Homepage Blog, Homepage Features

Blog: The risk of making poor decisions

Another rumbustious Council meeting saw big, unscrutinised, capital spends voted through almost willy-nilly. Are we at risk of making poor decisions? Find out more.

 

Is that sort of decision making good enough for you?

A lack of scrutiny and foresight

There were six items on the agenda at last Tuesday’s meeting of the Full Council including two substantial capital spends that had not been scrutinised by an Overview & Scrutiny Panel.

To make matters worse, none of the substantial projects were accompanied by a funding statement to show how it would affect the Council’s budget, whether spending in other areas would have to be reduced (efficiency savings?!) or whether, there was an implied increase in Council Tax on the way.

Is that sort of decision making good enough for you?

 

Is this a lack of imagination or

A multi-story car park by the banks of the Thames in Windsor Town Centre

To add insult to injury, the Council are proposing to build a multi-story car park by the banks of the Thames in Windsor Town Centre, in an historic setting at the foot of Windsor castle with only myself voting against it.

Why didn’t they consider expanding the Alma Road car park, which is largely out of sight but still accessible?

Is this a lack of imagination or preserving the Alma Road site between Alexandra Gardens and the Windsor railway to link to another yet undisclosed project?

 

I am not happy with being put at risk of making poor decisions for residents

The risk of making poor decisions

Without being told of the big picture, or the total plan, including its effects on funding and Council Tax, Councillors are at risk of making decisions not in the eventual interests of residents.

I am not happy with being put at risk of making poor decisions for residents, hence my call to see the big picture.

To his credit, Cllr Bowden did abstain from the car park proposals but, no other Windsor Councillors did.

 

[color-box]

Here’s what I said in detail;

  1. Parking scheme
  • Report calls for major expenditure £12m
  • Yet, this has not been reviewed by an Overview & Scrutiny Panel. We have had just 5 days to review a report which is incomplete in content.
  • There are some serious questions which haven’t been addressed like
    • Why was the cost of parking schemes not foreseen in the financial planning of Maidenhead’s regeneration?
    • What consideration has been given to air quality?
    • Borough with 5 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA);
    • Increasing town centre parking capacity will increase road traffic and reduce air quality.
    • Perhaps some of the £12M capital budget could be better spent on improving public transport and park and ride schemes
    • Where is the evidence to substantiate the parking demand in Windsor used as justification for the additional River Street parking capacity?
  • Point 2.13 proposes an extra deck on River Street car park in Windsor. Surely you’re not proposing a multi-story car park beside the picturesque River Thames in historic Windsor. Not on my watch.
  • There is no discussion of how this will be funded and, what effect this could have on spending in other areas.
    • Can you confirm that we will be borrowing money to fund these temporary car parks?
    • We want to take wise, educated, planned decsions so, I would like to see on all regeneration reports how they fit in to the big picture; how much are we paying, how much will we be borrowing and when, when will money come back from sale of other assets.
  • I call for this report to be referred to an Overview and Scrutiny Panel and represented to Council

Vote: Against – Da Costa: Abstain –  Bowden: For – everyone else (50+)

  1. River Thames Scheme
  • To help people understand the issues, can you tell me how many RBWM residents will benefit and, what is this as a % of the total that will be affected in all boroughs?
  • Are we over contributing compared to other boroughs similarly affected?

Vote: For – unanimous

  1. Waterways
  • Report with substantial expenditure and some key control risks which was not subject to an Overview and Scrutiny Panel
  • I understand that there is a part two paper on this but;
  • Today we have a very expensive ditch and an unscrutinised report that asked for an extra £1.5m (massively more than it has cost us already) to fill the ditch with water. Why?
  • I call for an independent investigation into what went wrong and why we are being asked to approve an extra £1.5m; money that could have gone to expand Lowbrook and other schools in our borough
  • There is no discussion of how this will be funded and, what effect this could have on spending in other areas
  • Cllr Saunders you say you have the information so don’t keep us in the dark, give that to us to make knowledgeable decisions.

Vote: For 

  1. Braywick Leisure Centre
  • It’s all about governance so, I am comforted that this paper has been presented to an Overview and Scrutiny Panel
  • However, again, there is no discussion of how this will be funded and, what effect this could have on spending in other areas. How this fits in with the big picture?
  • Can you confirm that until we realise other assets, such as the Magnet LS, that we will be borrowing money?

Vote: For 

[/color-box]

 

What do you think?

Do you expect more diligence from your Councillors?

Is such a lack of scrutiny worrying for you?

Do you expect more openness, transparency and respect for residents?

 

Watch the entire meeting on Periscope

NB Beware. Watch out for the usual bad behaviour rather than constructive discussion for the benefit of all residents.


Accountably yours,

Wisdom

WWRA Councillor, Wisdom Da Costa, Clewer North, Windsor

 

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).