Meeting documents

Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Monday, 24th January, 2011 5.00 pm



i


Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Document Title: Minutes of the Planning & Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 24 January 2011
Author: Liz Hornby
Creation Date: Jan 11
.PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

24 JANUARY 2011

PRESENT: Councillors Meadowcroft (Chairman), Beer, Holness, Mrs Howes, Mrs Hunt and Stretton

Officers: Mr Herlinger, Mrs Hornby, Ms Kenyon, Mr Oliver, Mr Packham, Mr Stallwood and Mr Tatham
PART I

55/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs Kemp

56/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Ms Kenyon declared a Personal interest in the Part II item due to being a personal friend with one of the contractors.

57/10 MINUTES
    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings of the Panel held on 8 November 2010 be approved, subject to

58/10 TRAFFIC SIGNAL REVIEW

This item was deferred until the meeting scheduled for 14 March 2011.

59/10 LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN ROLL FORWARD

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 January 2011 on the Local Transport Plan Roll Forward and noted that the current Local Transport Plan (LTP) would expire on 31 March 2011 and that it was recommended that the Council roll forward the existing LTP a further year to 31 March 2012. By doing this, it would enable the Council to take account of the outcomes from the Comprehensive Spending Review. It would also allow co-ordination of the development of the LTP with that of the Local Development Framework (LDF) which would result in an integrated approach to land use and transport planning.

A series of local area workshops were proposed so as to involve local communities in determining priorities and shaping policies. It was noted that packs would be sent out to Ward Councillors informing them of relevant dates and times and giving all relevant information in respect of their local consultation and it was hoped that each Ward Councillor would be involved in the process. Members noted that the first consultation had taken place in the Sunnings and had proved a success. Seven areas in total will be visited and it was hoped that local Councillors, both Ward and Parish, local schools businesses and residents, would be involved. It was agreed PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL – 24.01.11
that Officers would bring a report on how the consultation was received at a later date and would be added to the Panel’s Forward Plan.

Members noted the table in respect of Bus Punctuality and agreed that not enough information was included. Following some discussion it was requested that more detailed information, such as statistics showing the difference between rural and urban bus routes be detailed. In relation to punctuality, Members wished to know how much was in the Borough’s control. It was requested by Members that this be brought back to Panel as a separate report and it was agreed to add this as an item on the Panel’s Forward Plan.

The Panel raised concern over the recent newspaper reports in relation to school children in the Borough being the laziest due to them being taken to school by private transport. It was noted however, that these figures had been obtained from the government and that they did not reflect that there are many rural areas within the Borough where many pupils were not from the local catchment area, some even attended from out of Borough, and that therefore many would travel to and from school by private transport. It was also noted that in rural areas there was a sparse bus service, which meant that pupils were not able to travel by public transport. Members also noted that congestion outside schools continued to be an issue. It was noted that PCSO’s had attended schools to move parents on when they disobeyed the parking / stopping regulations and that for a short time afterwards they would be compliant. However, after a while they would begin to double park and ignore the regulations. Concern was also raised in relation to employing school crossing patrol officers, but that due to the timings i.e., an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon, it was difficult to employ someone willing to work at these times. The Panel put forward the suggestion of asking a parent, or more than one, if they would be willing to volunteer for such a task and that if there were several who were prepared to undertake this task, then a rota system could be introduced.

The Panel noted also that each state school had a Travel Plan and that in many cases cycling was a part of that plan. Officers agreed that they would continue to visit schools to reinforce the cycling / walking message. It was noted that an effective way of educating the parents, was to educate the children first who would, in turn, put pressure on their parents.
    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward.

60/10 LEAN UPDATE

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 10 February 2011 on Lean Systems Thinking Update. However, as no Officer was available to answer any queries the Panel had, it was agreed that this item would be added to the Agenda for the special meeting to be held on 7 February 2011.
    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report be brought back to Panel on the 7 February 2011 before proceeding to Cabinet on 10 February.

61/10 RESPONSE TO PETITION BADNELLS PIT COMPENSATION REQUEST

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 10 February 2011 on the Response to Petition Badnells Pit Compensation Request and noted the petition consisted of fifty-five signatures who wished to claim compensation as they lived close to the site. The petition had been responded to by the Head of Service and having been told that they would not be eligible, they made the decision to request Cabinet to look at their case as they were unhappy with the Officers’ reply.

The Panel noted that there were good controls in place which were being overseen by a residents monitoring group which was chaired by Tim De Meyer, Superintendant with the Thames Valley Police. Members were concerned that awarding compensation this time would then set a precedent for others to claim compensation. It was noted that according to government guidelines compensation would not be applicable in this case. They noted also that this group was entirely seprarate from the residents monitoring group.

The Panel raised some concern with the wording in paragraph 3.3.3 and after a short discussion it was agreed to reconsider the phraseology in the paragraph to give great acknowledgement to residents who live there pre-1993.
    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward subject to reconsidering the phraseology in paragraph 3.3.3, to give greater acknowledgement to residents who live there pre-1993.

62/10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

    RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 9 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.