Homepage Blog

Blog: RBWM Borough Local Plan Vote – Wisdom’s Speech

I predicted a stormy meeting last night and, that it was; Theatrical, Informative, Aggressive, and Ridiculous in equal measure. Here is a copy of the points I made last night. More to follow

The Full Monty

To watch the full, unexpurgated content, click on the link below:

Warning: May contain content not suitable for people of a sensitive disposition 😉

More to follow

I will be publishing more on this thread shortly including speeches from other Councillors as they release them.

Click here to read and watch Cllr. Simon Werner’s speech

 

What our residents…want is to for you to listen to them

[color-box]

Extraordinary Council Meeting 19 June 2017

Delivered Comments of Cllr. Wisdom Da Costa, Independent, Clewer North

  1. I, and all Independents want to assist the Council in making a sound plan that will benefit ALL; people; businesses; the environment; our amazing assets; in all areas.
  2. Flawed process hindering good democracy: Late and absent reports is not conducive to sound decision making.
    1. Agenda Report Pack loaded only 6 days ago
    2. BLP Reg 18 Yesterday
    3. Missing reports
      • Appendix C refers to in-combination effects in C19
      • The Opinion of Natural England (on the “DRAFT Habitat Regulations Screening Report”?)
      • Detailed Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
    4. This report has not even been scrutinised
  3. Damning comments which question sustainability of the BLP in Sustainability Appraisal
    1. “Greenhouse gas emissions in the borough will subsequently rise.“
    2. “Build on Flood Zones 3a and 3b“
    3. “Air quality is known to be a serious issue for local human and environmental health.. residents may suffer the adverse effect of poor air quality“
    4. “Loss of soil resource” (for food production)
    5. “Increase recreational pressures” – we need more and not fewer garden centres like Squires and Wyevales which provide and care for the needs of young and old, able and less able
  4. Lack of consultation means evidence prepared, to justify this BLP, is incomplete and in some cases incorrect
    1. Statement of regulation 18 Consultation lists bodies who we are stating that we have consulted with
    2. Transport providers tell me that The council has not fulfilled its duty to cooperate (Section 110 of the Localism Act). actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters
    3. Our statement is flatly contradicted by nearly all the Borough’s
      • Neighbourhood Development Plan Groups
      • Parish Councils
      • Residents and interest groups
    4. Lack of inclusion of faith groups – our churches represent and stand up for tens of thousands of people in our Borough, knowing their emotional social and practical needs yet, every church I approached include CT in Windsor and CT Maidenhead either said “they do not recall such an auspicious invitation. And most saying no invitation to consult had been received. I don’t think they are lying, do you?
    5. RBWM was once in the vanguard of the Big Society, leading the way in Localism and, in 2011 receiving Front Runner status and £200,000 funding which generated 6 years of expertise and deep consultation with residents. Yet RBWM have now ignored this work and, ignored these groups. Why?
    6. NP groups expressing major concerns about the BLP
      • 50% of the policies were declared “strategic” and would therefore over-ride any comparable NP policy
      • Instances in which local policies within made Neighbourhood Plan were being ignored by the Royal Borough, (particularly conflict about Green Belt sites for housing).
      • That infrastructure needs are not being sufficiently addressed. IDP should be as equally complete as the BLP otherwise it’s not a Plan but a list of sites for development. A plan to fail residents.
    7. No vision for Windsor, the Jewel of the Royal Borough and the United Kingdom. For some reason they have prioritised the needs of developers for high value apartments, whilst not addressing the wider spatial & infrastructure issues, transport & traffic issues, commercial needs in the context of our historic assets that would result in a more harmonious, flourishing, joined up town
  5. Leaders are now playing Russian roulette with our future
    • Get this. Initiated by residents on the NP groups, the DCLG have said that they will help and they will pay for a professional support package of technical facilitation between RBWM and Neighbourhood Plan Groups – copy sent to you 18/6/17 14:38
    • The DCLG would have helped us succeed.
    • We could have followed our own mantra “Residents First”, listening to these residents groups and taking up the offer from the DCLG but, sadly, this report gives us no options
    • Instead of being allowed to propose and vote on an alternative motion, We seek amendments to the BLP, to be made in consultation with all the PCs, NPs, and Residents and other groups, and take up the offer from the DCLG, before proceeding to Consultation, we have an absolute motion that is either a “Yes” or a “No”
    • What our residents, what your residents want is to for you to listen to them and, to put forward the best local plan for all our communities as possible, with the help and support of DCLG, to step back and think again. Think again. But instead, because of the lack of options, you will have to reject this proposal

[/color-box]

I will publish some of the other speeches as I receive them shortly.

 

Accountably yours,

Wisdom

Independent Councillor, Wisdom Da Costa, Clewer North

 

Caveat

This post is part of Cllr Wisdom Da Costa’s regular series of Blogs to inform and empower local residents; as he promised in his election leaflet

The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of the West Windsor Residents Association (WWRA).