DOCSLIB.ORG

Including Formulae and List of Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Including Formulae and List of Projects Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements (and Approved Programme of Schemes) Including Formulae and List of Projects Revised March 2014 (with effect from April 2014) Simon Hurrell Head of Planning and Development Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead York Stream House St Ives House St Ives Road Maidenhead March 2014 March 2014 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITY REQUIREMENTS (AND APPROVED PROGRAMME OF SCHEMES) (UPDATED MARCH 2014 ) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 REQUIREMENTS SECTION 1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 8 SECTION 2 TRANSPORT 2.1 WORKPLACE TRAVEL PLANS 10 2.2 HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT 15 Highways and public transport schemes: Part 1) Schedule of Rights of Way Schemes 19 Part 2) Schedule of Public Transport Improvements 22 Part 3) Schedule of Environmental Improvements – Verge Parking 24 Part 4) Schedule of Environmental Improvement Projects 25 Part 5) Schedule of Cycle Network Schemes 30 Part 6) Schedule of Drainage Schemes 31 Part 7) Schedule of Car Park Improvement Schemes 33 Part 8) Schedule of Road Safety Schemes 34 Part 9) Schedule of Bridge Assessments/ Strengthening Schemes 41 Part 10) Schedule of Street Lighting Schemes 42 Part 11) Schedule of Highways Crime Prevention/Security Schemes 46 SECTION 3 EDUCATION 47 SECTION 4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 70 SECTION 5 LIBRARY SERVICES 78 SECTION 6 RECREATION AND LEISURE 6.1 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 85 6.2 BIODIVERSITY106 101 6.3 INDOOR SPORTS 107FACILITIES 103 6.4 ALLOTMENTS 106 SECTION 7i PUBLIC ART AND HERITAGE 107 SECTION 8 TOWN MANAGEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT 112 SECTION 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 115 SECTION 10 LANDSCAPING 117 SECTION 11 THAMES BASIN HEATHS SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA 118 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Page 3 of 141 Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements (and Approved Programme of Schemes) Revised March 2014 SECTION 12 AIR QUALITY 124 SECTION 13 WASTE DISPOSAL 125 SECTION 14 ARCHAEOLOGY 127 SECTION 15 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE 128 SECTION 16 PARISH PROJECTS 130 SECTION 17 NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN GROUP PROJECTS 138 SECTION 18 ADMINISTRATION AND MONITORING COSTS 141 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Page 4 of 141 Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements (and Approved Programme of Schemes) Revised March 2014 INTRODUCTION 1 This document should be read in conjunction with the companion Supplementary Planning Document “Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions: A Developers’ Guide”, which sets out the background to the Council’s policy on planning obligations. 2 Although the extent of specific obligations may vary in the future, this document sets out the contributions that the Council currently considers is appropriate to seek in relation to various types of obligation from different types of development and the means of calculating the appropriate amounts of contributions in each case. 3 The legislation on Planning Obligations is set out in The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 which came into effect on 6 April 2010. Accordingly, planning obligations can only be sought where they meet ALL the following criteria: They must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms They must be directly related to the development in question They must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development 4 This document includes lists of projects relating to physical infrastructure and provision/expansion of services that the Council has approved as being projects that justify planning obligations being sought from new development in its area. This document has been reviewed and updated periodically since the SPD replaced the previous SPG in November 2005 in line with the Council’s intention clearly set out in the original document at para. 1.4 that “To ensure the document remains up-to-date, the schemes listed herein are updated twice a year by way of an annual Cabinet approval process and also by a six-monthly review under powers delegated to the Head of Planning in agreement with Lead Members for Planning and Transport.” Changes have also between made to the wording of the document, primarily to correct errors and to clarify the meaning and intent of policy or to reflect how it has been applied in practice. Formulae have been updated where there are more up to date assumptions relating to costs and other elements but in general the basic approach underlying the formulae has not changed. 5 It should be emphasised that the obligations and contributions described in this document are those that the Council would expect to seek from forms of development that are typical in its area. However, since the need for planning obligations has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not all development proposals may give rise to them; conversely, certain types of development may, perhaps because of size or complexity, create impacts that give rise to more extensive obligations than are set out in this guidance. 6 In all cases, therefore, applicants are advised to discuss the potential for planning obligations with Council Officers at an early stage in preparing their development proposals. It will also be necessary for applicants to agree with Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Page 5 of 141 Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements (and Approved Programme of Schemes) Revised March 2014 officers the type of projects for which any contributions will be used to assist the Council in meeting the costs of service provision and funding for Capital Schemes. 7 In regularly reviewing the ‘approved projects’ set out in this document and the level of contributions to be sought for them (or for other projects that may be substituted for them), the Borough Council will also seek to ensure that the lists of projects are as up-to-date as possible at the time of publication. However, the Council may add further approved projects to the lists shown in this document as its programme changes following the publication of this document. The lists in the document should therefore not necessarily be regarded as definitive. 8 In this updated version (endorsed by Cabinet at its March 2014 meeting for use for Development Control purposes with effect from 1 April 2014), each section starts with a brief explanation of the rationale in planning terms of the anticipated functional and geographical justification for requesting contributions. 9 There is also an additional section at the end explaining the basis on which there is a charge towards the future administration and monitoring costs of agreements for minor or major proposals respectively. This charge will be incorporated within the agreement as it will become payable when the terms of the agreement are activated (normally when the underlying development is implemented). 10 Consultation. The draft of this Supplementary Planning Guidance was originally published on 11th October 2002, and was the subject of a six week public consultation period. Consultees included agencies, services, utilities, interest groups, registered social landlords, community and residents groups, developers and house-builders, planning consultants and agents, and professional bodies. Thirty two organisations and individuals submitted responses, which were incorporated into the document where appropriate. The final version, incorporating these amendments, was approved by the Council’s Cabinet meetings held on 25th February and 27th March 2003. 11 Temporary consents. Residents, employees and visitors to developments operating under a temporary consent place an additional burden on the Councils infrastructure and services for the duration the development remains in existence. It is therefore the Council’s intention to seek developer contributions to offset this impact over the lifetime of the temporary development. In calculating contributions it is assumed the typical life of each Council asset to be 80 years. Developers will therefore be expected to contribute 1/80 the cost of the impact of their development on the Councils infrastructure and services in accordance with the relevant formulae contained in this document for each year of the period of temporary consent. Contributions are expected to be paid in advance upon commencement of development. Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Page 6 of 141 Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements (and Approved Programme of Schemes) Revised March 2014 A worked example follows: Temporary consent is granted for 3 years for the stationing of a 2 bedroom mobile home on land. Contribution payable = 3 x 1/80 x contribution payable for permanent stationing of a 2 bedroom mobile home on land E.g. 3 x 1/80 x £19,616 = £735.60 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Page 7 of 141 Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements (and Approved Programme of Schemes) Revised March 2014 SECTION 1 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1.1 WHEN A REQUEST FOR A CONTRIBUTION IS APPROPRIATE: Table 1: Affordable Housing DEVELOPMENT TYPE RELEVANT PROPOSAL SOUGHT All applications for housing All Areas: Sites of 0.5 hectare or As a starting-point, development including: schemes proposing 15 or more 30% of the total special needs and dwellings (net additional)*. dwellings to be sheltered housing Other smaller proposals for provided. schemes piecemeal development, which windfall sites not clearly form part of a larger site. identified in the Local Plan. *Please note that where developers Exceptions:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PER WG 260601.Doc AGENDA
    N O T I C E O F M E E T I N G PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW WORKING GROUP will meet on TUESDAY 26 JUNE 2001 At 8.00 pm in MEETING ROOM 'A', TOWN HALL, ST. IVES ROAD, MAIDENHEAD TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW WORKING GROUP (For action) COUNCILLORS LAWRENCE (CHAIRMAN), MRS BATESON (VICE-CHAIRMAN), BURBAGE, MRS ENDACOTT, MRS GLIKSTEN, MRS KEMP, OLNEY, MRS QUICK, WERNER AND WILES. c.c. Chief Executive, Borough Secretary, Andrew Scott, Rob Curtis and Sue Goddard. Barry Morfett Head of Corporate Administration Issued: Tuesday 26th June 2001 BJM/ag mins reps/PER WG 260601.doc AGENDA PART I ITEM SUBJECT WARD PAGE NO 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. 2. AREAS FOR RECONSIDERATION To look further at certain areas as requested by Members at the last meeting viz:- Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Cookham/Bisham Cox Green/Woodlands Park and Hurley Windsor Urban Area Maidenhead Urban Area NB. The proposals submitted by the Liberal Democrat Group have been summarised in the above report. Details of their proposals have been attched as an Appendix. BJM/ag mins reps/PER WG 260601.doc 2. AREAS FOR RECONSIDERATION At the Working Group meeting on 21 June, it was agreed that further consideration should be given to detailed options provided by Members of the Working Group in relation to the following areas:- Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Cookham and Bisham Cox Green, Woodlands Park and Hurley Windsor Urban Area Maidenhead Urban Area Members will recall that at the meeting on 21 June, the officers provided proposals for each of the areas in question and the following report provides details not only of the proposals originally but also the options supplied by individual Members.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the South East Region Contents
    Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region Contents Summary 3 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review 7 3 Initial proposals for the South East region 11 Initial proposals for the Berkshire sub-region 12 Initial proposals for the Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, 13 Kent, and Medway sub-region Initial proposals for the West Sussex sub-region 16 Initial proposals for the Buckinghamshire 17 and Milton Keynes sub-region Initial proposals for the Hampshire, Portsmouth 18 and Southampton sub-region Initial proposals for the Isle of Wight sub-region 20 Initial proposals for the Oxfordshire sub-region 20 Initial proposals for the Surrey sub-region 21 4 How to have your say 23 Annex A: Initial proposals for constituencies, 27 including wards and electorates Glossary 53 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 1 Summary Who we are and what we do Our proposals leave 15 of the 84 existing constituencies unchanged. We propose The Boundary Commission for England only minor changes to a further 47 is an independent and impartial constituencies, with two wards or fewer non -departmental public body which is altered from the existing constituencies. responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. The rules that we work to state that we must allocate two constituencies to the Isle The 2018 Review of Wight. Neither of these constituencies is required to have an electorate that is within We have the task of periodically reviewing the requirements on electoral size set out the boundaries of all the Parliamentary in the rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Windsor Neighbourhood Area and Forum Application
    Tel: 01753 855106 14a Bolton Crescent Windsor Berkshire SL4 3JQ 15th May 2014 Planning Policy Manager Planning & Property Services Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead St Ives Road Maidenhead Berkshire SL6 1LF Dear Sir, Application for Windsor to be designated as a Neighbourhood Area and the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan Forum to be considered as the relevant body to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan Under the terms of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (“the Act”) Part 2& 3, we submit this application to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) for a Neighbourhood Area designation and a Neighbourhood Forum. Name The name of the proposed neighbourhood forum will be the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) Forum. Constitution A copy of the draft constitution of the proposed forum is attached. This document was submitted to those present at an inaugural meeting held on Thursday 8th May 2014, together with a request for comments which will be reviewed at our next scheduled meeting in June. Map The name of the neighbourhood area to which the application relates is Windsor and a map which identifies the area is attached as [1 of 2]. The application relates to the unparished wards of Castle Without, Clewer East, Clewer North & Clewer South (excluding parished areas covered by Bray Parish), Eton and Castle (excluding the parished area covered by Eton Town Council) and Park but excluding an area which is the subject of a separate application which will be submitted by the Central Windsor Neighbourhood Plan (CWNP) for Business group. A second map [2 of 2] is enclosed which shows the proposed separate Business Area submission.
    [Show full text]
  • Eton Community Association
    Dear Sir/Madam, At a recent meeting of representatives from Eton Community Association, we talked about commenting on the proposed Ward Boundaries as they affect Eton Town Council, which includes the current wards of Eton and Castle, and Eton Wick. Option D is of significant concern. This is not aligned with the Eton Community nor indeed the Eton & Eton Wick Neighbourhood Plan, which is currently out for consultation with the submission version (Regulation 16). We are aware that the Eton & Eton Wick Town Council is opposed to option D too. These are reasons that give cause for concern: 1 The proposal seems to be based on only one of the 3 criteria to be considered, namely numbers of voters. The criteria of relevance to the community seens to have been disregarded. 2 Eton with Eton Wick is a self-contained community with absolutely no relationship with Datchet and Horton. 3 The community has just completed a Neighbourhood Plan for Eton and Eton Wick combined, and a huge amount of time, hard work and money will go to waste by attaching two new whole communities to it. Having attended the adjoining Neighbourhood Plan local consultations, my colleagues and I have good knowledge of various NPs, including Windsor 2030, Outer Windsor, Horton & Wraysbury. It is clear that our alignment with and inter-relationship with Windsor is strong. We have no such relationship with Wraysbury or Datchet. 4 Our two existing Ward Councillors have worked tirelessly for Eton and Eton Wick, each being responsible for one of the Wards. This system has served the community well and to change into a multi-dimensional system with several councillors looking after a conglomerate of diverse communities gives cause for concern.
    [Show full text]
  • A Market Position Statement
    Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead A Market Position Statement 1 Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 3 2. Key Themes from the Market Position Statement ......................................................................... 4 The Council’s vision for Adult Social Care .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 National context for Adult Social Care ..................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 What is a Market Position Statement and why have one? ............................................................................................... 6 3.3 Who is this document intended for? ......................................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Population
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Template
    COUNCIL - 02.03.21 AT AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE BOROUGH COUNCIL held as a Virtual Meeting on Tuesday, 2nd March, 2021 PRESENT: The Mayor (Councillor John Story), The Deputy Mayor (Councillor Gary Muir) Councillors John Baldwin, Clive Baskerville, Christine Bateson, Gurpreet Bhangra, Simon Bond, John Bowden, Mandy Brar, Catherine Del Campo, David Cannon, Stuart Carroll, Gerry Clark, David Coppinger, Carole Da Costa, Wisdom Da Costa, Jon Davey, Karen Davies, Phil Haseler, Geoff Hill, David Hilton, Maureen Hunt, Andrew Johnson, Greg Jones, Lynne Jones, Neil Knowles, Ewan Larcombe, Sayonara Luxton, Ross McWilliams, Helen Price, Samantha Rayner, Joshua Reynolds, Julian Sharpe, Shamsul Shelim, Gurch Singh, Donna Stimson, Chris Targowski, Helen Taylor, Amy Tisi, Leo Walters and Simon Werner Officers: David Cook, Emma Duncan, Suzanne Martin, Kevin McDaniel, Barbara Richardson, Duncan Sharkey, Adele Taylor, Karen Shepherd and Adrien Waite 84. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE None received 85. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Rayner declared a personal interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate – Maidenhead Golf Course/Great Park’ as several of the sites listed in Appendix 2 were owned by her family. She would not participate in the debate or vote on the item. Councillor Price declared an interest in the item ‘Petition for Debate – Maidenhead Golf Course/Great Park’ as she was a member of the golf club. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that as Councillor Price’s interest was a potentially prejudicial interest, she had granted Councillor Price a dispensation to enable her to speak on the item as a local member to facilitate the debate. 86. PUBLIC QUESTIONS a) Alison Carpenter of Eton and Castle ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Lead Member for Finance and Ascot: I am concerned that the tone of the funding section of the leaflet is unreasonably focussing on potential costs to residents rather than the potential benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Windsor and Maidenhead
    5/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Windsor and Maidenhead Personal Details: Name: Robert Elmes E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Splitting the great park from Old Windsor into Ascot is madness. This seems to be just about the numbers with no consideration for the community or good governance. The great park residences utilise many services in Old Windsor and this change would leave them isolated in that respect. Also including areas of Windsor such as King Edward VII Hospital and Trevelyan school is short sighted. These areas identify, rightly so, with the urban town of Windsor, rather than the rural village of Old Windsor. People in these areas have very different needs and their councillors should be able to reflect those. I don't see how good governance could come about by "tagging on" this area just to make up some numbers. I strongly urge the commission to review the currently proposed boundary changes, being made to mainly accommodate changes in Maidenhead, to not take an approach that detriments other areas. This could be in terms of changing the boundary to better reflect the local topology and demographic and/or rethinking the number of councillors actually required to allow for a boundary setup that actually meets the needs of the people, rather than (as it seems) plucking out of thin air a target number and then trying to make that fit. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/12792 1/1 Windsor and Maidenhead Personal Details: Name: Lucy Fearnley E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I feel there is no need to split a community that functions so well.
    [Show full text]
  • Cycling Action Plan 2018-2028
    Cycling Action Plan 2018-2028 Highways & Transport Unit Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Town Hall St Ives Road Maidenhead SL6 1RF Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Guiding Principles 2 3. Strategic Framework 3 4. The Current Situation 8 5. Vision, Aims and Objectives 12 6. Action Plan 13 • Cycle routes 13 • Wayfinding 15 • Cycle parking 16 • Transport Interchanges 18 • Public Bike Share 19 • Working with schools 20 • Working with businesses 21 • Health and wellbeing 22 • Recreational / sports cycling 23 • Practical support and training 24 • Marketing and communications 25 7. Funding 26 8. Monitoring 27 Appendices: • Appendix 1: Area Profile – Ascot and Sunnings 29 • Appendix 2: Area Profile – Bisham and Cookham 34 • Appendix 3: Area Profile – Bray 41 • Appendix 4: Area Profile – Datchet 47 • Appendix 5: Area Profile – Eton and Eton Wick 52 • Appendix 6: Area Profile – Horton and Wraysbury 58 • Appendix 7: Area Profile – Hurley and the Walthams 62 • Appendix 8: Area Profile – Maidenhead and Cox Green 69 • Appendix 9: Area Profile – Old Windsor 79 • Appendix 10: Area Profile – Windsor 84 • Appendix 11: Prioritised List of Schemes 92 1. Introduction 1.1 The benefits of cycling are numerous and well documented and show that even a relatively modest shift from car to cycling for local journeys can potentially deliver benefits in the following areas: • Traffic congestion • Air quality • Traffic noise • Health and fitness • Employee absenteeism • Economic growth 1.2 This action plan identifies our priorities for capital and revenue investment in cycling for the period 2018/19 to 2027/28, in order that more of our residents, commuters and visitors will be encouraged and enabled to choose cycling as an everyday form of transport, as well as for leisure and fitness.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Part 6
    ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD PART 6 - TERMS OF REFERENCE OF ALL OTHER COMMITTEES, PANELS AND OTHER BODIES OF THE COUNCIL F4 Area Forums F4.1 Purpose The Royal Borough has established two Area Forums: .Windsor Town Forum covering issues concerning the following wards: Castle Without Clewer East Clewer North Clewer South Eton and Castle Eton Wick Park .Maidenhead Town Forum, covering issues concerning the following wards: Belmont Boyn Hill Furze Platt Maidenhead Riverside Oldfield Pinkneys Green These Area Forums will provide a means whereby the Council can consult with local communities and, potentially, devolve some decision-making. The Area Forums are given the power to spend money as delegated by Cabinet resolution; to direct neighbourhood budget expenditure in unparished areas and to send reports with recommendations to Cabinet. The Area Forums will report any such expenditure to Cabinet at least annually. In order to facilitate these roles, Area Forums will be able to work with the local residents, businesses, organisations, including public and private sector, and with other representative organisations such as Parish Councils, Chambers of Commerce, Residents’ Associations, etc., any of whom may be invited to attend and contribute to the discussions of the Area Forum. The Area Forums will be politically balanced wherever possible and the Members should represent a Ward within the areas of responsibility set out above. The Area Forums may consider areas such as: Local Policing Local planning consultation Local youth services Local transport issues, including car parking Repair and maintenance of local highways Local library and information services Local leisure, heritage and arts Local environmental initiatives F4.2 Membership Windsor Town Forum - 7 Members; Maidenhead Town Forum - 7 Members F4.3 Quorum: 2 Members F4.4 Frequency: Three times per annum.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title: Highways and Transport Investment Programme 2020-21 Contains Confidential Or Exempt Information? NO
    Report Title: Highways and Transport Investment Programme 2020-21 Contains Confidential or NO - Part I Exempt Information? Lead Member: Councillor Clark – Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure Meeting and Date: 28 May 2020 Responsible Officer(s): Hilary Hall – Director of Adults, Health and Commissioning Wards affected: All REPORT SUMMARY 1. The budget for 2020/21 was approved by Council on 25th February 2020 and included a significant investment of £5.5m to maintain and improve highways infrastructure including roads, bridges, street lighting and road safety. 2. Within the overall allocation, £3.773m is approved for annual works programmes (for example: road resurfacing). This report seeks approval to the detailed schemes which make up the overall works programmes - Appendix A (road maintenance) and Appendix B (remaining highway programmes) refer. 3. In addition, on the 14th May the Government announced the intention to provide an additional £1.5m funding to tackle potholes in our area. The Royal Borough is currently awaiting written confirmation of these funds and once received, works will be prioritised, based on technical assessments. 4. This report recommends implementation of the capital works programme with authority delegated to the Director of Adults, Health and Commissioning (in consultation with the Lead Member for transport and Infrastructure) to agree amendments to the approved schemes (within approved budgets) and to implement reserve or alternative schemes should this become necessary. 1. DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION: That Cabinet notes the report and i. Endorses the implementation of the programme of work set out in Appendix A and Appendix B ii. Delegates authority to the Director of Adults, Health and Commissioning, (in consultation with the Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure) to agree amendments to the approved schemes (within approved budgets) and to implement reserve or alternative schemes should this become necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
    Suzanne Martin Electoral Services Manager Law and Governance [email protected] 01628 682935 15 December 2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP Dear Sir/Madam ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD I write in reference to the current electoral review of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and in response to your recent consultation inviting proposals for a pattern of wards that could accommodate 43 elected members from May 2019. Further to your letter to the Managing Director in September outlining that the Local Government Boundary Commission is minded to recommend a future council size of 43 members, the cross-party Electoral Review Working Group that was established for Stage One to determine future council size, reconvened for Stage Two in order to formulate a council representation on the warding patterns. The working group made a recommendation to Full Council on 12 December 2017 for a pattern of nineteen wards consisting of fourteen wards which would each return two- members and five wards returning three-members. The report sets out the justification for how the boundaries for each new ward have been drawn and presents a pattern where each new ward is balanced and falls within the 10% tolerance of the average of 2,764 electors per councillor for an electorate of 118,838 in 2023. The warding pattern proposals ensure that electoral equality has been delivered whilst balancing this with the requirement to keep existing community identities and interests intact and delivering effective and convenient local government.
    [Show full text]
  • Childcare Sufficiency Report
    Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 30 Hours Childcare themed Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2018 Contents Pages Key Findings 3 - 11 Introduction 12 Background 13 - 14 Methodology 15 - 16 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead’s 17 twenty-three wards Key Demographic Factors affecting the childcare market 18 - 28 Outcomes of Daycare Providers and Childminders Survey 29 - 52 Outcomes of Parents of 0 – 5 year olds Survey 53 - 69 30 Hours Childcare-themed Gaps Analysis 70 - 74 2 Key Findings Demographic Factors affecting the early years childcare market 1 In 2018, the highest number of resident 2 year olds are evidently living in the following three (neighbouring) wards of Maidenhead: Belmont ward Oldfield ward Boyn Hill ward The highest number of 3 – 4 year olds are also evidently resident in the above three wards (with Belmont ward and Oldfield ward accounting for discernible pockets of deprivation) and the highest birth rates for the period 2014 – 2015 were record in the three same ward. 2 In 2018, the highest number of resident 5 – 11 year olds are also evidently living in the following three (neighbouring) wards of Maidenhead: Belmont ward Oldfield ward Boyn Hill ward However, the highest number of 12 – 16 year olds are evidently resident in the following three wards: Belmont ward, the neighbouring Furze Platt ward, and Eton and Castle ward 3 As was concluded in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead’s 2016 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment, the resident population of older children aged 12 – 16 years is (still) forecast to increase at a greater rate than the population of young children.
    [Show full text]