The deadline for public questions (which must be directly related to the budget) is midday on Monday 26 February 2024. 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 councillor 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 councillor responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond.

a)    John Baldwin of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Del Campo, Cabinet member for Adults, Health and Housing Services

 

What is the 2024/25 assumption for the number of residential placements required by Adult Services, broken down by type, i.e. general needs, sheltered, extra care or whatever terminology is in use?

 

Written response: The budget process requires the best estimates of numbers to be made in late autumn 2023.  At that time, based on the people receiving care and the historical patterns of length of time people need such support we have built the budget based on 560 Full Year Effect (FYE) places.  Those are split 206 for nursing, 199 for residential, 109 supported living and the rest (46) in a range of community options including Shared Lives.  The FYE places is typically lower than the actual number of people on a given day.

 

John Baldwin asked what percentage of each category was covered by price control contracts and must the remainder of accommodation and, or care be purchased on the open market.

 

Councillor Del Campo replied that she was unable to provide the percentage but confirmed that the remainder was purchased on the open market and were called spot placements. She confirmed that she would provide a response as soon as she could.

 

 

b)      John Baldwin of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance

 

The Spending Control Panel reviews all spending bids greater than £500. How many spending requests has it reviewed to date, to what aggregate value and how many of those requests were denied and to what value?

 

Written response: There have been 228 requests totalling £7.9m. There have been 16 requests declined with a value of £56k. 21 requests totalling £3.5m have either been deemed not applicable due to being part of a contractual agreement or requiring further information to inform a decision. A key reason for introducing the SCP was to drive a change in culture across the organisation in relation to budget management and we have seen a culture change within services following its introduction. Within a matter of weeks, the panel saw a reduction in requests coming forward as a result of officers taking a more vigilant approach to spending.  This led to a reduction in denied requests, as those that now tend to come forward are for necessary spending which is backed up by evidence or a business case.

 

John Baldwin thanked Councillor Jones for the written answer but stated the low refusal rate had shocked him and he did not accept this revealed a change in culture. Since the Panel was announced in September 2023 the financial position had deteriorated and he queried whether it was time to lower the limit from £500.

 

Councillor Jones replied that she would not want to see officer time taken up for smaller amounts as these were budgeted items and not new items. She considered the limit low enough to ensure there was no unnecessary spending, that requests were discussed by senior officers, she had sight of every request and could see no evidence that this needed to be changed.

 

c)    Jon Davey of Clewer & Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Reynolds, Cabinet member for Communities and Leisure

 

Comparing the budget and the Windsor Wheel application 23/02104 financial projection, would indicate RBWM has opted for a 10% profit share where RBWM pay for the re-turfing of Alexander Gardens and electricity costs, netting circa £40k while the contractor enjoys £700k profit. How can that be considered a good business deal by RBWM’s economic team?

 

Written response: The Windsor Wheel is being brought to the town by a private company, the same as any other operator who leases a space in one of our parks, so isn’t the same as an RBWM Contractor relationship. We believe we’ll receive greater income from a profit share arrangement on the wheel, although the final contract is yet to be signed.

 

The £40k that is included in the budget is an initial figure, however obviously if the wheel is successful and generates more income then the council will receive more income. We anticipate the net figure received to RBWM will be significantly higher than this, As an Administration when setting the budget we’ve tried to be cautious on the figures from income generation activities as we’d rather have more income than planned for than less. This example is no different and is a prudent way of us being somewhat cautious on figures.

 

Overall I believe the wheel is going to be a great way to increase visitor dwell time and money spent locally with our fantastic businesses, as well as a great way for local residents to see their town from a different angle, and therefore income generated for the Borough for this is a fantastic bonus to have. 

 

Jon Davey stated that turning Alexandra Gardens into a theme park all year round instead of a place of tranquillity for residents and the biodiversity was only acceptable if the business case made sense. He considered it to be a very one-sided business deal. He requested that a better deal was sought as the Triathlon fees were based on Alexandra Gardens being worth £5k a day so he suggested that the rent should be nearer £750k. He asked whether the Triathlon had been cancelled for 2024, had all other parties who would have been using Alexandra Gardens during the summer been consulted and compensated for their loss and had that loss of income been factored into the budget?

 

Councillor Reynolds replied that it was about striking a balance between the historical setting of Windsor and the Park, and having a new attraction for Windsor that both tourists and residents alike could enjoy. He stated that the key driver was seeing the town from a different angle. He reiterated that no contracts had been signed and they were open to working with the applicant to see what they could do. He concluded that he was keen that this was done in a way that was the right for the council to help residents to be able to invest in our towns.

 

 

d)      Jon Davey of Clewer & Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance

 

It was confirmed at Cabinet by the CFO that failure to put up the council tax by the maximum each year has been the major cause of RBWM’s current financial position. In the interests of transparency and clarity, could a list of the actual years, the Gov recommended and RBWM actual percentage increases be published?

 

Written response: Actual increases compared to maximum allowed increases are set out in the table below.  RBWM cut Council Tax for six years in a row from 2010.  We are not aware of any other Council in the country that has cut Council Tax for such a sustained period.  As a consequence, the Council’s base budget is £19m lower than it would have been had Council Tax been increased by 1% a year over that period.

 

The Government does not specify or recommend what councils should do regarding Council Tax – it is a local decision for each council.  However, when the Government refers to ‘increases in spending power’ to local authorities, this calculation is made on the assumption that councils are taking the maximum increase available.

 

	Actual change			Maximum allowable			Difference
	Base Tax	ASC		Base Tax	ASC
2010/11	-4.00%			4.49%			8.49%
2011/12	-0.50%			3.49%			3.99%
2012/13	-1.50%			3.49%			4.99%
2013/14	-3.00%			1.99%			4.99%
2014/15	-2.00%			1.99%			3.99%
2015/16	-2.10%			1.99%			4.09%
2016/17	0.00%	2.00%		1.99%	2.00%		1.99%
2017/18	0.93%	3.00%		1.99%	3.00%		1.06%
2018/19	1.86%	3.00%		2.99%	3.00%		1.13%
2019/20	2.77%	0.00%		2.99%	0.00%		0.22%
2020/21	1.99%	2.00%		1.99%	2.00%		0.00%
2021/22	1.99%	3.00%		1.99%	3.00%		0.00%
2022/23	1.99%	1.00%		1.99%	1.00%		0.00%
2023/24	2.99%	2.00%		2.99%	2.00%		0.00%

 

Jon Davey reflected that it must be a challenge for Councillor Jones to work out the actual financial reality from the inherited situation. He had calculated that, accepting

councils work in a different way to normal businesses, if the Council had started with £100m budget in 2010/11 then they would now have a budget of £141m for next year. He stated that if the council was run like a business, then they would potentially have £200m balance instead of a £200m deficit.

 

Councillor Jones replied that she did not have the figures in front of her and could not confirm his calculations. She could state that if the maximum council tax increases had been applied since 2011 then council tax would now sit at £1,732.58 and on the council tax base that would provide an extra £35.5m. She concluded that the figures he had quoted seemed to be correct.

 

 

e)    Sarah Walker of Clewer East ward asked the following question of Councillor Reynolds, Cabinet member for Communities and Leisure

 

Over 1100 have now signed the petition to save the Windsor and Royal Borough Museum and Tourist information Centre.

 

These valuable resources are in a prime location to serve Windsor and our visitors.  If alternative options are being explored, please could those options be shared tonight along with the transparent cost analysis of each option? 

 

Written response: The official RBWM petition for the Royal Borough Museum has around 70 signatures.

 

In the 23/24 budget that this administration inherited there was only one-off funding for the museum, that means no funding was proposed for the museum for the 24/25 years. With a significantly challenging budget situation going into 24/25 we have the think differently about services that can be provided to residents and tourists in our Borough.

 

We are committed to keeping a museum service within Windsor, and options for the museum are currently being explored with stakeholders. The Windsor and Royal Borough collection is a vital part of our history, and we want to ensure that residents still have access to our local heritage.

 

These options are being explored and worked through with the museum team, stakeholders and wider economic growth team within RBWM and we will ensure that proposals are shared widely once we are able to. If you’re not already I’d encourage you to join the Friends of Windsor and Royal Borough Museum group, who we are committed to working closely with.

 

Sarah Walker thanked Councillor Reynolds for his reply and Jack Rankin, Parliamentary candidate for his valued support with the petition.

 

Following an interruption from the floor the Mayor asked those present to treat everyone with respect.

 

She thanked councillors in the Chamber from across political groups who had supported the campaign. She was disappointed that the petition was not acknowledged in the reply given that the most significant proportion of responses have come from residence in this borough and surrounding areas. She stated she was disappointed that after several months and they were able to share detailed proposals, cost impacts and options particularly when this was a top issue with residents.

 

Councillor Reynolds replied that he could not talk about the petition that had been referenced because he had not seen it, been provided a copy or had it submitted to the Council. The official RBWM petition had has just over 70 signatures. The Council was keen to work with the friends of the Windsor Royal Borough Museum Group and were speaking to them on a regular basis. He encouraged Sarah Walker to join that group, if she was not already a member, to work with them to help make the Windsor Museum what they all wanted it to be.

 

 

f)        Sarah Walker of Clewer East ward asked the following question of Councillor Hill, Cabinet member for Highways and Transport, Customer Service Centre and Employment

 

Parking fees have been raised across our towns by a staggering 12-17% (as well as many other cost increases to residents.) What impact assessment was carried out on the economic consequences of these hikes and why were residents and local business views in the parking consultation not heard and results not shared before prices were raised? 

 

Written response: The council recognises that increases in parking fees and charges are never going to be popular. But in the face of a serious budget shortfall, the council has to take tough decisions.

 

To mitigate the impacts of increases on residents, parking charges are frozen in the two main town centre multi-storey car parks operated by the council (Hines Meadow in Maidenhead and Victoria Street in Windsor) for the first three hours.

 

The existing one-hour free residents’ parking offer at selected council-operated car parks will remain. 

 

As part of the consultation, Residents showed a preference to maintain the price of the first resident permit and this was agreed in the budget.

 

An Equality Impact Assessment was completed and published as part of the Cabinet Paper to increase fees and charges.

 

Sarah Walker stated that her question related to the economic impact of such significant parking charges rather than the equality impact within the answer. She stated that parking charges were increased after 75% of respondents had disagreed with the proposal and there were no economic consideration of the impact of the increases such as people going elsewhere or shorter visits. She queried why the charges had been increased before the results of the consultation were shared and why the press release did not contain a link to the consultation results. She asked why they were not seeing more income generation ideas, greater efficiencies of operations and contracts managed more effectively. She concluded that residents had been promised parking reductions from the administration prior to election, particularly in Windsor.

 

In response Councillor Hill reflected on the impact of the Conservatives decision to remove the Advantage Card discount some years before. He explained that this observation was relevant due to the consequential economic impact. He stated that Victoria Street parking charges went up by 300%, River Street parking charges increased by 200%. He continued that both Elma Road and Alexander Gardens parking saw an 180% increase. He stated that the current administration had put charges up by a modest amount and had considered the impact. He continued that they were taking £7m out of the cost base but the dire economic situation meant that the difference had to be made up with fees and charges. He stated that the council was working hard to keep away from bankruptcy as they could not increase council tax by the necessary amount.

 

 

g)       Ian Haggart of Clewer & Dedworth East ward asked the following question of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance

 

The average RBWM Council Tax for 2023/24 is about £733 per resident and £1,742 per dwelling.  This is increasing by 5% for 2024/25.  Comparing the fifteen near neighbour Local Authorities, how many of the neighbours charge less Council Tax per resident and per household than this Council?

 

Written response: Using data from CIPFA Statistical Information Service and the Office for National Statistics the population aged 18 and over from 2022 is 120,696 and the council tax requirement from 23/24 is £87.2m.  I calculate the council tax requirement per resident to be £722.66. At this figure, of the CIPFA ‘near neighbour’ councils, 3 charge less per resident (Milton Keynes, Bath and North East Somerset and West Northamptonshire).

 

Using data from the Department of Levelling Up and Communities the council tax charge per dwelling 23/24 is £1742.26. 6 councils from our 15 ‘CIPFA near neighbour councils’ charge less per dwelling.

 

Council tax can be measured in 'Band D' or in 'per dwelling' terms. Band D has historically been used as the standard for comparing council tax levels between and across local authorities, and this definition is widely regarded as a benchmark when comparing council tax levels in different areas or over time. This is the council tax payable on a Band D dwelling occupied as a main residence by two adults, before any reductions due to discounts, exemptions or council tax benefit. This measure is not affected by the varying distribution of properties in bands that can be found across authorities.

 

In 2023/24 average Band D council tax in RBWM was £1,604, the lowest rate compared to all of its 15 CIPFA neighbours.  This is £285 less than the next lowest, Solihull and £505 lower than the average (mean of its CIPFA neighbours). We would need to increase our Council Tax by 18% to be equal to our nearest neighbour and by 31% to be equal to the mean of our CIPFA neighbours.

 

I believe the most valid way of comparing how much RBWM is estimated to spend on its different services is with the ‘Net current expenditure per head of population’, taken from the Revenue Accounts Budget which councils submit to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The net current expenditure per head of population in RBWM is £1,219 compared to £1,541 for the mean average of its CIPFA neighbours, a difference of £322 per resident. RBWM spend has decreased by 5% compared to 12 years ago where the mean average of its CIPFA neighbours has increased 20%.

 

Ian Haggart asked which of the 15 CIFPA neighbour councils spent the same or less as the Royal Borough spends in terms per population.

 

Councillor Jones confirmed that she understood that three others did but would provide a written answer with the details.

 

 

h)      Ian Haggart of Clewer & Dedworth East ward asked the following question of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance

 

The budget includes £40,000 income from the Ferris Wheel that will be operated in Alexander Gardens for six months. Why is the Council's profit share just 10% of the estimated £810,000 operator profit and why is the budget amount less than half of the expected £81,000? 

 

Written response from Councillor Reynolds: The Windsor Wheel is being brought to the town by a private company, the same as any other operator who leases a space in one of our parks, so isn’t the same as an RBWM Contractor relationship. We believe we’ll receive greater income from a profit share arrangement on the wheel, although the final contract is yet to be signed.

 

The £40k that is included in the budget is an initial figure, however obviously if the wheel is successful and generates more income then the council will receive more income. We anticipate the net figure received to RBWM will be significantly higher than this, As an Administration when setting the budget we’ve tried to be cautious on the figures from income generation activities as we’d rather have more income than planned for than less. This example is no different and is a prudent way of us being somewhat cautious on figures.

 

Overall I believe the wheel is going to be a great way to increase visitor dwell time and money spent locally with our fantastic businesses, as well as a great way for local residents to see their town from a different angle, and therefore income generated for the Borough for this is a fantastic bonus to have. 

 

Ian Haggart asked by way of a supplementary what the lighting intensity, the power consumption and the budgeted amount that was going to come out of the £40k within the budget.

 

Councillor Reynolds replied that no contract had been signed and therefore they did not have the specifics of the amount of energy it would generate because this had not yet been decided. He reiterated that this was an example of the new administration being prudent in the way it calculated figures as they did not want to overpromise and under deliver.

 

 

i)      Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance

 

Given that senior officers clearly hold the view that it was financially reckless to enter into £200m of "unfunded" debt, can the Council confirm whether it had a policy or practice ensuring that all auditors and professional advisors had in place professional indemnity insurance covering negligent advice/opinions over the period in which this massive unfunded debt was incurred?

 

Written response: I am not here to speak for officers but RBWM has required all contractors to have in place a minimum of £2 million professional indemnity insurance over this period. External audit contracts have been let by Public Sector Audit Appointments. They required £10 million professional indemnity insurance for their contracts during this period.

 

The Council has spent £200m on “unfunded” capital.  That means capital expenditure that wasn’t funded by grants or by the revenue budget, therefore it was funded by borrowing.

 

This historic expenditure was entirely the Council’s decision, proposed to the Council and approved by the Council.  The CIPFA review in 2019 highlighted costs, that were not capital, were being inappropriately charged to capital; at which point the practice was curtailed but it was a council decision. Auditors would flag if they had concerns about us being a going concern and being financially sustainable in the future.  They would also pick up technical mis-categorisations.  It’s worth noting though that auditors sample check transactions to provide a view, they do not review every transaction.

 

The decisions were made by council at that time, and we now live with consequences.

 

Andrew Hill suggested that as an alternative to relentless service cuts they should look at all the treasury advisors, surveyors, lawyers and auditors who were supposed to protect residents but did not. He cited as examples the Leisure Centre contract without a proper business case and the one-sided Golf Club contract. He reflected that Councillor Jones’ written answer had implied that the advice of professional lawyers, surveyors and advisers was impeccable throughout and that she had chosen to blame only voting councillors. He asked why services such as the Environmental Health Team were being cut rather than advisers being challenged for not warning against accumulating up £200m of unfunded debt.

 

Councillor Jones replied that it was officers’ decision making along with councillors that set the policies of the Council, the Auditors come in and sample checked transactions. It was a decision for Council and council officers as to when they borrow and whether they believe there is a plan of paying it back. She stated that the fact that there no plan to pay it back or that the plan did not happen was down to the people that made that decision to borrow the money and really no one else.

 

 

j)      Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Bermange, Cabinet member for Planning, Legal and Asset Management

 

Given the report says "the only meaningful way of reducing the existing debt levels" is the disposal of the golf club, and the site is now subject to a holding objection from Sport England impacting this assumption, why did the Council choose not to publish any version of the golf needs assessment it produced during the plan making period?

 

Written response: The large amounts of unfunded capital spend by the previous administration, over the last decade, have left the Authority with close to £200m of external debt that we now need to service out of our revenue account. It is simply a statement of fact that Maidenhead Golf Course is the one Council-owned asset with a financial value high enough to have a meaningful impact on the level of this debt should we be forced, by agreements we inherited, into disposing it but that should not be interpreted to mean that this administration is now committed to nor reliant upon its sale. It is also very clear that any disposal would fall well short of clearing the accrued debt and, in any case, meaningful capital receipts would not be received until after the current Medium Term Financial Plan period.

 

The Borough Local Plan was examined and adopted under the previous administration so it is difficult for me to speculate on the circumstances and possible motivations of the members of that administration that led to the golf needs assessment (GNA) not be published at that time.  However, I understand that there were several draft versions of the GNA and a version that was considered finalised was not produced within the window of the examination period.  Officers were open about the fact that a GNA was being produced and referred to this in the MIQ response (Matter 11, Issue 4, Question 17) which was submitted to the BLP Inspector in September 2020 so the Inspector was fully aware that this was being produced yet, whist the Council considered the GNA to be in draft form so didn’t release it, neither did the Inspector request to see a draft version.

 

Regarding the current planning application 24/00091/OUT, Sport England are not considered a statutory consultee in this particular instance, since the proposals do not technically involve the loss of any playing fields, which they acknowledge in their letter.  It is correct to note that they maintain a ‘holding objection’ on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to para 103 of the NPPF, which states that, “…existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the buildings or land to be surplus to requirements.” I understand that Sport England have asked for additional evidence from the applicant in that regard so expect that this will be provided but I am mindful that this is a live application so it would be inappropriate to comment further.

 

Andrew Hill stated that the hidden golf club needs assessment remained in draft for almost seven years but he had shown them the unpublished document and it clearly says final issue, September 2019. When the statutory consultee of Sport England was shown a copy of the document in 2019, they rejected the needs assessment on the basis that it was unsound and therefore it did not justify the loss of the golf club. He continued that RBWM’s response was to bury their objection, it was never published nor was it shown by RBWM to the Borough Local Plan inspector or even to the High Court. He asked whether Councillor Bermange agreed that hiding the objection was utterly wrong and whether he would discuss the opportunity to return the costs claimed from residents who had every right to see Sports England's material objection.

 

Councillor Bermange thanked him for his question and for sharing other documents which had given him helpful additional context. He reiterated that all the activities had happened under the previous administration and the focus of the meeting was on the budget and about financial governance. The new administration had found numerous accounts of questionable financial governance and he stated that he was appalled by the way these things were managed. He was unable to answer the very specific question about a court order, but he did commit to speak again with Council Werner on this very serious issue.

 

 

k)    Shay Bottomley of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Werner, Leader of the Council and Cabinet member for Community Partnerships, Public Protection and Maidenhead

 

There are multiple references throughout the Budget papers on how the sale of Maidenhead Golf Course is 'vital' to reducing the council's debt. By passing this paper tonight, is this council now fully committed to the sale of the golf course for development?

 

Written response: No not at all – there are usually alternatives in most situations and we are still searching for them.   If we cannot stop it – we will do what we can to ameliorate the effect of it – we have already used our influence with CALA to increase the amount of open space, reduced the number of dwellings, increased the protection of Rushington Copse, replace some flats with town houses, and lowered the height of other flats.  There is much more to do even if we can’t get out of it – even less flats, even more open space and more trees saved.

 

Shay Bottomley thanked Councillor Werner for his direct response. He stated that there were strong views on all sides in relation to the golf course and there was still a lot of uncertainty with a live planning application. He asked whether the phrase in the response “if we cannot stop it” suggested that the hope from the Council was that the golf course development could be halted. He considered it was contradictory when the budget paper effectively suggested that the sale must happen in order for the Council to reduce its debt. He asked as a supplementary, aside from efforts to limit the environmental impact, what was the logic behind the council trying to prevent something which, if the budget was approved, was deemed to be vital.

 

Councillor Werner replied that he had been opposed to the sale of the site since it was first put forward within the Borough Local Plan. He stated that the Conservatives continued to promote the scheme and were suggesting further development. He concluded that due to the debts it would be many years before the sale of the land would actually benefit the Council as the value was a made-up figure.

 

 

l)        Shay Bottomley of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Reynolds, Cabinet member for Communities and Leisure

 

It was said at Cabinet last week that the consultation on fees and charges for football, rugby, cricket and lawn tennis was not completed to the administration's satisfaction. Can you please elaborate on the issues with the original consultation, and explain how the new consultation will be different?

 

Written response: For 2024 the process for Fees and Charges was altered to allow us an early increase to many fees to help our 23/24 in year budget position. The increase for the above fees was not included in this early increase as, depending on the sport, the change wouldn’t take place until either April or September 2024. We were informed by groups that a number of groups didn’t receive full communication about the changes, and the information that was received didn’t have the appropriate level of detail as a lot the explanation around why we’re increasing fees and our methodology for doing so was published for the November Cabinet meeting and not as part of the main budget consultation.

 

I’ve been involved fully in the new consultation, where we have written directly to all groups who hire pitches this year, and given them more details on what the proposed fees are, and why we’re looking at the increase. As well as asked for feedback around what level of fee they feel is appropriate and what impact the changes would have on ‘subs’ paid by members.

 

The Executive Director and I will go through all consultation responses at the end of March before agreeing a fee having taking into account the feedback we receive.

 

Shay Bottomley asked if the affected groups strongly opposed the proposed increases, what alternative solutions or compromises were being considered to address their concerns, whilst still achieving the financial goals outlined within the budget.

 

Councillor Reynolds replied that was very difficult to answer as he could not predict what affected groups would say. He explained that as they were not happy with how the consultation had been done they were fixing the problem, were going to do it better this time and he would be happy to share the consultation letter. Once all the responses had been received, he would make the decision with the Executive Director which was in the best interest of everybody. They would strike the balance between making sure the council was financially sustainable and promoting sport and leisure within the borough.

 

The Mayor concluded the item by thanking all of the members of the public for their well-considered questions.