Public Questions
a) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Not one on the council’s five largest capital projects is directed at Windsor. Can you explain to the people of Windsor why this is the case?
b) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Will the Leader advise what progress has been made with the “Changing Places” toilets at the Windsor Leisure Centre?
c) Sunil Sharma of Cox Green ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
What considerations have been given to infrastructure upgrades and improvements to mitigate the forthcoming developments AL13 South West Maidenhead and AL24 Lillibrooke Land East of Woodlands Park Ave?
d) Sian Martin of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
Can visitor parking permits be more flexible and easier to purchase? You have to guess need: 2, 6 or 24 hours, minimum 5 at a time, 12 months’ expiry, and only by post. Not very useful for last minute visitors plus impossible to judge your future need.
Perhaps an App (as other councils and RingGo offer) alongside the scratch cards?
e) Hari Dev Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Asset Management & Commercialisation, Finance, & Ascot
Despite high inflation, spiralling cost of food and energy as well as the impact of other pressures RBWM has produced a balanced budget.
Will investment in adult and social care, children services and transport & highways along with others services be protected? And will there be no cuts to the quality of services with enough reserves for contingency plans?
f) Hari Dev Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
What was the main reason to close the Nicholsons Car Park and had action been taken to minimise disruption and mitigate inconvenience? Maidenhead businesses were disrupted and it caused inconvenience to residents to park their vehicles.
g) Will Scawn of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside
Thank you to the Council and staff for their efforts to keep the roads of Belmont clean, especially of leaves this past autumn. Could the Council please update on what steps it took to manage this and whether more resources could be made available for leaf clearing in Belmont next autumn?
h) Will Scawn of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
Road safety is a key priority in my local area, Belmont. What has the Council done to improve this recently, and could more be done, for example introducing yellow lines at key junctions and extending 20mph zones in residential areas?
i) Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Deputy Chairman of Cabinet & Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation
I am aware that the Council continues to work hard, urging the NHS to expand services at St Mark’s Hospital which is a vital asset to the Borough.
Could you please provide an update on this - what steps it has taken and what if any assurances have you been given by the NHS?
j) Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Asset Management & Commercialisation, Finance, & Ascot
Unprecedented levels of inflation and the rising cost of living are a challenge for many people living in my local area of Belmont as it is for many in the country.
What is the Council doing to keep costs low for residents, and what measures will they take to support people through this time?
k) Thomas Wigley of Clewer East ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The A308 Corridor Study states ‘… although air quality was identified as an objective, the study has not been able to source any data to evidence option development based on this’.
The A308 runs through three AQMAs and 43 pollution data points were recorded for 2019.
Why did you accept a report based on such an obvious misrepresentation?
l) Mark Wilson of Eton and Castle ward will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection
Following the Environment Agency report into National River water quality from January 2022 and queries raised at the Place Overview & Scrutiny Panel, what steps have been taken over the course of the last year to improve the water quality of the River Thames (including the Jubilee River flood relief section) for both short term and long term improvement?
m) Devon Davies of Eton and Castle ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
With regards to the draft EV Charge Point Implementation Plan, please could the Lead Member give details of the likely revenue budget required for the Council to subsidise the energy cost for on street charging
n) Mark Loader of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The Statement of Common Grounds with Thames Water assured RBWM of compliance in relation to wastewater infrastructure. Before a single house is built on AL13 residents have been suffering sewage on Shoppenhangers Road. What enforcement steps can RBWM take against Thames Water to protect residents from avoidable sewage overflows on streets and rivers.
o) Mark Loader of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The South West Maidenhead draft SPD states indicative infrastructure costs are now estimated at £100m. Developers are expected to provide in contributions £41.0+£33.5=£74.5m, will this be realised?
This excludes land costs. How will the land cost be valued, based on the fact that disposal of land cannot be for less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained.
p) Fiona Tattersall of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Are the terms of reference and meeting minutes for the Desborough Development Partnership Board available for the five years it has been established for elected members to view and scrutinise this Joint Venture and how has the Board been able to operate with no governing documents?
q) Fiona Tattersall of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
At the recent Place Overview and Scrutiny call-in of the South West Maidenhead SPD, Mr Motuel referred to the SWM SPD as a "high level masterplan" (@2hrs 19mins). The document itself at paragraph 6.2.2 states "it is not intended to represent a masterplan for the area". Which of the two statements is correct?
r) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Given that court case EA/2021/0092 concerned withholding key sections of a report into the integrity and safety of our local elections, why did the Council not openly and transparently report to Members or the wider public the decision and reasoning of the First Tier Tribunal, who stated there was a "...weighty public interest in disclosure"?
s) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
RBWM were aware in October 2019 of their report's redacted conclusions, which rejected the view that the former leader had derived no electoral advantage from the sending of a draft land agreement by senior officers days before the election. What is RBWM's process for dealing with identified undue electoral advantage?
t) Tina Quadrino of Pinkneys Green will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the development of the golf course site is not going to be anywhere near as lucrative as it once was, with all costs spiralling including the amount of money that the residents will be paying from the taxpayer’s purse. At what point does RBWM re-evaluate the true viability of this unwanted development?
u) Michael Young of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The 2022 South West Maidenhead Viability Update states "the cost of strategic infrastructure and mitigation" has risen to £110m from its 2019 assessment of £32m. An approximately 250% increase. Can you explain this increase, and why (despite this) the final SPD removed the draft SPD's 10% risk allowance - recommended to account for any "level of uncertainty" in infrastructure costs?
v) Michael Young of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The draft South West Maidenhead SPD stated that total infrastructure costs were £100m. However, the final SPD now says that costs have rocketed to £120.1m due to a 200% increase in highway junction costs. Why were Members told this week in Scrutiny that the October Viability Update was a “sense check”, when it is based on the discarded £100m projections?
w) John Hudson of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The SWM SPD proposes a choice between two models of infrastructure payments by developers - the so-called ""simple"", and ""complex"" approaches.
Why does RBWM delegate this vitally important decision to the developers themselves (who paid for the SPD document), and if one developer chooses a different approach to that of the others, will RBWM insist that the majority choice prevails?
The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with public 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.
Minutes:
a) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Not one on the council’s five largest capital projects is directed at Windsor. Can you explain to the people of Windsor why this is the case?
Written Response: The Council is investing significant amounts of capital funding within Windsor across its capital programme. In addition to smaller individual investments there are a number of larger schemes which are being developed, and subject to the outcome of public consultation, would be delivered in the next 12 months. This includes major investment at Castle Hill which forms part of a £2.4M investment supported by Government funding.
There is also significant private investment being attracted into Windsor with proposals at Windsor Yards being progressed through planning as well as the recent opening of the IHG Headquarters, demonstrating the council's ability to work with the private sector to secure investment in the Town.
Cabinet will also be considering a report in February on the longer-term plans for Windsor. This will be set out in the Windsor Vision report which has been prepared in partnership with the Princes Foundation. The project has brought together a wide range of views across the local community, business and other partners. The report will provide a series of recommendations that the Council will seek to take forward to ensure the long-term success of Windsor and direct future investment.
By way of a supplementary question, Ed Wilson enquired how many Windsor Councillors had submitted major capital projects that directly affected Windsor for consideration in this year’s budget.
Councillor Johnson explained that following the CIPFA review the role of elected members in proposing and prioritising capital funded projects had significantly changed and Councillors were now no longer able to directly propose projects. He there advised the number was zero. He commented upon the role of the Capital Review Board, which was led by officers, and advised that Capital projects were ultimately considered by Cabinet and were open to scrutiny as part of the wider budget consultation, prior to their approval by Council. He added that there was significant capital investment for the Borough the majority of which would be derived from the private sector.
b) Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Will the Leader advise what progress has been made with the “Changing Places” toilets at the Windsor Leisure Centre?
Written Response: Preparation work has begun, with the main bulk of the construction work provisionally booked to start week commencing 17 April 2023. It is anticipated that the work will be completed by early June. Further work will be taking place around operational requirements extending the duration of the work but limiting impact on Leisure Centre operations and users. The specific design plans were signed off from the funders following a couple of tweaks to the design in early December 2022.
In mid-December 2022 Officers (via Leisure Focus) went back to the designers/installers and asked for the addition of a shower into the design, because although it’s not a requirement of a Changing Places toilet, they felt it prudent to get it added considering the location and likely usage. Revised plans were provided to the funders, and we are awaiting a response confirming approval.
By way of a supplementary question, Ed Wilson welcomed the progress that had been made over the past 2 years and commented that the Changing Places toilet in the leisure centre was a small project but would have a big impact on some of the most vulnerable residents in the Community. He enquired whether a similar scheme would be progressed in Windsor town centre in the near future.
Councillor Johnson explained that he would liaise with the relevant Councillors and Officers to scope a similar scheme for Windsor Town Centre, which would be delivered based on a solid business case.
c) Sunil Sharma of Cox Green ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
What considerations have been given to infrastructure upgrades and improvements to mitigate the forthcoming developments AL13 South-West Maidenhead and AL24 Lillibrooke Land East of Woodlands Park Ave?
Written Response: As part of the Borough Local Plan, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan was developed which set out the infrastructure needs of the Borough that would result from the sites identified in the plan.
This has been further developed through the recently adopted South-West Maidenhead Supplementary Planning Document which sets out what improvements would be needed and how they would be funded. This includes upgrades to several junctions across Maidenhead, improved cycling facilities and public transport as well as new schools and community facilities to support growth.
Five of the junctions identified within the Borough Local Plan as needing improvement have already been delivered through our Capital Programme, having secured the majority of the funding through the Local Enterprise Partnership to deliver the Maidenhead Housing Sites Enabling works project, bring forward infrastructure ahead of housing growth.
With regards to the AL24 allocation, the developers will, through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), need to make financial contributions towards upgrading and improving the local infrastructure. They have already committed to making more localised highway improvements close to the site in order to enhance public safety. Any such additional enhancements would be funded through additional S106 contributions.
By way of a supplementary question Sunil Sharma referred to the AL24 Lilibrooke site and asked about the provisions there were being proposed.
Councillor Haseler responded by commenting upon the detailed engagement that had taken place with local groups/stakeholders. He referred to the plans being proposed to link the site to the existing residential areas through the introduction of pedestrian crossings, cycling and walking paths through the estate that would link to the wider area, improvements to the junction of Woodlands Park Avenue, improved bus stop facilities, and improved pavements and possible speed reduction along the busy Woodlands Park Road. He also encouraged residents to attend the “Get Involved Events” to be held on 8th and 10th February, the results of which will be fed back to the developers.
d) Sian Martin of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
Can visitor parking permits be more flexible and easier to purchase? You have to guess need: 2, 6 or 24 hours, minimum 5 at a time, 12 months’ expiry, and only by post. Not very useful for last minute visitors plus impossible to judge your future need. Perhaps an App (as other councils and RingGo offer) alongside the scratch cards?
Written Response: As part of the new Parking contract, which is currently being procured, we are exploring virtual permits for all areas including visitor vouchers. This will provide more flexibility for residents wishing to purchase visitor vouchers. In the majority of roads with resident permits you are able to purchase up to 3 annual visitor permits which can be used multiple times and can be left on a vehicle for the duration of its stay.
By way of a supplementary question, Sian Martin commented that virtual permits had been explored and asked what the expected timeframe was for them becoming a reality for residents.
Councillor Haseler explained that the permits were being explored as part of the new parking contract and a report on the matter should be considered by Cabinet in April.
e) Hari Dev Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Asset Management & Commercialisation, Finance, & Ascot
Despite high inflation, spiralling cost of food and energy as well as the impact of other pressures RBWM has produced a balanced budget. Will investment in adult and social care, children services and transport & highways along with other services be protected and will there be no cuts to the quality of services with enough reserves for contingency plans?
Written Response: The Draft Budget approved by Cabinet on 1st December 2022 contained all of the details of proposed changes to the budgets of all of the services you refer to. The impact on the services is highlighted in the Equality Impact Assessments also included as part of the draft budget report. In addition, we are currently out to public consultation. You can find the consultation documents on our website at https://rbwmtogether.rbwm.gov.uk/budget-consultation-2023-24. I can also confirm that the budget includes a contingency budget and that our reserves position continues to improve each year.
By way of a supplementary question Hari Sharma referred to the unproductive and negative language used with regard to previous budgets. He stated that the budget for Furze Platt residents demonstrated the Council’s aspiration to deliver high quality services. He asked the Lead Member to explain the plan to reduce the burden of debt to the Council.
Councillor Hilton explained that the answer to the question was detailed within the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy which had been published in July and updated in December to reflect the proposed budget. The document outlined the capital cash flow for the Council going forward to 2035 and explained how the Council planed over that period to reduce its current debt levels.
f) Hari Dev Sharma of Furze Platt ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
What was the main reason to close the Nicholsons Car Park and had action been taken to minimise disruption and mitigate inconvenience? Maidenhead businesses were disrupted, and it caused inconvenience to residents to park their vehicles.
Written Response: The car park was originally earmarked for closure in 2018. It was necessary to close Nicholsons car park at short notice in the interests of health and safety, due to an area of overhead concrete that required swift assessment and remedial action. On a precautionary basis, the car park has stayed closed to undertake technical condition assessment of all levels, and the requirement for further remedial work has been identified.
The car park will remain fully closed while contractors undertake further assessment works, initially prioritising the two lowest floors to see what would be required to re-open those levels to Shopmobility users and blue badge holders. Since the closure, we have been working with People to Places to find a solution for Shopmobility services which is now located at unit 69/71 Queens Walk Mall. There is no parking provision on-site at the new location, however the Brock Street entrance to the centre can be used as a drop-off point for those unable to walk from the town’s other car parks. The nearest disabled parking bays are on Queen Street. We apologise for the inconvenience of this closure, which is required in order to undertake this important work.
By way of a supplementary question Hari Sharma asked what the Council’s life care plan to identify the structural condition and level of safety at the car park. He asked for further information on the age of the car park, inspection regimes, repair history, accidental damage, winter maintenance, material testing and structural appraisals as that would provide a general overview on the current condition and next steps required.
Councillor Haseler explained that the Nicholson car park was in excess of 40 years old and had suffered concrete spalling. Moisture had penetrated the concrete and the metal work had expanded causing cracking, with some of the masonry becoming lose and falling off the structure. He commented upon the work that had taken place on the ground floor to remove the loose concrete and advised that the process would continue on other floors. A structural engineer would carry out an assessment of the structure over the next few days, which may include some additional intrusive work and laboratory testing. He explained that the Council recognised that the closure was causing major inconvenience to both residents and businesses, but the car park would remain closed and would not reopen until it was considered 100% safe as the Council did not wish to face any legal proceedings should somebody be severely injured whist using the car park. He advised that further information would be provided in a written response.
g) Will Scawn of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside
Thank you to the Council and staff for their efforts to keep the roads of Belmont clean, especially of leaves this past autumn. Could the Council please update on what steps it took to manage this and whether more resources could be made available for leaf clearing in Belmont next autumn?
Written Response: Leaf clearance was undertaken this Autumn in line with the normal cleansing schedule. We found this year that after a mild Autumn much of the leaf fall came during the period of windy and cooler weather that followed, which meant leaves built up in some areas. Areas which were reported to have a significant leaf fall were prioritised. We are reviewing the leaf clearance schedules ahead of next year and looking at what can be done to add additional resource at this time of year to clear leaf fall more quickly.
By way of a supplementary question, Will Scawn requested that the review of leaf clearance next Autumn be extended to College Avenue, College Road, St Luke’s Road, Blakley Court, Lindon Avenue and Belmont Park Avenue and that the schedule be communicated to residents.
Councillor Bhangra indicated that he would ask the officers to look into the request to extend the review area and would provide a written a response to the request in due course.
h) Will Scawn of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
Road safety is a key priority in my local area, Belmont. What has the Council done to improve this recently, and could more be done, for example introducing yellow lines at key junctions and extending 20mph zones in residential areas?
Written Response: Recent projects include the installation of a mini-roundabout and pedestrian crossing on St Marks Road and the installation the installation of road humps and a 20-mph speed limit on part of Courthouse Road. A further speed limit reduction is planned for Ellington Park commencing on 6th March 2023. Further projects are being considered as part of the Borough's Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan.
There are currently plans to make changes to parking restrictions on St Marks Road, Gordon Road and Wellington Road. If there are any other junctions within Belmont Ward that need looking at, please either speak directly to Ward Councillors or contact parking@rbwm.gov.uk
By way of a supplementary question, Will Scawn highlighted the corner of Gordon Road and Wellington Road as an area where residents had raised particular concerns about pedestrian safety and asked that measures to improve safety, visibility and parking be implemented as soon as possible.
Councillor Haseler advised that double yellow lines would be installed at the junction as soon as reasonably practical.
i) Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Deputy Chairman of Cabinet & Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation
I am aware that the Council continues to work hard, urging the NHS to expand services at St Mark’s Hospital which is a vital asset to the Borough. Could you please provide an update on this - what steps it has taken and what if any assurances have you been given by the NHS?
Written Response: The NHS are preparing a “Health and Care Services in Maidenhead” booklet for public information going out in January 2023. This should provide an update on the urgent care services following advice from me and other councillors. To support the delivery of these NHS services recruitment and location of additional clinical space has been underway and we are advised that they are moving forward positively. Lead councillors and Healthwatch have been engaged in this approach to date and our Executive Director of People services continues to work with NHS colleagues to ensure there are good services for RBWM residents.
By way of a supplementary question, Mohammed IIyas explained that he was pleased to read in the written response that the NHS would print a booklet providing an update on urgent care services in the local area. However, in the absence of a commitment on the facilities at St Mark’s Hospital, he asked the Lead member to consider having a public meeting with the NHS to enable them to respond to residents’ concerns and to consider writing to the Secretary of State for Health outlining residents’ concerns.
Councillor Carroll responded in the affirmative to both requests. He explained that the NHS were dealing with enormous pressures at the moment, so it was important to deal with the issue in an appropriate and balanced way and work constructively with the NHS. He advised that he had been reassured by NHS colleagues that they were addressing the concerns and were looking to move things forward as soon as the immediate pressures had eased.
j) Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward will ask the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Asset Management & Commercialisation, Finance, & Ascot
Unprecedented levels of inflation and the rising cost of living are a challenge for many people living in my local area of Belmont as it is for many in the country. What is the Council doing to keep costs low for residents, and what measures will they take to support people through this time?
Written Response: The Council reviews its use of resources on an annual basis to try to keep costs for residents at a reasonable level. In determining its council tax levels, proposals for 2023/24 budget which have been out for consultation during December and January include a rise in Council Tax of 4.99%, the maximum allowable under the current legislation. This is, however, less than half of the current levels of inflation. In addition, our Council Tax levels are significantly below the national average, in fact well over £500 per annum less than the average. The council also has in place schemes to assist those who may need additional support through the Council Tax Reduction scheme, backed up by hardship funds.
Further, the council has taken a proactive approach to supporting residents with cost-of-living rises. In May, we launched our Here to Help campaign, which brings together information on support available through the council, central government and our community partners to help with energy, housing, council tax and wider costs. The council is working in close partnership with our local partners to support residents in need. Please see https://www.rbwm.gov.uk/home/community-and-living/community-support/here-help. We have distributed three tranches of the DWP Household Support Fund, to families in receipt of Free School Meals to support with meal costs in the school holidays, to older people in receipt of council tax reductions and to help those struggling with energy and housing costs. This winter we are also distributing one off cash payment of £145 to residents who are struggling financially, through a partnership with nine voluntary sector, health and housing partners. We are also coordinating a network of over 20 safe, warm spaces across the borough, including our libraries. This is in addition to delivery of central government support schemes including council tax and energy rebates.
By way of a supplementary question, Mohammed Ilyas enquired whether it would be possible for the Council to consider making in such areas like leisure activities further price reductions to help support the physical and mental wellbeing of residents.
Councillor Hilton explained that the Council did provide support for vulnerable people to access leisure facilities and that the support currently provided would continue. He advised that he would respond to Mr Ilyas with a written reply as to whether any prices reductions would be possible following a discussion with the Lead Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside.
k) Thomas Wigley of Clewer East ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The A308 Corridor Study states ‘... although air quality was identified as an objective, the study has not been able to source any data to evidence option development based on this’. The A308 runs through three AQMAs and 43 pollution data points were recorded for 2019. Why did you accept a report based on such an obvious misrepresentation?
Written Response: Air Quality Monitoring results from sites on or close to the A308 corridor in Old Windsor, Windsor, Bray and Maidenhead indicate that since 2018 the air quality objective for NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) & PM10 (particulate matter) have been met.
Within the development of the Local Borough Plan, the Council has undertaken a detailed air quality assessment across the borough. The dispersion modelling study shows low level concentrations for PM10 and PM2.5 within the five AQMAs. The predicted levels show full compliance with the air quality objectives and there is currently no identified risk the objective may be exceeded in the future.
Paragraph 5.2.3 of the A308 Corridor Study - Option Development Report states: It should be noted that the proposed improvements have been developed as high-level concept designs and have not been subject to strategic appraisal. Any options that are progressed for further development by RBWM are dependent on a deliverability assessment which covers several factors:
Cost of the potential scheme
Infrastructure feasibility
Operational feasibility
Land requirements
Complexity of delivery
Environmental impact
Stakeholder acceptance/support and
Timescales for delivery.
This could include a site-specific detailed air quality assessment where the chosen option would lead to significant changes in traffic flow.
l) Mark Wilson of Eton and Castle ward will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection
Following the Environment Agency report into National River water quality from January 2022 and queries raised at the Place Overview & Scrutiny Panel, what steps have been taken over the course of the last year to improve the water quality of the River Thames (including the Jubilee River flood relief section) for both short term and long-term improvement?
Written Response: The responsibilities for river water quality lie outside the remit of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. The Environment Agency (EA) carries out water quality assessments of the waterbodies across England including its rivers and regulates discharge licenses of wastewater to those waterbodies. It works closely with water companies to ensure that they are closely monitoring and reporting back on their discharge activity. Water quality measurements are regularly carried out within the EA sampling regime and the data published, with chemical or biological results above the thresholds of the discharge permits investigated.
By way of a supplementary question, Mark Wilson noted that no action had been taken by the Council over river pollution as the responsibility did not fall to the Council. However, he referred to the Leader of the Council’s tweet on 25 January 2022 in which he stated that he would raise the issue with the local MP's and the government minister responsible "at the earliest opportunity" and asked what responses had been received as a result of those approaches.
Councillor Cannon replied to indicate that he did not have details of the responses received at hand but would supply the information in writing after the meeting.
m) Devon Davies of Eton and Castle ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport.
With regards to the draft EV Charge Point Implementation Plan, please could the Lead Member give details of the likely revenue budget required for the Council to subsidise the energy cost for on street charging.
Written Response: As set out in the draft EV Charging Point Implementation Plan, the new infrastructure will be delivered in partnership with private sector providers and will not require revenue funding support to subsidise energy costs.
By way of a supplementary question, Devon Davies referred to local election material from the Conservatives which claimed that the Royal Borough would be bringing free electricity to St Leonard’s Road, Frances Road and Albert Road but that there was no need for subsidies from the Council. He enquired whether third parties would be expected to provide free electricity or was the election material incorrect.
Councillor Haseler explained that as part of the EV implementation plan it had been outlined that third party providers would be responsible for installing the charge points and the payments would be through the users of those charge points. There would be no cost to the Council. However, he explained that a detailed response was not possible at the present time as it would depend upon what scheme was implemented.
n) Mark Loader of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The Statement of Common Grounds with Thames Water assured RBWM of compliance in relation to wastewater infrastructure. Before a single house is built on AL13 residents have been suffering sewage on Shoppenhangers Road. What enforcement steps can RBWM take against Thames Water to protect residents from avoidable sewage overflows on streets and rivers?
Written Response: Thames Water are the statutory sewerage undertaker for the Borough. They operate and maintain the waste water treatment works (STWs) and sewerage infrastructure.
A second Statement of Common Ground was signed between the Royal Borough and Thames Water in October 2020 with regards to water resources and supply and waste water treatment and collection. In this SoCG, Thames Water confirmed that the levels of growth proposed in the Borough Local Plan could be accommodated and that should upgrades be necessary they will be put in place in time to support the scale of development planned, including in Maidenhead.
As no development has yet been delivered from the AL13 allocation, any isolated sewage incidents in the area would not be directly related to this, and they would be the responsibility of Thames Water as statutory sewerage undertaker to investigate and resolve. The Environment Agency rather than RBWM are the relevant authority in relation to enforcement.
By way of a supplementary question, Mark Loader explained that another sewer had collapsed on Shoppenhangers Road and was proving difficult to fix to the presence of other utilities in the vicinity. Due to the floodwater and sewerage leaking from the sewer Ludlow Road was currently partially blocked for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Mr Loader asked whether Councillor Haseler would agree that investment was required to fix the existing sewerage infrastructure and additional loads and pressure should not be added to the existing infrastructure, in particular, by building 2.600 homes on the golf course.
Councillor Haseler advised that he had recently met with Thames Water and Council officers and commented upon a plan that had been agreed to address the issue. He explained that Shoppenhangers Road would be closed for approximately three months to enable Thames Water to build a new sewer as it was considered too difficult to excavate in the vicinity of the collapse due to the presence of electricity cables. During the closure access would be maintained to Ludlow Road from one direction and the station car park and Courtlands from the other direction. The Council would press Thames Water to ensure that the road closure was kept to the minimum length of time necessary. With regard to the development of the golf course, Councillor Haseler referred to the Statement of Common Ground signed by Thames Water and the Council in 2020, when Thames Water had agreed that their sewerage infrastructure would cope with the additional capacity generated by the new development. However, he advised that Thames Water had given an assurance that it would keep the matter under constant review and that if upgrades were required, necessary upgrades would be carried out.
o) Mark Loader of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The South-West Maidenhead draft SPD states indicative infrastructure costs are now estimated at £100m. Developers are expected to provide in contributions £41.0+£33.5=£74.5m, will this be realised? This excludes land costs. How will the land cost be valued, based on the fact that disposal of land cannot be for less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained?
Written Response: The adopted SPD updates these costs and sets out how developers are expected to deliver the infrastructure through financial contributions. These will then be secured through Section 106 legal agreements at the planning application stage and through the Community Infrastructure Levy. The adopted SPD includes land costs for community uses. Paragraphs 7.1.20 – 7.1.22 of the SPD explain the approach further and the costs included in the overall infrastructure assessment.
By way of a supplementary question, Mark Loader stated that section 7.1.27 of the adopted South-West Maidenhead Supplementary Planning Document sets out the infrastructure costs and the share to be paid from developer contributions. There would be the cost of increasing biodiversity by 10%, likely to be significant after concreting over much of the open green space and felling many mature trees. There would be additional costs for building environmentally friendly and high-quality homes. There would be £16m to be paid to Maidenhead Golf Course as compensation for forcing them to give up the lease. There would be water and electricity costs, which do not appear to be costed. On top of these costs, he enquired how the Lead Member would ensure that the publicly owned land would be disposed of at the best consideration that can be reasonably obtained and asked for an assurance that there would be no reduction in land value to provide a guaranteed profit to developers.
Councillor Haseler advised that, due to the technical financial nature of the question, he would seek the advice of the council’s officers and would provide a written reply.
p) Fiona Tattersall of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Are the terms of reference and meeting minutes for the Desborough Development Partnership Board available for the five years it has been established for elected members to view and scrutinise this Joint Venture and how has the Board been able to operate with no governing documents?
Written Response: The Desborough Development Partnership board structure is defined in the overall Development agreement and acts as an information sharing and discussion forum. As such it operates as a sounding board for progressing matters. The minutes as such are action note on matters that do contain significant sensitive or commercial items which mean that information is restricted on that basis. Any formal decisions required would have to go through the usual council committee system and this would be the opportunity to elected members to scrutinise those decisions based on the relevant information contained in reports presented to the committee.
The Mayor read out the following supplementary question on behalf of Fiona Tattersall who was unable to attend the meeting:
According to an FOI request recently concerning the Desborough Development Partnership Board and the Royal Borough Development Partnership Board, it states that you Councillor Johnson was appointed to the Royal Borough Development Partnership Board in 2017. As that preceded your election as a councillor can you confirm in what capacity you were appointed to the Board in 2017 and explain how the appointment process was conducted?
Councillor Johnson responded by stating that the information was wholly inaccurate as he had not heard of either Partnership Board until he was elected a Councillor in May 2019. He questioned the source of the information claiming that he had not been appointed to the Boards in 2017 and explained that he had only been living in the Borough for a proportion of that year.
q) Fiona Tattersall of Riverside ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
At the recent Place Overview and Scrutiny call-in of the South-West Maidenhead SPD, Mr Motuel referred to the SWM SPD as a "high level masterplan" (@2hrs 19mins). The document itself at paragraph 6.2.2 states "it is not intended to represent a masterplan for the area". Which of the two statements is correct?
Written Response: The answer at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel referred to Figure 4 of the SPD and indicated that the illustrative framework plan is a high-level masterplan. It was explained that there are different types of masterplans – a continuum in terms of the level of detail. Figure 4 is not a detailed masterplan. The SPD sets out guidance on the provision of more detailed masterplans to accompany planning applications and this was explained at the meeting.
r) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
Given that court case EA/2021/0092 concerned withholding key sections of a report into the integrity and safety of our local elections, why did the Council not openly and transparently report to Members or the wider public the decision and reasoning of the First Tier Tribunal, who stated there was a "...weighty public interest in disclosure"?
Written Response: Court Case EA/2021/0092 relates to the release of information pertaining to a former Councillor and former Officer of the Council and at no point the integrity and safety of the local elections being compromised. The council complied and adhered to the correct process which is part of the governance of the council’s responsibility it in no way showed lack of transparency as this is a legal and governance matter. All FOI's are treated the same way. The council has hundreds of FOI's which it places a high priority on and resources to deal in the most appropriate way.
Court Case EA/2021/0092 concerned a claim against the Information Commissioner whom by their Decision Notice IC – 40928, decided that RBWM correctly applied section 41(1) and Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to withholding information relating to a request for an unredacted copy of a report into complaints about a former Councillor and former Council Officer. The Information Commissioner held that RBWM breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in providing the final response to the complaint outside of statutory time periods.
The report in question related to complaints about a former Councillor and former Council Officer and was at no point a report into the safety and integrity of local elections.
RBWM was not a party to court case EA/2021/0092 and therefore there was no need to report the decision to all members. However, the Council has provided the report redacted in accordance with the court order and it has been published on the Council’s website.
By way of a supplementary question, Andrew Hill advised that he had the privilege to represent former Councillor Claire Stretton before the three judges at the first-tier tribunal. However, the written response had quoted previous decision of the ICO that the three judges overturned. He advised that he presented evidence for several hours relating to Purdah and the judges had agreed that there had been at least a credible suspicion of wrongdoing and had concluded that they accepted former Councillor Stretton’s argument that it was important that elected members and officers of the Council not only complied with the rules and guidance intended to protect the fairness of the elections but that they were seen to be doing so. As the judges were speaking about the fairness of elections why did the answer to his question say or imply that this was not considered by the judges at any point in the case.
Councillor Johnson advised that he was not aware, having re-read the response, that he was inferring anything of the sort. Councillor Johnson advised that he was of the opinion that there was no threat to the integrity of the election held in 2019. He advised that the Council would be discussing the broader subject later in the meeting in response to a motion but found it rather curious that the issue was coming to light not long before the upcoming local elections.
s) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity
RBWM were aware in October 2019 of their report's redacted conclusions, which rejected the view that the former leader had derived no electoral advantage from the sending of a draft land agreement by senior officers days before the election. What is RBWM's process for dealing with identified undue electoral advantage?
Written Response: The report in question related to complaints about a former Councillor and former Council Officer. Any reports of electoral offences should be made to the Police (via the police designated single point of contact officer for electoral law) in accordance with the electoral commission guidance. The Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer will work with the police and adhere to electoral commission guidance. Complaints relating to the conduct of a currently elected Councillor should be made via the Councillors Code of Conduct Process.
By way of a supplementary question, Andrew Hill referred to the written response which stated that suspected election offenses should be reported to the police. He stated that Councillor Johnson and a small number of officers had the full unredacted report in October 2019 and the same people were the only ones that had viewed the solicitor’s conclusions for three years. He stated that the solicitor had rejected Russell O’Keefe’s view that no electoral advantage had been gained by the Conservative Party and advised that former Chief Executive, Duncan Sharkey, had indicated that the Mosque contract did not have to be sent until after the election and it was obvious that it would have sounded alarm bells. He commented that no officer raised any concerns but instead redacted the report’s conclusions from candidates and the public for three years. He asked Councillor Johnson whether he had read the report in 2019 and its conclusions about electoral advantage and if so to explain why he did not report any of concerns externally.
Councillor Johnson explained that concerns had been raised about his predecessor and were reported to the police at the time the speech was given. There had also been numerous code of conduct complaints submitted to the Council. He reminded those present that there was another party present when the speech was given at the Mosque and as part of his own internal investigations, he continued to ask questions but did not receive satisfactory answers. He advised that the matter would be discussed further in the debate later in the meeting.
t) Tina Quadrino of Pinkneys Green will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the development of the golf course site is not going to be anywhere near as lucrative as it once was, with all costs spiralling including the amount of money that the residents will be paying from the taxpayer’s purse. At what point does RBWM re-evaluate the true viability of this unwanted development?
Written Response: The 2022 Viability update reviewed the viability of the AL13 housing allocation based on up-to-date values and costs and concluded that it is still a viable housing development.
The Mayor read out the following supplementary question on behalf of Tina Quadrino who was unable to attend the meeting:
The viability update referenced shows that costs to the taxpayer have gone up considerably in just 3 years! Considering that this development will not start for 3 more years - it must be assumed that the cost to the taxpayer will continue to rise before a spade has even gone into the ground. The evidence supporting the monetary equivalence of green spaces for the health and wellbeing of both people and nature becomes stronger every day. Surely, we cannot afford to take on the cost burden of this development whilst simultaneously decimating our nature and our health?
Councillor Haseler responded by explaining that it was still a viable development site and the principal of development on that site had been agreed through the Borough Local Plan process. People had the opportunity to detail their views on the site as part of the consultation phases and will also be able to comment further through the planning process.
u) Michael Young of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The 2022 South West Maidenhead Viability Update states "the cost of strategic infrastructure and mitigation" has risen to £110m from its 2019 assessment of £32m. An approximately 250% increase. Can you explain this increase, and why (despite this) the final SPD removed the draft SPD's 10% risk allowance - recommended to account for any "level of uncertainty" in infrastructure costs?
Written Response: These figures are not comparing the same thing. The 2019 viability assessment included an allowance in the assessment of £32m for section 106 contributions from developers. The equivalent figure in the 2022 Updated Viability Assessment is £29.7m. Contributions from section 106 agreements are only one element of the total infrastructure funding package. The 10% risk allowance in the draft SPD (July 2022) was replaced with an approach that indexed the estimated infrastructure costs up to the adoption date of the SPD (December 2022) to ensure the costs were kept up to date. It was also replaced because the final infrastructure costs included land costs for the community uses, so this uncertainty was removed.
The Mayor read out the following supplementary question on behalf of Michael Young who was unable to attend the meeting:
Can the response be checked. Attached is an extract showing the 2019 Viability Update was £32m.? Why is the S106 down from £32m to £29.7m. Are developers being released of paying £2.3m?
Councillor Haseler advised that, due to the technical financial nature of the question he would consult with of the council’s officers and would provide a written reply.
v) Michael Young of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The draft South-West Maidenhead SPD stated that total infrastructure costs were £100m. However, the final SPD now says that costs have rocketed to £120.1m due to a 200% increase in highway junction costs. Why were Members told this week in Scrutiny that the October Viability Update was a “sense check”, when it is based on the discarded £100m projections?
Written Response: The increase in costs related mainly to updated costs of providing the primary school and secondary school on the site, not highway junction costs. The viability assessment was based on £110m infrastructure costs, not £100m (see paragraph 5.6 of the October 2022 Viability Update report). It also included a range of sensitivity testing, including in relation to section 106 infrastructure contributions to test the impact of different levels of section 106 contributions. Such an approach means that if the level of section 106 contributions change, you can still see the impact on viability.
The Mayor read out the following supplementary question on behalf of Michael Young who was unable to attend the meeting:
Cala are going to build in phases and therefore it is assumed that revenue for the RBWM will also be phased. As the infrastructure costs will need to be paid earlier in the development, is the Business Case at risk due to both increases in Infrastructure costs and uncertainty about the revenue timings of the development?
Councillor Haseler advised that site was viable. However, he would arrange for a written response to be given in the light of the technical nature of the question.
w) John Hudson of Oldfield ward will ask the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport
The SWM SPD proposes a choice between two models of infrastructure payments by developers - the so-called "simple", and "complex" approaches. Why does RBWM delegate this vitally important decision to the developers themselves (who paid for the SPD document), and if one developer chooses a different approach to that of the others, will RBWM insist that the majority choice prevails?
Written Response: The Council would prefer the “simple” approach and states this in the adopted SPD. Developers are encouraged to adopt this approach. However, for reasons relating to national planning policy and guidance, the Council cannot insist on this approach and so an alternative is provided. Both options are designed to provide for the necessary infrastructure to support development in the South West Maidenhead area. The Council will not insist that the majority choice prevails but has outlined the benefits of adopting the “simple” approach.
By way of a supplementary question, John Hudson stated that the answer was typically opaque particularly at a time when we needed complete transparency given the state of public finances in a time of economic uncertainty. Previous town centre developments stipulated precisely 0% CIL payments by developers which had contributed to the state of the Council’s purse. The continued lack of transparency by this administration along with the gaslighting of genuine concerns and considered views by members of the public had resulted in ever worsening confidence and trust in the decision-making capabilities of the Council. He asked the Leader of the Council what he intended to do to improve and restore the trust and confidence of the public in the administration with local elections only 100 days away.
Councillor Johnson responded by stating that he found the term gaslighting offensive and that, given that the Council were due to debate a motion about not engaging in mudsling, he found it disappointing to hear the phrase being used. He referred to the recent resident’s survey that highlighted 70% of local residents had trust in the Council, although they may not necessarily agree with everything the Council did politically. He stated that the Council had never been more open and transparent and that there was no conspiracy or alternative agenda. He maintained that the approach taken was the right one in terms of the Strategic Development, which had been endorsed by an independent planning inspector. He refuted the assertion that the administration was gaslighting residents and stated that there did not appear to be a trust issue more of a disagreement of views about the future direction for the Borough.
Supporting documents:
PDF 200 KB