Agenda item - Public Questions

Public Questions

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 27 September 2016 7.30 pm (Item 89.)

Ewan Larcombe, of Datchet Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Press reports suggest the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and Maidenhead Golf Club (MGC) have signed a contract which will see the council buy back Maidenhead Golf Club’s lease, opening up the opportunity for the site to be brought forward for development and help to make a town for everyone.

Now that MGC has been selected for development what provision within the site is being allocated for the traveller community?

Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

On March 9th the Monitoring Officer David Scott incorrectly interpreted statute regarding decision notice 5.15-6.15 (Councillor Dudley’s alleged bias). On August 30^th the ICO stated it was unlawful for RBWM to publish the political affiliations of members of the public simply because they made a complaint against Councillors – this is "sensitive" data, and no schedule 3 criteria had been satisfied.

Why were my technical questions about the Data Protection Act not answered by the Data Protection Officer, but instead passed to the Monitoring Officer who proved to have an inadequate understanding, and what steps have now been taken following the letter from the ICO to ensure that this type of unlawful publication never happens again ?

Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

The Information Commissioner's Office wrote to RBWM on 18^th April giving 28 days to explain alleged breaches of Data Protection policy. The ICO had no response and issued further deadlines on June 2^nd and July 8^th. It took four months to answer simple data protection questions, which the ICO stated was not “…as quickly as we expected”.

Why did RBWM fail to co-operate with multiple requests for information from the Information Commissioner’s Office and does RBWM really believe it is acceptable to simply ignore official requests over many months from statutory appointed protection agencies?

Melanie Hill of Boyn Hill Ward will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Continuing to build thousands of new homes in Maidenhead will require significant increases to the infrastructure such as new schools, Doctor's surgeries and extended minor injuries hours. I have personally already suffered the consequence of being turned away from St Marks minor injuries within opening hours !!

Does the Council have representation within local clinical commissioning groups, or specific powers itself to be able to ensure that sufficient healthcare is provided as the town expands; and can the Council directly or indirectly ensure that minor injuries at St Marks Hospital similarly expands to cope with the substantial rise in resident numbers?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

Ewan Larcombe, of Datchet Ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Now that MGC has been selected for development what provision within the site is being allocated for the traveller community?

Councillor Dudley responded that he agreed that this was a fantastic opportunity. The council needed to build a town for everyone and the site would create housing for local residents in the heart of the community. It needed to be made clear that there were two separate strands of work. The Council as landowner has entered into a contract to buy back the Golf Club’s lease: this was separate to the role of the Council as local planning authority. As landowner the Council had put the Maidenhead Golf Course and land to the south of Harvest Hill forward as sites available for development within the plan period in response to the planning authority’s call for sites. The site had not been selected for development at this stage, it was one of around 400 sites in the Borough that the planning authority would consider through the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment it would shortly complete and then further assess through sustainability appraisal work to inform the Borough Local Plan.

The council commissioned a Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) from ORS which was completed in draft just as Government changed the definition in planning of “a traveller”. The Berkshire authorities would be jointly commissioning a GTAA based on the new definition which would inform a Traveller Local Plan as identified in the Council’s Local Development Scheme. It was too early in the process to consider sites for allocation.

Mr Larcombe confirmed he did not have a supplementary question.

b) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

On 9th March the Monitoring Officer David Scott incorrectly interpreted statute regarding decision notice 5.15-6.15 (Councillor Dudley’s alleged bias). On August 30th the ICO stated it was unlawful for RBWM to publish the political affiliations of members of the public simply because they made a complaint against Councillors – this is "sensitive" data, and no schedule 3 criteria had been satisfied.

Councillor Dudley responded that the decision of the Information Commissioner’s Office, received on 30 August 2016, had been challenged by RBWM as it appeared to be incorrect. The ICO had been asked to review their decision as Officers did not believe there had been a technical breach of the Data Protection Act as indicated in the letter to the Borough dated 30 August 2016.

The council was waiting to hear back from the ICO on whether they accepted the challenge on the basis there was both a Schedule 3 criteria and an explicit agreement from the data subject to the publication of the ‘sensitive personal data’ to which Mr Hill referred.

Neither the Data Protection Officer nor the Monitoring Officer were in a position to give legal advice on the Data Protection Act to the public.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that in August 2016 councillors voted to change the Code of Conduct to include a new vetting process to dismiss politically motivated complaints. In this case it seemed it was the good character of a member of the public rather than a councillor that needed protecting. In section 4.37 of the report Councillor Dudley states that he did not know complainant B although he thought she may be a parent of a child who attended The Windsor Boys’ School. How did he leap from this to the conclusion that she was politically motivated?

Councillor Dudley responded that by looking through social media you could see who someone followed and what they had said previously and this was what had led him to the conclusion.

c) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill Ward will ask the following question of Councillor

Dudley, Leader of the Council:

The Information Commissioner's Office wrote to RBWM on 18th April giving 28 days to explain alleged breaches of Data Protection policy. The ICO had no response and issued further deadlines on June 2nd and July 8th. It took four months to answer simple data protection questions, which the ICO stated was not “…as quickly as we expected”.

Councillor Dudley responded that although the Information Commissioners Office wrote to the Borough in April 2016, this was not apparent to the Borough until a telephone conversation between the ICO’s office and the Borough on 8 July 2016, when it became clear through a telephone discussion with the ICO and the Information Management team that the original letter which had asked for a response by 2 June 2016 had not been actioned.

A response was provided on 4 August 2016, after collecting information requested, and a further response provided following a subsequent clarification request received on 18 August 2016; this was provided on 19 August 2016.

RBWM did not fail to co-operate, the Borough worked with the ICO to provide information and responses on a timely basis for all requests received.

He agreed it was entirely unacceptable to ignore official requests from the ICO or indeed other statutory agencies, however on this occasion the original request was not received. When this became clear Officers responded and co-operated with the request.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill asked whether Councillor Dudley would agree, if the ICO upheld his complaint, that it was unacceptable that three Monitoring Officers got it wrong?

Councillor Dudley responded that he could not comment on individuals, one of whom was not an employee of the borough.

d) Melanie Hill of Boyn Hill Ward asked the following question of Councillor

Dudley, Leader of the Council:

Councillor Dudley responded that he could confirm that the council had significant representation within local clinical commissioning groups and with the acute health provider through the Lead Member for Adult Services, Health and Sustainability and the Strategic Director Adult, Children and Health Services. Both worked proactively with health partners to benefit the residents of the Royal Borough.

The Royal Borough was very conscious that the commitment to build new houses would require increased social infrastructure. There had already been discussion with the clinical commissioning groups about how they would accommodate the requirement to grow the number of GPs in line with the rate of house growth. For example, if 10,000 houses were built over the next 10 years, the clinical commissioning group would need to increase the number of GPs by around 14.

Although the council did not have any specific powers under the planning process, it would ensure that it worked with the clinical commissioning groups to ensure that there was sufficient healthcare provision in the borough. Ultimately, the decision rested with NHS England and the clinical commissioning groups. Councillor Dudley gave his personal assurance that this would be one of the council’s priorities as it aimed to build a Royal Borough for everyone.

By way of a supplementary question, Mrs Hill commented that people moving in to the area could not necessarily afford large houses therefore there would be a need for more hotels to accommodate visitors. With regard to the Waterways project the riverside area hotels would be in demand, however according to the Advertiser they were being earmarked for housing development. Given the fantastic regeneration of Maidenhead did the council believe that the using much-needed hotels in the best locations was in the best interests of the town?

Councillor Dudley responded that the particular premises mentioned in the Advertiser were privately owned and therefore not in the control of the council. There had been an increase in budget hotel accommodation in recent years in the town and he would hoped that as the town grew, this would create more economic vibrancy and therefore attract more investment in such facilities.