to park vehicles and continue to be closed off due to out of control ASB. Please can you explain in detail what the plan is to deal with this issue and when will the upper floors be deemed safe and reopen for public use?

 

Written response: There are currently no plans to reopen the upper floors of Nicholsons ahead of the full closure of the car park due. The closure was put in place in order to protect public safety following two serious ASB incidents where a lump of masonry and more recently a door were thrown from the roof level onto public areas below. This preventative action is with the full support of the police and shopping centre management.

 

There is sufficient parking capacity within Hines Meadow to cover this shortfall which will be strengthened by the opening of Vicus Way Multi Story Car Park for daily parking in mid-December 2022.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Singh asked what the situation was with the upper floors. He was very concerned about anti-social behaviour and asked if an investigation had taken place and any culprits caught. Broadway car park was free on Sundays. He asked if Vicus Way, which had been suggested as the alternative, would also be free.

 

Councillor Haseler responded that he was aware Councillor Singh had already raised the issues with officers. The question of an investigation would be a matter for the police. The agreement to close the top stairs would remain. A decision had not yet been made about Sunday parking.

 

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

 

What plans do you have to make the Windsor Town Forum engaging enough for residents to want to attend?

 

Written response: The terms of reference for the Town Forums set out that they provide a means whereby the council can consult with local communities including residents, businesses, Parish Councils, Chambers of Commerce, Residents’ Associations, etc., any of whom may be invited to attend and contribute to the discussions. The Forum may consider local issues including policing, planning consultation, youth services, transport issues, highways, libraries and information services, leisure, heritage and arts, and environmental initiatives.

 

The meetings of the Windsor Town Forum are scheduled for the municipal year; this means dates are currently available on the website up until May 2023. The terms of reference for the Forum and contact details for Members of the Forum and the clerk are readily available on the same webpage.

 

In advance of every meeting (which are scheduled every other month) the Communications team promote the upcoming meeting through the residents’ newsletter and the council’s usual social media channels. Members of the public are invited both to attend the Forum meetings and to submit suggested topics for discussion at future meetings. The suggestions are submitted to the clerk and initially discussed with me as Chairman. I will often correspond directly with the member of the public, ensuring I understand fully the issue they have suggested. I then liaise with the clerk to identify the right officer – or sometimes external partner – to provide a report or a presentation at a meeting.

As we have seen at many previous meetings, when an issue of interest comes before the Forum, members of the public and interested parties do attend, either in person or virtually. I use my discretion as Chairman to ensure those wishing to speak on an issue have the opportunity to do so, but also ensuring a good debate between Members of the Forum.

 

Each meeting agenda includes an item to allow attendees to consider the work programme for the Forum. Members of the Forum include ward councillors for the relevant area who will be best placed to be aware of issues of concern or interest to their constituents. The work programme item is an opportunity for all Members of the Forum to put forward suggestions that will be engaging for residents and I would encourage Members to do so. I would also suggest Members regularly promote the meetings on their own social media channels and encourage residents to put forward item suggestions and to attend future meetings.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Davey commented that the constitution also said that the forum covered the following wards: Clewer & Dedworth East, Clewer & Dedworth East, Clewer East, Eton and Castle and Old Windsor. The response also missed the clarifying sentence that ‘Area Forums will be politically balanced wherever possible, and the Members should represent a ward within the area’. Councillor Davey felt the Forum should be made up of the existing ward councillors - six independent, two Liberal Democrats and three Conservatives, but the administration had decided to go against the intent, essence and spirit of the constitution and bring in those from outside the area. Less than 10% of items had come from residents, such was the lack of engagement. He asked when the council would review the constitution for the Windsor Town Forum and make it fit for purpose to ensure residents’ opinions on topics that affected them counted.

 

Councillor Rayner responded that she believed the Forum followed the constitution and that is the way it would remain.

 

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

Back in May there was a consultation with residents from the Community Safety Partnership on safety matters, asking for their concerns.   The results have not been published.   One of the Corporate Plan Values is “working openly and transparently, listening to our residents, communities and partners.” Why has this not been published?

 

Written response: The survey that was conducted by the Community Safety team was undertaken to support work needed to create our Local Needs Assessment in relation to the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) priorities and was never intended to be published. The results of the survey will help inform where further actions or targeted activity could be identified to the CSP for consideration and/or inclusion under the most relevant CSP priorities and the delivery plan. 

 

We were also waiting for the resident survey results from the RBWM wide survey conducted by an independent company so we could compare the results for the safety section.

 

The latest resident’s survey shows that:

 

75% of women feel safe at night (although still the gender gap compared to 89% of men)

27% of residents indicated they are concerned about anti-social behaviour in their local area, 40% are not concerned.

 

We would be happy to share the results of the Safety survey with anyone that requested it as there is no sensitive information within its content.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Price commented that the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel had met the week before and it would have informed their work if the information had been available; she now had a copy. As it did not contain any sensitive information, she requested it be published so that all Members and residents could read it. Not only would this be in keeping with the Corporate Plan value of working openly and transparently, it would be a more efficient use of officer time. The statistic that 75% of women felt safe at night had been quoted in the response. She asked if that meant the remaining 25% did not.

 

Councillor Cannon responded that the figure came from the published survey. He did not know the makeup of the remaining 25% but he was sure that information could be provided to Councillor Price by officers.

 

e)    Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Action & Sustainability:

 

Has the Lead Member for Climate Action & Sustainability applied to central government for grant money to install comprehensive air pollution monitoring throughout the Borough?

 

Written response provided by Councillor Cannon: Unfortunately, no application was made this year. There were internal discussions with Transport concerning a joint bid with Environmental Protection although the bid would have required a 10% match funding and use of an external consultant to carry out the air monitoring and manage the projects (estimated to cost £150K, although this may have been covered partly or entirely by the grant).

 

Anecdotally, DEFRA are not keen to award grants for air quality monitoring alone. Successful bids are generally linked to awareness campaigns, usually with schools in conjunction with promoting active travel plans. The council will review future grant funding and consider an application if the eligibility criteria can be met in full.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hill stated that Councillor Cannon had earlier committed to three new monitoring stations, he asked where and when they would be in place.

 

Councillor Cannon responded that in terms of when, this would need to wait until the budget details were published. In terms of where, he would be guided by the professional officers to ensure they provided the data that was needed.

 

f) Councillor Price asked the following question of Councillor McWilliams, Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, & Sport & Leisure:

Please could you give an update on residents acting as hosts for Ukrainian Refugees in different parts of the Borough, including the current numbers hosted and having left hosts and the reasons why, plans to encourage hosts to continue beyond six months, and what happens to the Refugee family if a host cannot continue?   

Written response: There are currently 144 host families, with a total of 318 guests. Since the implementation of the scheme 34 households have left their original hosts

 

·       18 have returned to Ukraine

·       5 Relationships between hosts and guests have broken down. (Despite attempts to mediate and support each party)

·       3 Households have been rematched with other hosts

·       8 Households have been successfully supported into longer term private rented accommodation.

The Welfare Officers have developed a very good rapport with both hosts and guests. In many cases Welfare Officers have worked with both parties to ensure support is in place to extend the relationship beyond 6 months, whilst seeking options for longer term move on accommodation.  All options will be considered and discussed prior to any request for temporary accommodation including accessing the funding to support households secure accommodation in the private rented sector. The consistent point of contact for hosts and guests with our Welfare Officers is proving successful, reducing temporary accommodation placements and relationship breakdowns.

 

The end of a relationship between the host and the guests depends on various reasons that can be complex.  The Welfare Team offer a person-centred approach dealing with individual circumstances appropriately. The following outcomes confirm the approach taken if the relationship cannot continue:

 

·       Rematch with an alternative host

·       Secure private sector accommodation

·       Seek support from alternative friends and family

·       Place into suitable temporary accommodation

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Price commented that the wider community was playing its part in supporting both hosts and families. The Around the Royal Borough acknowledged the good work of ‘Open Arms’ in and around Maidenhead but in Windsor there were host families supporting Ukrainian families and she extended an invitation to the Cabinet Member to see the work undertaken by Safe Places in Windsor. In the following week there was a craft fair, host meeting and photo exhibition and a Christmas party planned. Councillor Price requested help in:

 

·       Removing blockages preventing host families from receiving payments on time

·       Establishing why the telephone helpline often remained unanswered

·       Exploring the option of the borough being a guarantor for families moving to registered accommodation

·       Supplementing payments to host families to tide over the winter

·       Alerting all Windsor families to the support available in the community

·       Establishing a data sharing agreement to provide more comprehensive support

Councillor McWilliams responded that he wished to place on record the immense thanks to families across the borough who had taken in Ukrainian refugees.  He would be more than happy to visit host families. He asked Councillor Price to write to him and he would arrange a session with officers to discuss the issues.

 

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

 

The Datchet Neighbourhood Plan is approaching the finishing line. What are the target dates for referendum and adoption please?

 

Written response: The Datchet Neighbourhood Plan was submitted for examination on the 10^th November 2022 and is currently with the Inspector for consideration. Adoption cannot take place until after a referendum. The Council would hope to hold the referendum at the same time as the Local Elections in May 2023, however the timetable to achieve this is tight and dependent on the data of receipt of the Inspectors report.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that Neighbourhood Plans came about under localism and decentralisation. Datchet got a plan together, it was now sitting at the council end awaiting completion. His question had been when it would be finished, particularly as there was a Local Plan site coming forward. He asked if there would be any assistance to get the Plan completed.

 

Councillor Haseler responded that the written response set out that the borough had submitted the Plan to the Inspector for examination, so it was out of the hands of the borough to further its progress. It was hoped that the referendum would take place at the same time as the elections in May.

 

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

How many 5G masts have been erected within the Borough without ‘prior approval’ permission?

 

Written response: The Council is not aware of any 5G masts which have been erected within the Borough without following the proper prior approval process set out within the General Permitted Development Order.

 

Since January 2022 there have been outcomes on 12 applications. Six were approved, five were refused and one was permitted due to the passage of time as set out within the legislation.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe explained that he had been walking down a village road in Datchet when he had seen some workmen putting up a mast. He checked and they did not have permission, but they had said they had a permit. It was not right that a big company could walk into a local community and stick in a 15-metre-high mast adjacent to a house.

 

Councillor Haseler responded that the written response gave details of the outcomes on 12 applications.  If there was a fresh case going on councillor Larcombe should flag it to officers so they could look into it.