Viewpoint: Be proactive for a better Maidenhead

Be proactive for a better Maidenhead

It’s always easy to moan about our council, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised when I contacted them to address a few problems and the system worked!

Maidenhead Bridge and the area around it was looking dreadful – ivy growing all over the bridge, weeds everywhere, awful flowerbeds and a park overtaken by nettles, brambles and sycamore suckers.

Nobody seemed to care.

However, by talking to Councillor Douglas and the Tivoli gardeners and laying out some ideas on how to improve it, we have made good progress.

I had a go removing the weeds on Maidenhead Bridge, half an hour a week, and then a RBWM workforce arrived to tackle the river sides of the bridge, courtesy of complaints from Maidenhead Town Forum.

And now the area looks so much better.

Ever moaned about the roads?

Well there is an easy pothole report link and I’ve been reporting the unacceptable repairs left by Cadent and Virgin Media, and yes they’ve been fixed, by the companies, not from RBWM’s purse.

My point is we can all pull together to make our environment better: just look at the hard working volunteers of the Maidenhead Waterways.

So maybe a resolution for 2026 should be: don’t just sit back and moan, research who can help, and report it, maybe do a bit yourself and together we can all enjoy better times ahead.

JUDY TRINDER

Islet Park Drive

Maidenhead

You don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone

On reading the article concerning the golf course being handed over to Cala Homes, one is reminded of the words of the Joni Mitchell song, ‘Don’t it always seem to be that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone. They’ve paved paradise and put up a parking lot.’

I suppose it’s too much to expect that some of the homes will be affordable, maybe smaller starter homes or even, dare one say, suitable for retirees who might consider downsizing if such accommodation was available.

Just a thought!

JOYCE BANKS

Silvertrees Drive

Maidenhead

Listen to communities on devolution plans

A recent conversation among friends about the future of local government revealed something striking.

Despite living in areas that could soon see major structural change, few people knew what was being planned, or how it could affect our daily lives.

How can changes of this scale be progressing with so little public awareness or engagement?

The Government’s plans, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, represent one of the most far-reaching reforms to local democracy in a generation.

The White Paper outlines an ‘ambitious first wave’ of reorganisation aimed primarily at two-tier council areas and smaller unitary authorities.

For communities across the Thames Valley, the implications are profound.

Under the proposals, district and borough councils would be abolished and replaced by larger unitary authorities, many led by elected mayors.

The Government argues that this will simplify governance, reduce duplication and provide stronger leadership.

Councils across Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire are being encouraged to consider mergers and shared authority arrangements, yet there remains limited public understanding of what this would mean.

Larger authorities do not automatically lead to better outcomes, particularly if decision-making moves further away from local communities.

The creation of new ‘Strategic Authorities’ and the expansion of mayoral powers would concentrate significant decision-making at a regional level.

Police and Crime Commissioner roles will soon be abolished, potentially placing oversight of policing under future mayoral authorities.

Similar changes are being considered for fire and rescue services, and some health responsibilities could also be devolved.

These developments could place unprecedented power with a small number of regional leaders, raising concerns about how accessible, accountable and connected that leadership would remain.

The White Paper also proposes new powers to suspend councillors and the creation of a national body to oversee serious code of conduct complaints.

While accountability is important, these measures further centralise control.

What is most troubling is the absence of meaningful public engagement.

There is little evidence of widespread consultation with residents, minority communities, faith groups or the voluntary sector.

While discussions with major stakeholders may be progressing, ordinary citizens seem largely excluded.

Consultation may come later, but if it takes place after key decisions have already been shaped, it risks becoming little more than a box-ticking exercise.

Decisions of this magnitude should not be developed behind closed doors.

Local authority leaders across the Thames Valley also have a duty to prioritise resident engagement now.

Community feedback must be actively sought and genuinely incorporated into the design of any new structures.

Local democracy is about more than administrative efficiency; it is about access, trust and representation.

Larger unitary and mayoral authorities may mean fewer councillors representing larger and more diverse populations.

In areas where communities are already diverse and complex, this could make engagement even more difficult.

The experience of Buckinghamshire’s unitary council offers a cautionary lesson.

Some residents and community groups report feeling more disconnected from their elected representatives since the change.

For some, this reinforces fears that local voices are being diluted rather than amplified.

Reorganisation has the potential to deliver financial efficiencies and clearer administrative arrangements.

However, it is important that democratic participation remains central to the process.

Meaningful devolution is strengthened when it is built on trust, supported by transparency, early engagement and public involvement. By prioritising these principles, local government reorganisation in the Thames Valley can enhance accountability, strengthen local democracy and ensure communities feel heard and represented.

Dr ARSHAD JARRAL

Chair of Thames Valley East Masaajid Council (TVMC), writing in a personal capacity

Case for moderation on social care packages

Readers will already know there is a so-called black hole in the council’s finances.

What is less widely known is that most spending is ‘statutory’ – mostly social care packages for adults and children.

At the last cabinet meeting, the finance lead pleaded with councillors for ideas on how to fix the ‘statutory’ spending budget.

The next day I wrote to her about a simple ‘moderation’ system that could save millions of pounds every year.

She dismissed it without taking the time to understand it.

Moderation is a quality control process, involving a second review, to ensure consistency and fairness, aligning standards and preventing disadvantage.

Simple question: why don’t we have anything like this in RBWM for care packages when they are the lion’s share of our statutory spending?

It is often a struggle to get the council to provide the care mum or dad needs.

But others get awarded too much. It isn’t consistent or fair.

This is not the social workers’ fault, it can’t possibly be consistent or fair without moderation.

Why don’t we moderate like we do for exams?

It would be simple and cheap, and very effective.

The answer I’m told is: “No one should have to tell their story twice.”

Because that might be traumatic?

When care packages can be up to half a million pounds a year or more each, we should be willing to tell our story twice, to make the system fair.

That’s a lot of money.

We are all in the mess together, we all suffer with poor services because RBWM has no money to spend on anything else.

Before putting council tax up again, the Liberal Democrat leadership needs to urgently consider a system of moderation for care package awards. In our financial mess, anything less would be unprofessional or naive.

Cllr JACK DOUGLAS

Ind, St Mary’s