4.1	Windsor Guildhall access audit and options for a lift.	Ben Smith
4.2	AAF and Planning Applications feedback	Victoria Gibson
4.3	Maidenhead Town Centre Regeneration (including Broadway car park)	Barbara Richardson
4.4	St Marks/Courthouse Road Junction	Neil Walter/Cllr Love
4.5	Maidenhead Station Forecourt	Gordon Oliver
4.6	Equality and Diversity Policy RBWM draft consultation	Information Note from Rachel Kinniburgh
4.7.	Raising the profile of AAF	Angela Clark

 

4.1 Windsor Guildhall access audit and options for a lift

 

Ben Smith, Head of Commissioning – Communities, gave a presentation (Attached) to the Forum. Ben Smith gave a short background, details on the access audit and then went through the six options and the next steps. Ben Smith informed the Forum that there was currently no funding available for this project. All options were costed and were all over £200K.

 

David Scott would welcome all comments from the Forum with the preferred option and would then take to a Senior Leadership Team to find the funding. The most appropriate and deliverable option was Option 2, and this was very challenging but the designs could be made to work in consultation with the conservation officer. The cost of this option was in the region of £400K.

 

The following points were raised by the Forum and answered by the Officers:

·         Where would the access to the Guildhall be? Ben Smith informed the Forum that the access would be through the front entrance. This is currently through the front of the Guildhall on the castle-side.

·         The full report was sent to the Chairman and Vice Chairman for consideration. The consultants had suggested in the report that other immediate works were required at the Guildhall, this had not been budgeted so far. How would this work be carried out? Ben Smith informed the Forum that David Scott was aware of all the issues and would take a report to the Senior Leadership Team.

·         Windsor Guildhall was a publically used venue for Council meetings but had no access facilities for residents using a wheelchair and had no hearing loop facilities. Hence the Guildhall was not suitable for public council meetings. Ben Smith informed the Forum that all these points would be covered in the report that went to the Senior Leadership Team. The Vice Chairman informed the Forum that she would write to the Head of Democratic Services informing them of the difficulties of access at the Guildhall and public meetings currently being held there.

·         The Forum highlighted the details that needed to be considered when a new lift was installed. The depth and width of the lift was very important and the weight that the lift could hold. If a child was using the lift, a carer would also be in the lift so the size was very crucial. The Vice Chairman informed the Forum that the full report with all the options included a section on the types of lifts/platforms that could be used.

 

ACTION: David Scott to send full report to all Forum members.

 

4.2 AAF and Planning Applications feedback

 

Victoria Gibson had sent apologies for the Forum.

 

The Vice Chairman informed the Forum that she had been in contact with the Deputy Head of Planning, Ashley Smith, and was awaiting a date to provide training for assessing planning applications. Since the beginning of the year, 118 planning applications had been considered and 30 responses had been sent to the planning team. Many of those applications have yet to be decided. Four objections were technically invalid as the application was for change of use only and objections on accessibility grounds are invalid. Three responses to applications resulted in changes / improvements to the accessibility for people with disabilities. A clarification on accessibility from a Headteacher had been received for a further application.

 

 

4.3 Maidenhead Town Centre Regeneration (including Broadway car park)

 

Barbara Richardson had sent apologies for the Forum but had sent an update for the Forum, as below:

 

Regeneration Town Centre

Plans are evolving for the York Road Development site

Public consultations took place in both September 2017 and January 2018.  The feedback from these sessions are being captured as part of the design, with a view to a planning submission in May 2018.

 

Temporary Car Parking – the council is evolving the plan for temporary car parking which will mitigate the effects of the regeneration programme.  Planning for these sites will be submitted prior to the submission for York Road redevelopment. It will take into consideration Long Stay, Short Stay and blue Badge user groups.

 

Broadway Car Park

Plans for this project continue to evolve.  Discussion are now underway with planners to look at height, massing and elevation treatment options.  Once these discussion have progressed further, then a public consultation event will take place, to consider stakeholder and residents views and comments.

We are targeting a planning submission for September 2018.

 

The Forum requested further information on ShopMobility. The Chairman and Vice Chairman would arrange a meeting with Barbara Richardson to discuss ShopMobility further.

 

Neil Walter, Parking Principal, informed the Forum that the rebuild would have a purpose built area on the ground floor for ShopMobility. The temporary areas were still being discussed to prevent the facility having to be moved twice. The three areas being discussed were the land on the Landings but if the building work commenced then the facility would be required to move again. The second site was Grove Road car park but this would include crossing a number of major roads to get to the town centre. The third site that was being considered was West Street car park and this was ideal as it had direct access to the back of the High Street. The team were trying to avoid moving ShopMobility twice.

 

The Chairman and Peter Haley both requested that a temporary cover be placed on some of the car park selected for access to the electric vehicles. Neil Walter would request this to the team.

 

The Vice Chairman requested further information on the blue badge bay parking in the town centre.

 

Neil Walter requested that the Forums comments be submitted as soon as possible in order for them to be included in discussions.

 

ACTION: Peter Haley to submit Forum Comments.

 

The Forum were informed of the slippage in The Broadway timetable. This was due to be completed by January 2019 but now had slipped to June 2019.

 

Councillor Love stressed the importance of timing and highlighted that if the demolition had not been completed before June then it would have an effect on the Councillor Love also informed the Forum that there would be twice as many car parking spaces once completed.

 

ACTION: Place on next Agenda

 

4.4 St Marks/Courthouse Road Junction

 

Neil Walter, Parking Principal, informed the Forum that a consultation was due to be issued in the current week. The consultation was going to be for three weeks and results would be available by the beginning of May 2018, with implementation at the beginning of June 2018. This was going to be a large consultation with 800 households being sent the consultation. The consultation would have a significant effect on residents and on local businesses, hence many responses were expected.

 

The points raised by the Forum Members and other invitees included the following:

 

·         On-street parking was used by many families taking their children to the children’s centre. A typical session at the centre lasted two hours but taking the child in and out of the car would take time too. The hospital provided no provision for parking for the children’s centre. Officers responded that the two hour waiting restrictions could still be reviewed to increase to three hours. The hospital could also be contacted to raise the parking provision for the children’s centre.

·         How and where was the consultation going to be available? Officers informed the Forum that residents and local businesses would be sent the consultation in letter form but it would also be available electronically using Survey Monkey.

 

4.5 Maidenhead Station Forecourt

 

Gordon Oliver, Principal Transport Planner, gave a presentation to the Forum (Attached).

 

The points discussed by the Forum included:

 

·         Access to the train station would be closed to all cars when replacement buses were in operation.

·         The plans for Maidenhead station were still work in progress, having continual meetings with Network Rail.

·         All displaced car parking to be located to Stafferton Way multi storey car park.

·         The forecourt would remain as it currently was, the drop off point would get quite congested with the taxi rank positioning.

·         It would be better to put all the disabled parking together in one row. Consideration needs to be given to the space required for ramp access from disabled vehicles to avoid having to cross the path of through traffic. This could include a level surface without boundary marking to allow reverse parking and lowering the ramp on to the central walkway and for the space to be wide enough for larger special assistance vehicles.

·         The points that still needed to be included the access to the bus stop, general accessibility to the station entrance, taxi queuing, walking routes from Stafferton Way to the station and the town centre to the station and signposting.

·         The suggested pavement lighting could have an effect on visual impairment.

 

4.6 Equality and Diversity Policy RBWM draft Consultation

 

Rachel Kinniburgh had sent apologies for the Forum but had sent an update for the Forum, as below:

 

The AAF’s feedback was received and acknowledged with thanks on 26 January 2018. As requested, notes are provided below to update the AAF on progress:

 

·         Draft Policy: The policy is being prepared for consideration by Full Council in April 2018, and as per the last update this includes consultation with the Senior Leadership Team, other internal consultation and consideration by the relevant Lead Member.

 

·         Objectives with associated roles and responsibilities: The council is presently formulating its corporate and service plans for the period 2018/19. Through this process the council’s equality objectives are being formulated which will set out roles and responsibilities. Consideration is being given to governance structures. Equality objectives are refreshed every 4-years and were last updated in 2014. Progress against the Council’s 2014-2018 objectives will be published in the Council’s upcoming Annual Report.

 

·         Complaints Process: Thank you for testing the Complaints process, this is very valuable and your findings have been shared with the Complaints Team and improvements are under discussion.

 

·         Publication of information to the website: The website remains subject to refresh and reconfiguration and so publication is being addressed.

 

The Vice Chairman informed the Forum that, as part of the consultation, the Equality Act 2010 was read in detail. This led to a current issue in RBWM relating to Taxis / Private Hire Vehicles being uncovered.

 

Sections 165-167 of the Equality Act 2010* came into force in April 2017 but need each taxi licensing authority to take specific actions to enable them to come into effect. The Vice Chairman checked whether these actions had happened in RBWM. They had not and consequently the Vice Chairman wrote to the Licensing Team on 1^st February 2018. A verbal update was given to the Licensing Panel on 27^th February 2018 and discussion ensued but no timescale was set for the required changes. The During a search for pertinent implementation information from other local authorities that could help RBWM move forward swiftly, the Vice Chairman came across a response by RBWM in April 2017 to a Freedom of Information request about the enactment of the three sections in the Equality Act 2010. The FoI response stated that RBWM planned to complete this by June 2017.

 

The vice Chairman also asked RBWM to amend Taxi / Private Hire Vehicle licenses, in line with other licensing authorities, to include a penalty for drivers who refuse to take people with guide dogs without having a valid medical exemption certificate.

 

Section 165 contains the actual duties placed on drivers of designated wheelchair accessible taxis and PHVs.

•           to carry the passenger while in the wheelchair;

•           not to make any additional charge for doing so;

•           if the passenger chooses to sit in a passenger seat to carry the wheelchair;

•           to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the passenger is carried in safety and reasonable comfort; and

•           to give the passenger such mobility assistance  as is reasonably required.

 

Section 166 allows licensing authorities to exempt drivers from the duties to assist passengers in wheelchairs if they are satisfied that it is appropriate to do so on medical grounds or because the driver’s physical condition makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for him or her to comply with the duties.

 

Section 167 allows licensing authorities to maintain a list of “designated vehicles”, that is, a list of wheelchair accessible taxis and PHVs. The consequence of being on this list is that the driver must undertake the duties in Section 165 (unless that driver is exempt).

 

Councillor Love suggested that the Forum write to the Lead Member, Councillor Jesse Grey.

 

4.7 Raising the profile of AAF

 

The Chairman would design some posters for printing.