The deadline for public questions (which must be directly related to the budget) is 5pm on Wednesday 15 February 2023. A supplement listing valid questions received will be added to the agenda after the deadline.

 

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.

a)         Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Bhangra, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks and Countryside

 

How much money has RBWM saved by switching to fortnightly black bin collections?

 

Written response: The changes were not introduced specifically as a cost saving exercise, in fact the council launched its revised waste collection regime in October 2021 to drive an increase in recycling rates in the borough and decrease the volume of waste produced to help increase its recycling rate to at least 65%.  This contributes to the council’s Environment and Climate Strategy, which includes a commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest.

The move to fortnightly waste collections came with additional waste collection costs, which were reported at the time and additional funds made available in the budget to cover these.

The move to fortnightly waste collections has resulted in a decrease in waste disposal costs as waste moves from black bins into food waste, garden waste and recycling bins, or waste minimisation behaviour change takes place and less is thrown away which has mitigated some of the additional costs. 

 

Ed Wilson enquired as a supplementary whether there had been a decrease in waste disposal costs whilst the payment to the Waste contractor had gone up? He referred to a report which he stated indicated a saving of £175,000 and then a year later the Council was advised a further £500,000 was required to be spent. He asked for clarification.

 

Councillor Bhangra replied that he would ask officers to look into the specifics of his question.

 

b)         Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Rayner, Deputy Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Business, Corporate & Residents Services, Culture & Heritage, & Windsor

 

What provision has been made in the budget for investment in Windsor's public toilets?

 

Written response: The draft capital budget has identified £30k to invest in public conveniences in 23/24, there is also approximately £34k in the revenue budget which goes towards maintaining the public conveniences.

 

Ed Wilson asked how much the Council has invested in Windsor’s public conveniences in the last three years.

 

Councillor Rayner replied that she would ask officers to respond to him in due course.

 

c)         Sunil Sharma of Cox Green ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity

 

Does Councillor Johnson agree with me that it is important RBWM does not burden our children and grandchildren with unsustainable public debt that leads to higher taxes for them in the future?

 

Written response: The Council has borrowed money to finance vital assets, but as you can see from the capital cashflow included within the budget papers (Appendix 4 Annex D p203), the Council is on course to pay off most of its debt over the next 12 years.

 

Sunil Sharmer reiterated his published question and Councillor Johnson replied that like other public authorities they had borrowed money to invest in activities. The administration had inherited debt at the start, he stated he did not want to burden future generations and the upcoming budget set out a long term plan to reduce debt whilst continuing to invest in the Council’s core priorities.

 

d)         Ian Haggart of Clewer and Dedworth East ward asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection

 

Reduction of crime is important to many residents of the Royal Borough.  Can the Cabinet Member expand or comment on the local priorities for the additional four Neighbourhood Police Officers that The Royal Borough is proposing to fund for the next three years?

 

Written response: The four extra police officers will be dedicated to tackling crime and anti-social behaviour in the Royal Borough and are proposed to be recruited to support community safety and enhance local partnership working between the council and police. They will address key local crime issues and anti-social behaviour affecting communities and the environment.

The main objective will be to focus on the joint priorities outlined in the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) strategy 2022-25.  The key purpose of the CSP is to ensure a partnership approach is taken to tackle crime and disorder and improve the quality of life of our residents.  This extends beyond just policing and is about promoting stronger communities, in partnership with local stakeholders, to ensure all agencies prioritise safeguarding and put residents first.

CSP Priorities:

•           Working with our communities to reduce the likelihood of being exploited and protecting our most vulnerable from harm

•           Reducing the negative impact of violent on communities

•           Tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG)

•           Provide support for individuals who are vulnerable to radicalisation and extremism leading to terrorism through the Channel/Prevent process

•           Develop out partnership resilience and agility to respond to local crime and safety issues

We are holding a Community Safety, Crime & Anti-social behaviour summit on 17 March to help identify which local policing and community safety issues and areas should be the initial priorities for the extra police officers and our enhanced partnership working. 

 

Ian Haggart did not have a supplementary question.

 

e)         Ian Haggart of Clewer and Dedworth East ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity

 

Written response: The public are encouraged by Government to reduce their energy-use footprint and move to a low carbon future.  Can the Leader of the Council confirm that the Royal Borough will continue to offer a free permit to residents owning Electric Vehicles, to park in Council car parks, for the next year fiscal year?

 

The council has no plans to introduce charges for electric vehicle parking permits in 2023/24.

 

Ian Haggart did not have a supplementary question.

 

f)          Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Asset Management & Commercialisation, Finance, & Ascot

 

Saving PLA04S of £50k is to be achieved by charging out a portion of the Sustainability and Climate Change Team’s staff time to grant and developer-funded projects but could the Lead Member please confirm the total budget for this team and it’s organisational structure including the total number of Full-Time Equivalents?

 

Written response: The Sustainability and Climate Team was established after the Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019. It now has 10.6 FTE's. It is responsible for delivery of the Council's Environment & Climate Strategy and is made up of Officers with specialisms in the natural environment, energy, flooding and the circular economy. The staffing budget for the team is £335,870.

 

Adam Bermange asked whether Councillor Hilton agreed with him that the plan to recharge a portion of the budget and that of the Climate Partnership against a finite level of capital funding inevitably creates an opportunity cost to direct investment in future sustainability projects.  

 

Councillor Hilton reiterated that the Sustainability and Climate Team had come together over a short period time to create a significant force to move the programme forward. No project manages itself and the team are a fundamental cost to the project. He recognised that when running multiple projects it may be necessary to bring in external support and the associated costs would be specific to that project.

 

g)         Mohammed Ilyas of Belmont ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Deputy Chairman of Cabinet & Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation

 

It is great to note the increase of £11m to the DSG for 2023-24.

Please could you inform as to how much of this will be allocated to issues relating to the impact of the pandemic on areas such as pupil catch up on gaps in learning.

 

Written response: Thank you for your question.  The total Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for RBWM is £151m for 2023-24 which will help maintain the high standards of education in the Borough.  In addition to this funding schools also receive direct funding from the Department for Education for Pupil Premium which is targeted at those on low income and eligible for Free School meals.  This is estimated to be £3.7m for 3,200 young people who need the extra help.  This funding is very welcome and will help our schools continue to focus on reducing the gaps in learning for our children.  The Department for Education has previously also funded additional Covid-catchup grant directly to schools and that programme ceased in August 2022.

 

Mohammed Ilyas asked a supplementary question whether the Council were putting in additional funding in particular for provision to address the wellbeing of pupils?

 

Councillor Johnson replied that the Council would be looking to secure additional investment and did believe the wellbeing of all young people in Windsor and Maidenhead was of paramount importance. He stated one of his administration’s objectives was about achieving genuine social value from some of the Council’s larger partner organisations and businesses to move this agenda forward.  

 

h)         Julian Tisi of Clewer East ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity

 

The Major Capital Cash Flows schedule (Appendix 4, Annex D) identifies that, over 13 years, capital receipts of £295m are proposed to flow to the Council from residential and commercial projects. Could the Leader confirm, broadly, what proportion of those receipts are expected to relate to the development and disposal of the Maidenhead Golf Course?

 

Written response: Approximately 75% of the receipts would arise from Maidenhead Golf Course. However, most of these are due after the period of the current Medium Term Financial Plan.

 

Julian Tisi explained that a combination of the Liberal Democrats assessment of the current Market value of receipts from Maidenhead Golf Course would be a reduced amount of £120million and interest rates led to concerns about the repayment plan. He asked what confidence residents could have in the financial management of the administration and the credibility of its financial plan.  

 

Councillor Johnson replied that he was confident in the financial management of the administration, the value of land fluctuated but was clear that the reasons to develop the land for new homes, new school, green public space and local people accessing homes. He stated that the capital programme was sustainable and they had long term plans to pay down existing debts.    

 

i)          Nelly Semaille of St. Mary’s ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Action & Sustainability

 

What is the total value of revenue and capital grant funding from central government, included in the 2023/24 budget, for energy generation and efficiency projects in the Borough and, for comparison, please can she provide a quantitative list of any such grants received to date?

 

Written response: In total, the Council has secured around £4 million of funding from Central Government to tackle energy efficiency and carbon emissions. These are for projects ranging from new low carbon heating systems in schools, feasibility work across the Council’s estate as well as heat networks across the Borough and energy efficiency upgrades to residents homes.

In terms of the next financial year, the Council has a number of funding applications in with Salix as part of the latest round of Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme funding. We have already had confirmation that we have been successful in two of those applications, with funding of £1.02 million secured and we expect further good news over the coming weeks.

 

On behalf of Nelly Semaille the Mayor read out the supplementary question concluding whether you can confirm the uptake of the Sustainable Warmth Scheme in the Borough i.e. what percentage and amount of the funds available would actually be spent and what impact this would have on emissions?

 

Councillor Stimson replied that of that funding £232,000 had come from the Low Carbon Skills Fund and this was spent on a feasibility study into all of the Council’s areas to see what next steps could be taken for the next stage and the Council had applied for the next stage of funding. A public sector decarbonisation scheme of £1.765million and that had been spent already on state schools for both upgrading lighting and heating. More than 100 homes had signed up via the scheme Solar Together and this scheme was being expanded across Berkshire. She explained this was the reason for putting the Climate Partnership in place so the Council could extend its the sphere of influence. She concluded that she had been involved in a net zero Berkshire hub which would see a further increase the Council’s influence.

 

j)          Tina Quadrino of Pinkneys Green ward asked the following question of Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport

 

In 2021, the budget for flowers in planters across the Borough was withdrawn; this provided an estimated saving of £86,000. It is understood from Cllr Rayner's remarks at Cabinet that flowers will return to Ascot, Windsor and Maidenhead. In which case, what will the additional cost be and which service area budget will be funding this?

 

Written response: The three main towns of Maidenhead, Windsor & Ascot are critical to the Council's economic growth. Providing a high-quality experience to our residents and visitors is essential, it supports repeat visits and builds confidence in our local retails and business who trade in these areas. It has been recognised that there is a need for investment to bring key aspects of the towns up to a high standard, which will also help remove street clutter, renewal old planters with sustainable planting, clear 'Grot Spots' and improve signage and wayfinding around the towns.

 

Tina Quadrino asked why this funding could not have been redirected to delivering the Council’s environmental climate strategy commitments and providing a better future for generations?

 

Councillor Haseler replied that the budget line related to a town centre face lift so he did not have specific figures about the funding on flowers.

 

k)         Paul Hinton, Old Windsor ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity

 

Despite receipt of an additional £3.5m in funding from central government, this budget relies on s106 payments to meet its commitments to the environment, climate change, and the Climate Partnership. Please explain why this is necessary, and what your response is to those who believe that you are putting this council’s environment and climate change commitments up for sale?

 

Written response: The Council has faced difficult decisions over the budget, with very difficult savings put forward in many areas of the Council’s statutory responsibilities. I am therefore pleased to have been able to maintain funding to the Climate Partnership. A partnership we created with the purpose of leveraging in private funding to help us deliver upon our climate commitments. The use of s106 has been utilised to enable us to also invest in other key areas such as tackling crime through investing in more police officers, and in clamping down on environmental crime, plus removing a number of savings proposed across adult social care and children's services.

 

Paul Hinton asked whether the Leader and the rest of the Council would reject the proposed budget in favour of one where savings currently achieved from Section 106 payments are instead come from additional £3.5million central government funding?

 

Councillor Johnson replied that this administration had invested in the Climate Change Partnership. He advised that the additional central government funding had been allocated. The Climate Change Partnership was fully funded, and its objective was to secure additional private funding to deliver its objectives.

 

l)          Mark Loader of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Growth & Opportunity

 

With higher interest rates on borrowing “an increasing share of the Council’s budget is required to service debt before money can be spent on day-to-day services”. Budgeted at around £7m for 23/24.

Please can you explain how it has arisen that the debt on which this interest is paid, in excess of £200 million, is so high?

 

Written response: The Council inherited historic debt from the old Berkshire County Council. In addition it has borrowed money to finance its capital programmes over the last 25 years, financing vital public facilities such as Braywick Leisure Centre. However, as you can see from the capital cashflow included within the budget papers (Appendix 4 Annex D p203), the Council is on course to pay off most of its debt over the next 12 years.

 

Mark Loader surmised that the low level of Council tax across the borough resulted in a loss of revenue that could have been used to pay down debt and asked wasn’t that the reason for the high level of debt?  

 

Councillor Johnson replied that no this was not due to low levels of Council tax and although the Council had significant levels of borrowing it had invested in infrastructure funding to support the Council’s growth.

 

m)        Mark Loader of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Action & Sustainability

 

Please can you clarify what is the 23/24 budget for the Sustainability and Climate change team and the Climate partnership team. What are their deliverables (where documented) and are they constrained by the available budget. Who is responsible for ensuring residents get value for money ?

 

Written response: The Sustainability & Climate Change Team are responsible for the delivery of the Environment & Climate Strategy. The strategy includes action plans across its key themes which detail the deliverables of the team.

The Climate Partnership was set up by the Council as an independent body to engage broadly across the Borough to enable the scale of change required to deliver the carbon reduction targets set out in the Environment and Climate Strategy.

As Lead Member, my responsibility is to ensure residents get best value. I meet with Officers at least bi-weekly to ensure I am happy with the work being undertaken and the value the team are delivering. I am absolutely satisfied the team are delivering against the objectives set out and have the resources they require.

 

Mark Loader asked if the action plans and deliverables of the Sustainability & Climate Change Team and the Climate Partnership could be shared publicly.

 

Councillor Stimson replied that action plans and deliverables of the Sustainability & Climate Change Team were documented and as it comes to the anniversary of the first year of the Climate Partnership such information would be made available. She confirmed to report the request back to the Climate Partnership.

 

n)         Sian Martin of Belmont ward asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Deputy Chairman of Cabinet & Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education, Health, Mental Health, & Transformation

 

The Medium-Term Financial Plan (Appendix 1, Annex A) identifies budget gaps for the four years from 2024/25 to 2027/28 totalling £10.2m. Given this administration’s earlier draft 2023/24 budget included cuts to the Early Help provision, can the Lead Member confirm that, if he were to continue in post, this service would be protected from cuts in those years?

 

Written response: Thank you for your question.  I am very pleased that the additional funding received from government has enabled us to protect the early help provision in the coming year.  I remain committed to funding the services which protect the most vulnerable and provide prevention services as far as we are able within the resources available to us.  Should the electorate continue to put their faith in us and I retain this post in future years I will maintain my focus on ensuring the children of the borough are supported by high quality, good value services, with protection for those most in need, within a financially stable budget for the overall council.

 

Sian Martin asked for a guarantee that these services would be protected or was he ready to hand that pledge over to someone else?

 

Councillor Johnson confirmed the Council would continue to prioritise these services. He stated that the opposition had not yet indicated their budget and spending plans.

 

o)         Will Scawn of Belmont ward asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection

 

I am delighted this Conservative-led Council is so committed to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, and is funding four extra police officers to help keep local residents safe, and feeling safe.

Could policing the many, important footpaths in my home ward of Belmont be included in the remit of these extra police officers?

 

Written response: The four extra police officers will be dedicated to tackling crime and anti-social behaviour in the Royal Borough and are proposed to be recruited to support community safety and enhance local partnership working between the council and police. They will address key local crime issues and anti-social behaviour affecting communities and the environment.  The officers will enhance our partnership working at a local level and focus more strongly on tackling local crime and anti-social behaviour issues at a community level. If issues are reported and raised in Belmont Ward then these will be addressed along with other competing priorities. 

 

Will Scawn asked that local residents were involved in the partnership approach so that local knowledge can feed into decision making and they could be updated on next steps.   

 

Councillor Cannon replied that local residents would be consulted in directing resources towards crime, environmental crime and antisocial behaviour. 17 March a Policing summit was being held to engage with residents, businesses and local communities to understand their priorities which would be the start of an ongoing consultation.