DOCSLIB.ORG

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Electoral Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Electoral Review Report Title: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Electoral Review - Stage Two: Warding Patterns Contains Confidential or NO - Part I Exempt Information? Member reporting: Councillor McWilliams - Principal Member for Housing and Communications Councillor Dudley - Leader of the Council Meeting and Date: Council - 12 December 2017 Responsible Officer(s): Alison Alexander - Managing Director and Returning Officer Wards affected: All REPORT SUMMARY 1. The Royal Borough entered into an electoral review in 2016. In July 2017 full council approved a submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). The LGBCE launched a consultation in September 2017 setting out that it was minded to recommend a future council size for the Royal Borough of 43 members from May 2019. The LGBCE consultation invited responses on warding patterns based on the future council size. 2. The Royal Borough established a cross-party working group to review ward patterns. This report sets out a recommendation to Full Council to approve a pattern of wards that comprises 19 wards: 14 two-member wards and five three- member wards for 43 elected members from May 2019. 1 DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION(S) RECOMMENDATION: That Council: i) Agrees that the Royal Borough’s representation on the new warding patterns, Stage Two electoral review report, be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. 2 REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) AND OPTIONS CONSIDERED 2.1 The Royal Borough submitted its Stage One report on future council size to the LGBCE on 26 July 2017. Following receipt of this representation and having analysed the evidence outlined in the report, the LGBCE contacted the Managing Director on 19 September to advise that it was minded to recommend a future council size of 43 elected members from May 2019. 2.2 Further to having made a decision on the administration’s future size, the LGBCE embarked on a stage of public consultation inviting proposals from the public and other interested parties on new warding patterns which could accommodate 43 members. As the second stage of the electoral review process was open to the wider public and was not exclusive to the Borough council, as was the case for Stage One, the LGBCE had previously highlighted the importance of the Borough council making its own representation and to engage in the second stage of the process in order to shape the outcome of the review. 2.3 The cross-party Working Group that was assembled for Stage One of the review reconvened for Stage Two. The Group after considering the technical guidance published by the LGBCE on how to propose warding patterns, receiving comments from all members, who were offered consultation sessions, have approved the stage two – Warding Patters report attached as Appendix A. 2.4 The Stage Two report describes the methodology for determining the number and naming of the new wards and the number of elected members to be returned for each ward. The Working Group is recommending a pattern which best reflects the retention of existing communities and identities and which delivers good electoral equality across the Borough. Each of the nineteen new wards proposed as part of the future composition falls within the 10% tolerance level recommended by the LGBCE, where on average; each elected member will represent 2,764 electors from 2019. A universal pattern of two-member wards has been applied for the whole Borough in the first instance where appropriate, with five wards electing three members as the best arrangement for the area concerned. Table 1: Options Option Comments Support the cross-party member This option proposes a pattern of 19 Working Group Stage Two review wards comprising 14 two-member and 5 report which recommends a future three-member wards. All wards comply warding pattern of 14 two-member with the 10% tolerance level and 5 three-member wards from recommended by the LGBCE, where 2019. each elected member will represent 2,764 electors on average. The recommended option Reject the cross-party Member If the Borough’s submission were to be Working Group Stage Two review rejected by Full Council, the LGBCE report which recommends a future would not receive a formal warding pattern of 14 two-member representation and RBWM would be and 5 three-member wards from unable to influence the content of the 2019. LGBCE’s draft recommendations published in February. Furthermore, the Not recommended LGBCE would use the evidence of other submissions received from parish councils and members of the public etc. to shape their draft recommendations. 3 KEY IMPLICATIONS 3.1 The LGBCE committed to conduct an electoral review of the Royal Borough and to conclude the process by summer of 2018. The changes brought about by the outcome of the review will take effect at the next scheduled local elections in May 2019. There is no feasibility to suspend or defer the process now that a commitment to undertake the review has been made and the LGBCE has made a recommendation that it is minded to recommend a future council size of 43 elected members from May 2019. 3.2 Stage One of the review concluded in September 2017 when the LGBCE announced its recommendation on future council size. Stage Two commenced on 26 September and will conclude on 5 June 2018 once the final recommendations on the Royal Borough’s future warding patterns have been proposed. Table 2: Key implications Outcome Unmet Met Exceeded Significantly Date of delivery Exceeded Stage After 15 By 15 Before 15 Before 30 Draft Two December December December November recommendations review 2017 2017 2017 2017 announced in report deadline deadline deadline February 2018. prepared set by the set by the set by the for Full LGBCE. LGBCE. LGBCE. Final Council recommendations and announced in submitted June 2018. to the LGBCE. 4 FINANCIAL DETAILS / VALUE FOR MONEY 4.1 There are no immediate financial implications arising as a direct result of this report. However, it should be noted that as the number of elected members will reduce by 25% at the next scheduled elections, there will be efficiency savings from May 2019. 4.2 The Stage Two report recommends a pattern of 19 wards in total consisting of 14 two- member wards and five three-member wards. These are the Royal Borough’s recommendations and the LGBCE may or may not decide to adopt these patterns. The total number of wards and their composition will be finalised in June 2018, and the extent of the savings will be realised at this point. 4.3 The budget provision of £75K across 2016/2017 was not drawn upon during Stage One of the review. During the second stage of the review, arrangements for additional resource from within the Electoral Services team have been made and a new post created. It is expected that the new post of Electoral Services Officer will provide administrative assistance to the review process and the post will be funded from within the approved review funding. No additional funding is sought through this report. 5 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The second stage of the electoral review has been conducted in accordance with the advice and guidance provided by officers at the LGBCE and written materials made available by the LGBCE on their website. 6 RISK MANAGEMENT 6.1 The risks identified are set out in Table 4. Table 4: Impact of risk and mitigation Risks Uncontrolled Controls Controlled Risk Risk The Stage Two Medium Report submitted Low report on warding to Full Council in patterns is not December 2017 submitted by the following agreed 15 December recommendation 2017 deadline set from the Working by the LGBCE. Group The warding High The warding Low pattern proposals patterns outlined in the demonstrate how report are not best reflect supported by the community LGBCE, and as a identity and result, the LGBCE balanced publishes electoral equality. alternative warding patterns as part of its Draft Recommendations in February 2017. The LGBCE High The Stage 2 Low approves an report will alternative pattern demonstrate how of wards supplied RBWM’s pattern by another of wards are stakeholder in the balanced and process, e.g reflect local parish council(s), communities, political parties, presenting the member(s) of the best pattern of public, community wards. organisation(s) 7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 7.1 The reduction of the council size by 25% from 57 to 43 members will have a significant impact on the future structure of the organisation from May 2019. These implications were highlighted in the Stage One report on council size. 7.2 The warding patterns outlined in the Stage 2 report deliver better electoral equality across the Borough as they fall within the 10% tolerance of an average of 2,764 electors per councillor. 8 CONSULTATION 8.1 All Royal Borough members were invited to meet with officers over a two-week period in October 2017 to discuss the Stage Two process and to provide their comments and input on the shaping of the new warding patterns. 37 of the 57 members (65%) met with officers as part of this process. Constructive feedback from these meetings was reflected in the developing version of maps presented to meetings of the working group in October and November 2017. Since the end of October, all working versions of the maps have been shared with all members for their comments. 8.2 The LGBCE do not provide definitive advice on how local authorities should approach consulting with their members as part of the Stage 2 process. They did however, advise that it is common practice for local authorities to use a cross-party Working Group to make recommendations to Full Council and that they supported the Royal Borough’s adoption of this approach.
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]
  • Open Space Study a Final Report by Pmp December 2008
    THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – OPEN SPACE STUDY A FINAL REPORT BY PMP DECEMBER 2008 CONTENTS Page Section 1 Introduction and background 1 Section 2 Undertaking the study 7 Section 3 Strategic context 20 Section 4 Parks and gardens 38 Section 5 Natural and semi natural open space 59 Section 6 Amenity green space 77 Section 7 Provision for children and young people 94 Section 8 Outdoor sports facilities 123 Section 9 Allotments 141 Section 10 Cemeteries and churchyards 154 Section 11 Civic spaces 160 Section 12 Green corridors 163 Section 13 Overall summary and recommendations 170 APPENDICES (under separate cover) Appendix A Benefits of open space Appendix B Household survey Appendix C School survey Appendix D External consultees Appendix E Parish Council survey Appendix F Site list Appendix G Site assessment Appendix H Strategic review Appendix I Quantity standard worksheet Appendix J Quantity standards Appendix K Quantity standards benchmarking Appendix L Quality standards Appendix M Accessibility standards Appendix N Accessibility maps SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Introduction and background The study 1.1 During December 2007, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (the Council) appointed PMP to undertake an Open Space Audit and Green Infrastructure Study. This report sets out the study findings and includes an assessment of local needs and existing open space provision. The green infrastructure study is included as a supplementary document to accompany the main open space report. 1.2 The study will assist the Council in the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF), establish appropriate open space standards, identify areas in the Borough where there are deficiencies in provision and identify solutions to meet any deficiencies.
    [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]