Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Meeting Date:
11/03/2008 Pick

Meeting Time:


Location:


Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):




Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I


Document Type: Agenda


Document Status: Final

COUNCILLOR MRS HOWES (CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLOR KELLAWAY (VICE-CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLORS BEER, J EVANS, HOLNESS, MUIR & MRS H WILSON

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
COUNCILLORS ADAMS, T BURSNALL, MRS LUXTON, RICHARDS, STRETTON, THOMPSON & WERNER

ITEM	SUBJECT	WARD	PAGE NO
	1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence
	2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive Declarations of Interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
	3. MINUTES To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 1 September 2008.		i-iii
	4. FLOOD MONITORING To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on the Flood Monitoring.	Various	1-4
	5. PARTIAL REVIEW OF SOUTH EAST PLAN: GYPSY AND TRAVELLERS ACCOMMODATION NEEDS To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on Partial Review of South East Plan: Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Needs.	All	5-10
	6. DRAFT JOINT BERKSHIRE MINERALS & WASTE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES AND PREFERRED AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT (DECISION) To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on the Draft Joint Berkshire Minerals & Waste Development Control Policies and Preferred Areas Development Plan Document.	Various	11-20
	7. BROADWAY/KING STREET/QUEEN STREET TRIANGLE BRIEF: REPORT OF CONSULTATION AND ADOPTION (DECISION) To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on the Broadway/King Street/Queen Street Triangle Planning Brief: Report of Consultation and Adoption.	Oldfield	21-28
	8. LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN 2006-2011 – DELIVERY REPORT (2006 to 2008) To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on the Local Transoirt Plan 2006-2011 – Delivery Report (2006 to 2008).	Various	29-43
	9. PARKING SYSTEMS REVIEW To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on the Parking Systems Review.	Oldfield	To Follow
	10. REVIEW OF COUNCIL’S HOUSING ALLOCATION POLICY To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 November 2008 on the Review of Council’s Housing Allocation Policy.	All	44-47
	11. HOUSING STRATEGY 2008-2011 To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2008 on the Housing Strategy 2008-2011	All	48-52
	12. HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY 2008-2011 To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2008 on the Homelessness Strategy 2008-2011.	All	53-60
	13. SERVICE MONITORING REPORT To receive the latest service monitoring report in respect of Planning and Environmental services.	All	61-72
	14. WORK PROGRAMME The following items are scheduled for discussion at the meeting of the Panel to be held on 15 December 2008: Service Monitoring Report Norden Road Petition	Various	-

1.1 This report provides an update on actions taken in regard to flooding since the last Flood Monitoring Report at May 2008 Cabinet, including Flood Awareness Month, work programmes, the Pitt Report and work undertaken by Thames Water.

The Borough Generic Flood Plan has now been published on the Counci’s Website.

The Borough is leading for Berkshire on the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum Multi Agency Flooding Sub Group, developing a Thames Valley wide Flood Response Strategy.

14 Streetcare staff attended a Flood Awareness course.

The Council is participating in the Met Office early warning advisory pilot scheme.

The Council has joined the newly formed Local Government Flood Forum and attended the inaugural meeting on 14^th October 2007.

That the flooding actions be noted.

Background

3. 1 Since the last Flood Monitoring Report in May 2008 there have been no major flooding incidents. A number of Severe Weather Warnings were received during this period relating to storms. As a result the Streetcare Team put enhanced standby arrangements in place and on a number of occasions the Streetcare team responded to flash flooding on the highways however no flooding to habitable property occurred.

3. 2 The most significant national development relating to flooding is the outcome of the Pitt Report. During August 2007, Sir Michael Pitt was asked by ministers to carry out a review of the flood-related emergencies that occurred during the summer of 2007. The interim conclusions of this review were published in December 2007 with the Final Report being published on 25^th June 2008 that makes 92 recommendations. Many of these recommendations will have an impact on Local Authorities, and are likely to require a significant increase in funding and resources to implement.

3. 3 Following on from the publication of the Pitt Report, and the Government’s Water Strategy, “Future Water”, Government has said that it intends to publish a draft Floods and Water Bill for consultation in 2009. While the detailed provisions of this Bill are still being scoped it is intended that it will reflect the recommendations of the Pitt Report and will allow current complex and outdated legislation relating to flood and coastal erosion risk management to be simplified and streamlined. It is also intended that the Bill will amend some areas of legislation relating to the Water supply industry. Members will be updated on progress on this matter once further information is made available.

3. 4 The Council in conjunction with the Environment Agency and the National Flood Forum promoted October as a dedicated Flood Awareness Month. The main purpose was to provide information and advice on how to prepare for flooding by demonstrating practical ways of minimising damage to property and learning how to stay safe. As part of Flood Awareness Month the Council offered a subsidy to residents living in high risk flood areas towards the cost of a “flood pack”. These are available from suppliers and include useful items that can be used in times of flooding. Three events held in the borough with a main flood fair held at the Thames Valley Athletics Centre on Wednesday October 8. Mini flood fairs were held in Wraysbury Village Hall on Monday October 13 and in the Pinder Hall Cookham on Wednesday October 15. Approximately 300 residents attended these events and they found the events helpful. Residents particularly welcomed the opportunity to discuss issues relating to their properties with the various organisations in attendance. Many of the exhibitors said that residents were impressed with the range of flood prevention products on display. The events received good coverage in the local media.

3. 5 Work started in October on the Clare Road flood alleviation scheme approved by Cabinet in November 2007. This should be completed by Christmas. Phase 1 of the Pines flood alleviation scheme is also running in parallel and should also be completed by Christmas with Phase 2 being undertaken in Spring 2009.

3. 6 Regular liaison between the Council and Thames Water has continued. Thames Water has undertaken over 900 pro-active jobs in the borough since the flooding in July 2007. These have included 5 Kilometers of CCTV surveys, 15 Kilometers of sewer cleaning and repairs to collapses and blockages. Specific problems at Pierson Road Windsor and Oaken Grove have been addressed. Over 650 meters of foul and surface water drains have been cleaned in the Wootton Way area with investigation
of the problem ongoing.

3.7 The planned annual meeting of the Thames Flood Forum hosted by the Borough on 4^th November 2008 has been postponed at the request of the Environment Agency due to number of their key staff being unavailable. It is anticipated that the event will be rescheduled early in the New Year.

3.8 Since the last Flood Monitoring report the following actions have been progressed:

The Borough Generic Flood Plan has now been published on the Counci’s Website.

The Borough is leading for Berkshire on the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum Multi Agency Flooding Sub Group, developing a Thames Valley wide Flood Response Strategy.

14 Streetcare staff attended a Flood Awareness course.

The Council is participating in the Met Office early warning advisory pilot scheme.

The Council has joined the newly formed Local Government Flood Forum and attended the inaugural meeting on 14^th October 2007.

4.1 Options

The report is for information only.

4.2 Risk assessment

4.2.1 There are no risks associated with this report however there is a general risk of flooding.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

5.1 None

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 Comments will be inserted following the Planning & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel meeting on 3^rd November 2008.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

	Legal	Finance	Planning	Property	Procurement	DMT
Name:	Rupert Avery	Jenny Bailey	N/A	N/A	N/A	David Oram
Date Approved:	14/10/2008	14/10/2008	N/A	N/A	N/A	11/09/2008

	Directors Group	Lead Member	Ward Cllrs (if Appropriate)	Leader’s Office	Scrutiny Panel
Name:	David Oram	Cllr C Rayner	N/A	Cllr D Burbage	David Perkins
Date Approved:	22/10/2009	22/10/2008	N/A	24/10/2008	03/11/2008

Date: 3 November 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Mrs Knight

Contact Officer(s): Chris Thomas, Head of Housing and Residential Development Tel: 01628 796091

Wards affected: None

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The South East Regional Assembly is consulting on options for delivering accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The consultation runs from 1^st September to 21^st November 2008. Agreement has however been reached for the Royal Borough to submit comments following the meeting of Cabinet in November. The consultation documents are available at http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan/consultation/gt_update.html and hard copies have been placed at council receptions at the Town Hall and York House.

1.2 The consultation documents proposed four options for the distribution of Gypsy, Traveller and Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople plots. Distributions vary from meeting all needs as close as possible to existing facilities to meeting only half of the need with regard to existing facilities with the remaining half spread across the region.

1.3 In total 78 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers are proposed across Berkshire under each option. Provision for Travelling Showpeople ranges from 0 to 14 plots across the county.

1.4 The Berkshire authorities have agreed to jointly support Option B which requires an additional 9 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers and no additional plots for Travelling Showpeople.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet endorses the recommended response of Option B to be submitted to the Regional Assembly.

3.1 Background

3.1.1 The South East Plan is part of the statutory Development Plan against which local planning authorities prepare their Local Development Frameworks and make planning decisions.

3.1.2 The South East England Regional Assembly (the Regional Assembly) is holding a public consultation on the options for delivering accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople across the region. The consultation runs for 12-weeks from 1^st September to 21^st November. The Council has reached an agreement to submit comments following Cabinet’s meeting in November.

3.1.3 The consultation seeks views on the proposed number of pitches and the distribution across the region. Based on technical assessments, 1064 Gypsy and Traveller pitches are proposed, and a further 276 plots for Travelling Showpeople are proposed across the region. Four options are presented on how these pitches and plots could be distributed.

3.2 Main Implications for the Royal Borough

3.2.1 The Gypsy and Traveller population is not evenly distributed across the region. Indeed, the current provision in Berkshire is unbalanced with significantly greater provision in east Berkshire than in central and western Berkshire. It is recognised that current provision may not reflect choice but availability. Options proposing a partial redistribution can be supported for this reason. Partial redistribution is further supported by the results of the Thames Valley Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and the results of community engagement.

3.2.2 National planning advice on flood risk is that caravans should not be located within areas at high risk of flooding. The Royal Borough has extensive areas at risk of flooding particularly around the Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Hythe End areas. This corresponds with the borough’s largest Gypsy and Traveller community making meeting need as close as possible to existing communities at conflict with national policy.

3.2.3 Under the Housing Act 2004, the Council will be required to meet the identified needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community. These will have to be designated through the Local Development Framework.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. No response to consultation.	Given the variable figures for required plot numbers, it is important that RBWM expresses a view on local needs.	Revenue: None at present Capital: None at present
	2. Recommend Option B.	If accepted this would require an additional 9 plots to be provided locally.	Revenue: There may be some revenue costs related to management of a site, depending on where it is located. Capital: There will be a capital requirement for potentially acquiring land, laying out the site and putting in services.
	3. Recommend one of the other Options.	This may result in RBWM having to provide a larger number of plots, especially if Option A is considered.	Revenue: There could be higher revenue costs than with Option B. Capital: There would be higher capital costs if Option A is required.

4.2.1 The risk of not responding to the consultation is that the Regional Assembly will have to come to a decision without a view being expressed by the Council about identified needs, and may impose an unrealistic requirement for new plots within RBWM.

4.2.2 Option B represents a balanced approach across the region, and reflects needs in RBWM as outlined in the accommodation assessment. The risks associated with this option surround the availability of a suitable site being found, and the associated costs, which cannot be estimated properly at this time.

4.2.3 Recommending other options, particularly Option A, could leave the Council in the position of having to deliver a larger number of plots with much larger associated costs. It could also prove much more difficult to find a site large enough for 25 plots, and it is quite likely that at least 2 sites would be necessary.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

5.1 No external consultation has been carried out in the preparation of this report.

5.2 Notification of the consultation has been sent to local groups including Parish / Town Councils, Registered Social Landlords (housing associations), key service providers (health trusts, education authority, police, fire and rescue), resident and interest groups, and representatives from the local Gypsy and Traveller community.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Will be added later.

IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Financial	Legal	Human Rights Act	Planning	Sustainable Development	Diversity & Equality
ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorisation:

	Legal	Finance	Planning	Property	Procurement	DMT
Name:	Rupert Avery	Alan Abrahamson	Tim Slaney	Peter Green	Gary Richardson	Chris Thomas
Date Approved:			29/9/08	30/9/08	30/9/08	09/10/08

	Directors Group	Lead Member	Ward Cllrs (if Appropriate)	Leader’s Office	Scrutiny Panel
Name:	Jim Gould
Date Approved:	15/10/08

1.1 This report outlines the purpose and content of the draft Joint Minerals and Waste Development Control Policies and Preferred Areas Development Plan Document (Joint Minerals and Waste DPD). The document provides the detailed policy implementation for the strategy for minerals and waste development in Berkshire. The report recommends comments and proposed amendments to the document to be agreed, as the Council’s response. Comments will be referred back to the Joint Strategic Planning Committee upon which our Lead Member sits, for final approval of the Plan in December 2008, prior to being published for ’consultation’ in the New Year.

1.2 The Joint Minerals and Waste DPD is one part of the policy framework for minerals and waste in Berkshire. It needs to be read in conjunction with the Joint Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD which sets out the overall direction for Berkshire’s policies for minerals and waste. This was published for consultation on 15^th September 2008 following final approval by the Joint Committee on 30^th July 2008 which included minor amendments relating to the Green Belt policy (suggested by this authority -Council 24^th June 2008).

1.3 The Joint Minerals and Waste DPD, when adopted will provide

development control policies

site-specific allocations to provide for the supply of sufficient minerals for society’s needs, including recycled and secondary aggregates

site-specific allocations to enable the development of sufficient facilities to manage future waste arising in a sustainable manner.

1.4 The document also defines a number of ‘preferred areas’ for minerals extraction and waste. In the Royal Borough, the sites identified as ‘preferred areas’ are based on areas previously contained in Minerals and Waste Local Plans and updated through consultation on potential sites by the retained consultants for the six authorities.

Minerals Preferred areas	Waste Preferred Areas
Riding Court Farm, Datchet (Site Ref M01)	Hindhay Quarry, Maidenhead (Site Ref W01)
Upper Bray Road, Bray (Site Ref M04)	Braywick, Maidenhead (Site Ref W02)
Water Oakley Farm, Fifield (Site Ref M05)	Riding Court Farm, Datchet (Site Ref W04)
	North of Horton (Site Ref W05)
	Sheephouse Farm, Maidenhead (Site Ref W07)
	Kingsmead Quarry, Horton (Site Ref W08)

Upper Bray Road cannot be endorsed at this stage by the Council in light of a recent planning refusal. It is subject to appeal and should therefore not be identified as a Minerals Preferred Area
Riding Court Farm and Water Oakley Farm should be endorsed as Minerals Preferred Areas because of their contribution towards the identified minerals needs and subject to appropriate environmental protection measures.

That Cabinet:

a) Approves the comments and suggested amendments to the Draft Joint Minerals and Waste Development Control Policies and Preferred Areas Development Plan Document as set out in Appendix 1 of this report, as this Council’s response to the Joint Strategic Planning Committee.
b) That authority is delegated to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning and Housing, to agree any further amendments to the Joint Minerals and Waste Development Control Policies and Preferred Areas Development Plan Document suggested by the Joint Strategic Planning Unit or the other Berkshire Unitary Authorities prior to the publication of the document in early 2009.

Background

3.1 At a meeting of the Joint Strategic Planning Committee on the 9^th September 2008, the Minerals and Waste Development Control Policies and Preferred Areas Development Plan Document (Joint Minerals and Waste DPD) was agreed for referral to each of the individual Unitary Authorities for detailed consideration. As part of this process, any proposed amendments suggested by this Authority (and the other Berkshire Unitary Authorities) will be reported back to the next Joint Committee in December 2008 for possible inclusion in the final consultation draft. Once agreed by the Joint Committee, the document will then be published and be subject to public consultation under Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.

3.2 A copy of the Joint Minerals and Waste DPD is available for viewing in the Group Rooms, Members’ Room and from Democratic Services.

3.3 The Joint Minerals and Waste DPD is part of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework for Berkshire (MWDF), being prepared on behalf of the six Berkshire unitary authorities. The MWDF sets out policies on planning for minerals and waste development in Berkshire up to 2026, and will replace the existing Minerals and Waste Local Plans for Berkshire.

3.4 The Minerals and Waste Development Framework has three elements:
A Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, which was agreed for consultation and submission to the Secretary of State at Council on 24 June 2008. Consultation began on 15 September 2008;
A Minerals and Waste Development Control and Preferred Areas DPD, which provides a greater level of detail to the Core Strategy in terms of detailed policies and identification of sites; and
A proposals map.

3.5 The first stage in producing the Minerals and Waste DPD was consultation on Issues and Options, which took place in Autumn 2007. This stage presented a range of policy options and put forward all potential candidate sites for sand and gravel extraction and waste management facilities, as well as potential sites for rail depots for transport of aggregates. The results of the community involvement are summarised within the Joint Minerals and Waste DPD itself, in relation to individual sections of the document.

3.6 Since the production of the Issues and Options document, the system for preparing Local Development Frameworks has been changed by the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. This means that the Minerals and Waste DPD now needs to be subject to a ‘Regulation 25’ consultation, which includes the proposed policies and preferred areas. Drafting of this stage of the document has taken the results of consultation on Issues and Options into account.

3.7 After the round of community involvement in early 2009, a final version of the Minerals and Waste DPD will be prepared. This will then be subject to a third and final six-week community involvement period, after which it will be submitted to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then appoint an Inspector to hold an Examination into the document to consider whether it is ‘sound’.

3.8 The Joint Minerals and Waste DPD needs to be read in conjunction with the higher-level policies in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, and the emerging South East Plan. For instance, the Core Strategy sets out the general approach to Preferred Areas, and how applications for minerals extraction or waste management facilities will be treated, whilst the Joint Minerals and Waste DPD designates those Preferred Areas.

3.9 The main purpose of the document is to provide detail on the implementation of the Spatial Strategy for the Minerals and Waste Development Framework. The document is divided into three main sections. The first sets out general development control policies for both minerals and waste development. The second includes detailed site allocations for minerals development, whilst the third includes allocations for waste development. The document says little in terms of overall context, vision and broad strategy, which are all matters covered in more depth in the Core Strategy.

3.10 The general Development Control section sets out nine policies (policy DC1 to DC9), which are applicable to both minerals and waste development. These deal with matters such as efficient use of resources, landscape and conservation designations, protection of the environment, public safety and access to the highway network as indicated below:

Sustainable Minerals and Waste Development (Policy DC1)
Development control Considerations (Policy DC2)
Minerals and Waste Development in the North Wessex AONB (Policy DC3)
Minerals and Waste Development in the Green Belt (Policy DC4)
Protecting the Special Assets of Berkshire (Policy DC5)
Protection of the Water Environment (Policy DC6)
Environmental Protection (Policy DC7)
Public Safety (DC8)
Highways (Policy DC9)

3.11 In terms of sites for minerals extraction, the main focus is on sharp sand and gravel. In line with the expectation of the Core Strategy, the Joint Minerals and Waste DPD identifies ‘Minerals Safeguarding Areas’, which cover much of the Royal Borough. This is simply a reflection of where minerals deposits occur, and, in order for surface development of any kind on urban sites of over two hectares to proceed in these areas, there must be justification for not extracting the minerals.

3.12 There is some uncertainty over what the regional apportionment for Berkshire will be in terms of extraction of sharp sand and gravel. Table 4.1 in the document gives a range of possible apportionment rates and the total amount of minerals each involves. When compared against the total potential yield of the proposed preferred areas for sharp sand and gravel, it is clear that the total available tonnage on these sites falls marginally short of the total required to meet the highest possible revised apportionment rate for Berkshire. Depending on the outcome of the review, any outstanding balance may be made up from further nominations following consultation. However, it demonstrates that there is little room for manoeuvre in deciding which sites should be allocated as Preferred Areas.

Main Implications for the Royal Borough

3.13 A number of Preferred Areas for sharp sand and gravel extraction are identified, 3 of which are in the Royal Borough as indicated in Appendix 1.

3.14 In terms of building sand, the DPD takes the approach of identifying ‘areas of search’. This is because there is little certainty about which areas contain suitable deposits. These ‘areas of search’ include parts of the River Thames basin.

3.15 The identified sites for additional waste capacity will be able to meet the area’s needs until at least 2020. However, beyond then, Berkshire will be relying on sites that are as yet unidentified to meet the remaining 200,000 tonnes of capacity. Once again, there is therefore little room for manoeuvre in allocating sites.

3.16 The identified Preferred Areas for waste management capacity include Hindhay Quarry, Pinkneys Green; Braywick Civic Amenity Site, Maidenhead; Riding Court Farm, Datchet; North of Horton; Sheephouse Farm, Maidenhead and Kingsmead Quarry, Horton. Monkey Island Lane is not identified. Comments on these sites are also contained in Appendix 1.

3.17 The site at Hythe End Lane, Wraysbury is not identified in the Joint Minerals and Waste DPD. This follows the comments made by this Council to a previous document-related consultation on 2^nd November 2007. This site is considered not to be appropriate for future expansion due to flooding, amenity and highway issues. Similarly, the report recommends that a strong objection be made to the allocation of Star Works, Knowl Hill as a waste preferred area due to environmental concerns.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. To agree comments to the Joint Minerals and Waste DPD as recommended to Cabinet.	Comments for each Unitary Authority referred to the Joint Committee will enable an agreed document to proceed in accordance with the timetable set out in the Berkshire Authorities Joint Minerals and Waste Local Development scheme.	Revenue: None Capital: None
	2. Not to agree comments on the Joint Minerals and Waste DPD.	Not to respond or to delay responding to the document means that the Council and the other Berkshire authorities are extremely unlikely to achieve the timetable detailed in the Minerals & Waste Local Development Scheme and will have implications for other parts of the Development Plan. Delaying the decision will also hinder the proper planning of both the borough and Berkshire as a whole. Of great importance, also is the need to ensure that Council’s views lead to an amended document which reflects the views of residents, particularly in relation to the proposed preferred areas within the Royal Borough.	Revenue: None Capital: None

There are no significant risks associated with the recommended Option. Issues to consider are if there was significant delay to the procedure for agreeing the draft document. By agreeing the recommendation, the delegated responsibility to agree changes to the document should avoid any undue delay which could result in key milestones being missed and / or development going ahead where it should not.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

5.1 No external consultation has been carried out in the preparation of this report.

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 To be added following the O/S meeting.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Financial	Legal	Human Rights Act	Planning	Sustainable Development	Diversity & Equality

i) Sustainability Appraisal (including Strategic Environmental Appraisal) of the Submission Core Strategy
ii) Appropriate Assessment of the submission Minerals & Waste Core Strategy
iii) Representations received on the Preferred Option for the Minerals & Waste Core Strategy
iv) Response to representations on Preferred Option for the Minerals & Waste Draft Core Strategy

	Legal	Finance	Planning	Property	Procurement	DMT
Name:	Tracy Allen	Jenny Bailey	Tim Slaney	N/a	N/a	David Oram
Date Approved:	Consulted 08/09/2008	Consulted 08/09/2008	9/09/08			09/09/2008

	Directors Group	Lead Member	Ward Cllrs (if Appropriate)	Leader’s Office	Scrutiny Panel
Name:	David Oram	Cllr Mrs Knight	N/a	Cllr Burbage	Planning and Environment
Date Approved:		Consulted 08/09/2008

Table 1: Minerals – Preferred areas for Sand and Gravel Extraction

Table 2: Waste Preferred Areas

Table 3: Waste – site allocations - Sphere of Mutual Interest

Overview and Scrutiny Panel

43

E:\DOCS-N2Z\Panels\Overview and Scrutiny\Planning and Environment\Reports\081103\meetings_081103_peosp_LTP2_delivery_report.doc

Date: 27 NOVEMBER 2008

Member Reporting: COUNCILLOR RAYNER

Contact Officer(s): Gail Kenyon – Transport Policy and Implementation Group Manager – 01628 796157

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This Cabinet report details our progress on the first 2 years of the Local Transport Plan 2006-2011. The Local Transport Plan (LTP2) is the key document upon which all transport measures are based and represents a 5-year strategy and implementation plan for transport and highway works in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, covering the period from 2006/07 to 2010/11. The Department for Transport requires local authorities to review their progress in implementing LTP2’s and to prepare and publish concise progress reports. The full Progress Report as Appendix 1 is available in the Group Rooms, Members Rooms and from Democratic Services.

Key Achievements

1.2 The Borough is proud of what it has achieved with its Local Transport Plan, which was assessed as ‘good’ by the Department for Transport. Over the first two years of the Plan period, we have significantly increased investment in transport infrastructure and services and improved programme management procedures to delivery a greatly increased work programme. This is already having tangible results in terms of improving the quality and performance of our transport networks.

Programme Delivery

1.3 We have significantly expanded our capital programme; from less than £3 million in 2006/07 to a programmed spend of circa £5 million in 2008/09. Revenue spend has also increased, particularly in areas of high priority, such as delivering improved routine maintenance and public transport provision.

1.4 With expanded capital programmes come additional challenges in terms of delivery. The Borough has ensured that sufficient resources are available to cope with the additional work, and has tightened programme management processes. Despite increasing expenditure by a third in 2007/08, stretch targets were achieved again.

Delivery of LTP Strategies

1.5 The Borough and its partners have delivered numerous initiatives, which form part of an integrated strategy for delivering LTP objectives and targets. Some of the key measures include:

Real-Time Passenger Information was launched in Maidenhead and Windsor, with 9 stops equipped in 2006/07, serving routes 6/6A, 7A/7B and 77 and route 71 equipped in 2007/08.
Secured a Quality Bus Partnership with First Group, BAA, and Slough Borough Council for the 75/76/77 services, resulting in more frequent and extended services, newer buses, improved journey reliability and better information.
The Borough financially supports 9 local bus services, with patronage on these services showing significant and sustained year-on-year growth - up nearly 29% in the last 2 years, with over 4 years of continuous growth.
Over 7,500 pupils took part in Walk to School events in 2006/07 and 2007/08, with some schools encouraging up to 98% of pupils to walk to school.
New / upgraded signal-controlled crossings have been installed in Ascot, Cookham, Maidenhead, Sunningdale and Wraysbury.
The Council successfully took responsibility for parking enforcement on 14 January 2008. Compliance with parking restrictions and turnover of spaces has both improved significantly.
The Borough has increased expenditure on carriageway maintenance from £750,000 in 2006/07 to £1.25 million in 2008/09. Nearly 55km of carriageway have been treated in the last two years.
Over 360 street lighting columns have been replaced with modern low-energy units, which has not only reduced the number of obsolete / failed columns, but has also helped us to reduce our CO₂ emissions.

1.6 Windsor Parking and Transport Scheme – Following the decision not to proceed with the Park and Ride scheme serving the Windsor and Eton Relief Road corridor, the Royal Borough has been working closely with the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) to develop an alternative package of measures that could be submitted as a revised Major Scheme bid to deliver the benefits of the Windsor Park and Ride in a different way. This new package includes:

Enhancements to existing park and ride facilities;
Creation of new park and ride facilities to the west and south of the town;
Bus priority measures at key junctions;
Improved access for pedestrians and cyclists;
Expansion of / improvements to existing town centre car parks;
Comprehensive branding for car parks;
Changes to parking regimes;
Real-time information on congestion and parking;
Reconstruction of the Clarence Road roundabout.

Bridge parapet replacement;
Safety barrier replacement;
Bridge deck waterproofing and joint replacement;
Street lighting replacement; and
Carriageway resurfacing.

Progress Towards Targets

1.9 The Borough has made good progress in working towards both national and local targets. Highlights include:

Substantial additional investment in maintenance programmes has reversed the deterioration in the condition of principal roads and put the Borough on track to achieve targets for the condition of both principal and non-principal roads.
The Borough is on track to better national targets and local stretch targets for all categories of casualty reduction.
Bus patronage levels have exceeded all expectations, with a 29% increase in the first two years of LTP2 alone, surpassing levels required to achieve both LTP2 and Local Area Agreement targets.
Street lighting operation has continued to deliver performance in excess of target thresholds, with over 98% of streetlights operating as planned in each of the first two years of the Plan period.
Traffic growth is being contained within the urban areas where flows are currently below anticipated trajectories.

Moving Forward

1.11 The Council has started making better use of ‘Smarter Choices’ initiatives, such as travel information and advice, awareness campaigns, education programmes, travel plans and integrated ticketing solutions, which can have a significant impact on travel choices and effectively complement improvements to transport infrastructure and networks.

1.12 The Borough has been working well with schools to develop School Travel Plans and has launched its School Travel Reward Scheme (STaRS), rewarding children who walk and cycle to school with free and fun sporting activities. The Council has also worked with neighbouring authorities to launch the Berkshire School Travel Excellence Programme (STEP), which is an accreditation and awards scheme designed to encourage schools to implement their School Travel Plans and keep them updated.

1.13 The Royal Borough is working with neighbouring authorities to look at how workplace travel plans are secured and monitored through the planning process, and also at how organisations can be encouraged and supported to develop travel plans on a voluntary basis. The Council has already published a best practice guide for Workplace Travel Plans.

1.14 The Borough has identified a number of potential sources of external funding for transport projects and will be working with neighbouring local authorities and partners on a number of cross-boundary initiatives.

Details of how we intend to address these issues can be found in appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 34.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That:

2.1 Cabinet approves the Delivery Report 2006-2008 on the Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (LTP2) for submission to the Government Office for the South East by 31^st December 2008, and that any final changes be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the lead Member for Traffic and Transportation.

Background

3.1 Members may recall that Cabinet in July 2007 were presented with the results of our Year 1 (2006/07) Progress Report and Members approved the following:

a) Cabinet approves the Year 1 (2006/07) Progress report on Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (LTP2) for submission to the Government Office for the South East by 31^st July 2007, and that any final changes be delegated to the Director of Community Services in consultation with the lead Member for Traffic and Transportation.
b) The Director of Community Service in consultation with the Lead Member for Transport reviews the methodology for collecting road condition data and takes appropriate action. See para. 3.18.

3.2 The Year 1 results have been incorporated into a Delivery Report that covers the 2 years as required by Government requirements. Progress on the second recommendation is discussed in para. 3.18 of this report.

3.3 The Local Transport Plan (LTP2) is the key document upon which all transport measures are based and represents a 5-year strategy and implementation plan for transport and highway works in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, covering the period from 2006/07 to 2010/11. It has been assessed and rated as “Good” by Government. The budget is based around delivery of the targets set out in this key plan.

3.4 The LTP is set within the context of the Borough’s Community Strategy (2007-2013). The Community Strategy aims to address priorities highlighted by residents and other stakeholders including:

reduced crime levels
improved facilities for children and young people
reduced speed of traffic
improved road safety
better car parking
better local public transport
reduced traffic/congestion
improved access to leisure facilities
more say on local issues
better quality or more affordable housing
restricting night flights
improved local health services
improved schools/educational standards

Supporting Children and Young People
Supporting Adults and Older People
Safer and Stronger Communities
A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough

Improving road maintenance;
Safer roads;
Tackling crime and disorder;
Reducing congestion (and tackling the school run in particular);
Improving access to town centres and promoting travel choice.

3.8 The LTP2 has been progressed by a steering group with membership drawn from across the authority’s service areas. Additionally, we have sought to engage neighbouring local authorities on cross-boundary issues and other key stakeholders, including: South East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA); healthcare providers; the police; strategic road and rail authorities; and transport operators.

3.9 The resulting strategy seeks to tackle important local issues with an emphasis on making the best possible use of existing infrastructure and services, while delivering the greatest return from any investment in new infrastructure.

3.10 The Local Transport Plan was prepared in accordance with Government guidance. Particular attention was paid to ensuring that the document satisfied the stipulated assessment criteria. The guidance emphasised 4 key themes:

Setting transport in a wider context;
Locally relevant targets;
Identifying the best value for money solutions;
Indicators and trajectories.

analysis of local transport problems and opportunities; and
the effectiveness of consultation and involvement of stakeholders.

3.13 Delivery of 2006/07 and 2007/08 LTP2 Programme

3.14 Financial Report - The Borough has been asked to demonstrate how well we have managed our programme of works and associated budgets against the amount of money the Department for Transport advised us should be spent on our roads and transport in our settlement letter. Please refer to Appendix 1 Chapter 2 page 3 for a full report for 2007/08.

Expenditure Profile 2006/07 Scheme Delivery Profile 2006/07

Expenditure Profile 2007/08 Scheme Delivery Profile 2007/08

3.15 Case Studies - A number of case studies have been identified in the full report (Appendix 1), which provide some illustrations of the work that we have undertaken in conjunction with local partners and stakeholders to deliver the strategies set out within the Local Transport Plan. The chosen examples illustrate how we have pro-actively sought to identify linkages between individual schemes and programmes of work. This has enabled us to combine them into wider mutually supporting and complementary packages, delivering enhanced user benefits and best value for money.

3.16 Major Scheme Bid - For LTP2 purposes, Major Schemes are defined as those that cost in excess of £5 million and which are of regional or sub-regional importance. The Council is seeking to progress two major schemes. The first is a major scheme proposal for the Windsor and Eton Relief Road Maintenance Scheme, which includes a package of measures worth over £5 million and combined maintenance schemes for: road surfacing; street lighting; bridge and culvert maintenance; parapet replacement; and verge works. The second is the Windsor Parking and Transport Project, featuring a package of measures worth £19m including, a traffic management scheme for Clarence Road Roundabout, parking facilities for Windsor and a number of Park and Ride Sites along with an Integrated Transport System to manage spaces and traffic effectively. Further details of both of these schemes can be found in Appendix 1 Chapter 3 para. 3.6 page 22.

3.17 Progress Towards Targets - There are a number of LTP2 performance indicators for which all local authorities are required to set targets and report performance. The precise number varies according to the nature of each authority and the transport issues that affect them. For the Borough, 19 targets have been set and are monitored. These Core Targets relate to policy issues considered to be of national importance, as agreed between Government and the Local Government association. They include relevant Local Area Agreement indicators, which are submitted to the Audit Commission, as well as 10 indicators that are specific to the LTP2 process. The pie chart below summarises the Borough’s performance in working towards its targets after the first 2 years of LTP2, showing the overall number of indicators where the Council is ‘on track’ or ‘not on track’ to deliver its targets.

	On Track	No Clear Evidence	Not On Track
Core Targets	9	1	9
Local Targets	5	0	5

3.18 Collection of Road Condition Data – The system for collection of assessment data has to be accredited by the Department for Transport. Analysis of the data is also carried out with standardised software. There has been difficulty in obtaining the assessment data, as there are only 3 firms with this very expensive equipment (and the Highways Agency, looking after the Motorway Network, has always claimed “first call” on availability).

Officers have now negotiated more consistent arrangements for 2008 and 2009, which will give time to establish a new contract for the 2010 season and beyond. The results from the data for the last 2 years have shown a significant improvement in the condition of both A and B road, due to the increased capital investment available for resurfacing work and also the revised techniques used to treat these roads.

3.19 Air Quality Management - Air Quality is an integrated part of the LTP2 process and during the first 2 years we have been working on the delivery of an Air Quality Action Plan linked to the objectives in the LTP2. An Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) was submitted to DEFRA in March 2006 and approved in December 2006 by Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Separate Annual Progress Reports to the LTP2 process are statutorily required by DEFRA on the AQAP up to 2009. Through the LTP2 process we have been working on delivering initiatives that contribute to achieving the National Air Quality objectives for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) in accordance with DEFRA Requirements. These are related to traffic emissions and contributed to the designation of our Air Quality Management Areas for Windsor and Maidenhead (Clarence Road Roundabout and A308 along King Street, Frascati Way and around Broadway). From the Air Quality Action Plan we have identified areas where we need to take action to improve the situation, this is in the form of an Outcome Improvement Plan (OIP), which can be viewed in Appendix 1 Annex C page 50. This shows projects we have been working on or are due to progress that contributes to improving air quality in the two zones.

Examples of initiatives within the OIP include:

o School Travel Plans (20 no.)
o Active Workplace Travel Plans (8 no.)
o Walk to School initiatives (7,900 pupils)
o Speed indicator devices (various locations)
o Supported Bus Services (9 no.)
o Rail Partnership discussions (First Great Western and South West Trains)
o Review of local congestion issues
o Local congestion reduction projects

3.20 Accessibility Strategy – The Council completed its Accessibility Strategy in 2006/07, aimed at improving access to education, employment, healthcare; and local retail centres. The Borough originally adopted one of the Government’s four core indicators for accessibility. The chosen indicator was access to local centres by public transport, walking and cycling for all households and for households without access to a car. GOSE was keen for the Borough to include an accessibility indicator as a reward target in the Local Area Agreement, but the Council did not feel that the existing target was meaningful or capable of demonstrating progress in addressing local priorities. GOSE has since encouraged the Council to work with its partner agencies to identify a more innovative indicator that better reflects local needs and aspirations than the national indicator. This is being developed for inclusion in the LAA refresh in 2009.

3.21 What has worked well?

Programme Management – The Borough has adopted a comprehensive, clearly defined and robust project management regime to manage and monitor delivery of projects and programmes, reporting monthly to a senior level steering group and monitoring progress monthly through an operational level project board. See Appendix 1 Chapter 2 page 8 para. 2.5.

3.22 Areas for Future Action and Mitigation Measures?

Smarter Choices – There is mounting evidence to suggest that so called ‘smarter choices’ initiatives, such as travel information and advice, awareness campaigns, education programmes, travel plans and integrated ticketing solutions can have a significant impact on travel choices. If successful this forms a significant part of the SEERA Major Schemes Bid mentioned above. See Appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 36 para. 5.1.

External Funding Bids – The Borough has identified a number of potential sources of external funding for transport projects. For example, the Council is working with the Olympic Delivery Authority on bids for schemes to improve walking and cycling access to key services and facilities specifically for the Olympic event at Dorney. It is also working with First Great Western and South West Trains on bids for measures that will improve access to local rail stations, as well as bidding for funding from the Sustrans Links to School scheme in order to construct new cycle routes connecting schools to the local and national cycle networks. See Appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 36 para. 5.1.

Maintenance - See Appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 38 para. 5.3

Carriageway Maintenance – our performance in the first year indicated that we needed to re-allocated funds to address a fall in our performance on carriageway maintenance. By re focusing our funds we have been able to show a move toward improving our roads.

Safety - See Appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 38 para. 5.3.

Casualty Reduction – Casualties have increased but are primarily due to the inclusion of the motorway network, which are outside our control. We are continuing to address our local road network tackling road safety using a combination of education, enforcement and engineering measures.
Vehicle and Street Crime – Last year saw an overall drop of 14% in vehicle crime. Performance on tackling theft from vehicles was particularly strong, with a 16% reduction. Whilst good, the Borough still remains in the bottom quartile for theft from vehicles and we did not achieve our original Thames Valley Police 3 years targets identified in LTP2. In 2008/09 we have set new targets in partnership with Thames Valley Police based on improved baseline figures and challenging but realistic objectives. The good performance has continued and theft from motor vehicle is down 11%. Thames Valley Police have introduced Forensic Testing on Theft From Vehicles from September 2008 along with a major cross border initiative across Slough, RBWM and South Bucks being planned. In the short-term the CCTV unit and the Community Wardens have been provided with details of prolific vehicle crime offenders so that if they are spotted in the borough this can be notified to Thames Valley Police.

Street Crime - Overall in 2007/08, violent crime fell by 2%, underlying this was a 6% reduction in wounding (serious), but a 3% increase in common assault (less serious). This is a long-term trend as due to changes in the definition/law regarding Common Assault. Whilst the target was not met, there was a marked improvement in the last quarter of 2007/08 and there has been a continued improvement in 2008/09, with serious violent crime (which includes wounding) 14% down on a cumulative basis, and less serious violent crime, which is 8% down. In the second quarter, there was a trial of taxi marshalling in Goswell Hill in Windsor, and there was a change to the road layout in Goswell Hill on Friday and Saturday evenings. There are plans to pedestrianise areas around taxi pick up points at both William Street (Windsor) and Queen Street (Maidenhead) on Friday and Saturday evenings. Overall performance management has been more focused as a result of the formation of a joint nighttime economy/non-domestic violent crime group with the police.

Congestion - See Appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 40 para. 5.3.

Vehicle Kilometres (kilometres travel by car) – we are continuing to promote and encourage alternative modes of travel working with our partners to encourage better use of public transport.

Mode Share of Journeys to School – We are working with Schools on new and improved initiatives to encourage walking and cycling to school through School Travel Plans.

Cycling Trips – We are improving our data collection to obtain more accurate information and improving the cycle network and provision of cycle stands.

Bus Punctuality – We are negotiating punctuality agreements with operators to help deliver this.

Walking Trips – We have focused our resources on improving footways and pedestrian crossings and working with rail operators to improve access to railway stations.

Environment – See Appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 41 para. 5.3.

Air Quality – We have developed an Air Quality Action Plan and an Outcome Improvement Plan to identify mitigation measure to improve air quality.

Accessibility – See Appendix 1 Chapter 5 page 41 para. 5.3.

Satisfaction with Public Transport Information – We are working on improving our information both on the web and at stop and continuing to role out our real time information programme.

3.23 Other Work

Berkshire Strategic Transport Board (formerly Berkshire Transport Capacity Building) - The Royal Borough is working with the other Berkshire authorities and the local business community on an ambitious project to tackle key transport issues affecting the former County of Berkshire, and particularly those issues affecting the continued economic success of the area. See Appendix 1 Annex A page 49 for further details.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Accept the Recommendations in this report.	Submission of the LTP2 Year 1 (2006/07) Progress Report as recommended will ensure that the Council meets its statutory requirement.	Possible future funding opportunities and increased settlement.
	2. Do nothing.	Members may wish to amend parts of the Delivery Report on points of detail or indeed not submit the statutory document to government.	Possible loss of future funding initiatives and decrease in settlement. Possible affect our LAA progress as the LTP contributes to this, thus possible loss of funding.

4.2 Risk assessment

There are a number of key risks, which may affect implementation of the LTP in the remaining years of the plan period. Please refer to Appendix 1 para. 5.2 page 37. The main risks are:

o Scheme delivery

o Funding

o S106 Funding from new development

5.1 None as a result of this report.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 Comments from Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny to be held on 3^rd November 2008 to be advised.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 081103 Peosp Ltp Delivery Report Appendix1

1.1 This reports provides Cabinet with the outcome from the recent Review of Pay and Display Parking System, undertaken following the request from the Leader of the Council for a review. This was in part in response to the introduction of Pay and Display parking at Nicholson’s Multi Storey Car Park in March 2008 and the subsequent feedback from residents, local businesses and the Town Management Partnership Board.

1.2 A petition was received by the Leader in June and presented to full Council on 24^th June, and this was referred to Cabinet, which considered a report at the meeting held 25^th September 2008.

1.3 The full review is included as Appendix 1, the main conclusions reached are:-

There are primarily three different parking control systems in widespread use in charged for car parks, Pay on Foot, Pay on Exit and Pay and Display, These have different strengths and weaknesses which are outlined in Appendix A.
Pay and Display parking control equipment is widely used throughout the Royal Borough, which operates a mixed parking stock of off street surface and multi storey car parks and on street parking spaces, and over a long period there has been a gradual move towards this type of equipment as the standard system deployed in RBWM operated and managed car parks and through the paid for on street parking spaces.
The are no hard and fast rules about which type of equipment should be used in different types of situations, however where a car park is heavily used by shoppers, feedback from retailers and their customers indicates a preference for either Pay on Foot or Pay on Exit systems, whereby payment for parking is made at the end of the parking stay and on return to the vehicle, thereby avoiding the need to decide at the time of arrival and parking the intended duration of stay. This is in contrast with Pay and Display system whereby at the arrival and the beginning of the parking stay, a decision needs to be made about the proposed stay duration, and if a longer period of stay is subsequently required, a return visit to the vehicle and pay station must be made to purchase an additional stay period.
The decision to replace the Nicholson’s MSCP Pay on Foot system with Pay and Display equipment was made based upon a number of factors at the time which included the relatively uncertain long term future of the existing car park, the overall cost and ongoing operating costs of the equipment, harmonisation and integration with the other RBWM equipment and the consequential flexibility for re-use of the equipment and the potential for resident discounts using the existing Advantage Card.
The long term future for the Nicholson’s MSCP is being re-considered as part of a wider town centre redevelopment scheme and is likely to result in the re-provision of the existing car park, the Pay and Display equipment currently deployed in this car park will be able to be re-used in other RBWM car parks if an entirely new car park is built or the current one is extensively refurbished and it is proposed that a Pay on Foot or Pay on Exit system is the preferred solution.
The cost to replace the former Pay on Foot system with a Pay and Display one was significantly less than a like for like replacement. In addition to the initial capital costs the ongoing operational equipment costs for the Pay and Display system are lower than those for a stand alone Pay on Foot or Pay on Exit system.

That Cabinet notes the review and the conclusions, and takes these into consideration when deciding on the long term future parking management of the Nicholson’s MSCP as part of the potential outcomes of the Rejuvenation Project of Maidenhead Town Centre.

Background

3.1 The systems review was undertaken following a request from the leader of the Council after the introduction of the Pay and Display parking system was implement in March 2008.

3.2 The decision to implement a change of parking system was first considered in late 2004, however funding was not confirmed until the budget for 2007/08 was agreed in February 2007.

3.3 The Council introduced a revised tariff as a ‘Shoppers Special’ in mid September, whereby parking for up to four hours can be purchased for £2, with the intention of offering longer stay shoppers parking at very competitive rates and thereby overcome the concerns raised about the duration of shoppers’ trips being curtailed prematurely as a result of returning to vehicles before the purchased time has elapsed.

3.4 The full details of the review are set out in Appendix 1.

3.5 In addition to the main conclusions from the review a number of other points should be noted. These include:-

The longer term approach and options for the Nicholson’s MSCP can be considered as part of the progression of the Supplementary planning Document, which is being developed and is being considered as a separate item on the Cabinet agenda.

The widespread use of Pay and Display elsewhere in the Borough does not attract adverse comments, in the same way as appears to have been the case when the Nicholson’s car park was changed. However the changes made to the tariff in mid September appear to have been very well received.

The change to Pay and Display at the Nicholson’s MSCP was the continuation of a long term transition from a mixed equipment operation to a standard Pay and Display methodology, which has been in place for many years.

The Pay and Display system provides for improved frequency of patrols and as a result improves security within the car park. The links with the use of Advantage Cards provides for more flexible tariff structures and the targeted use of reduced rates for RBWM Residents.

The use of a pay and display system is more cost effective, particularly bearing in mind the uncertain long term future of the Nicholson’s MSCP. The longer term implications for future funding of new equipment need to be considered if an alternative equipment and control strategy is embarked upon.

4.1 Options

A range of options exist with regard to the control systems used for RBWM for car parks.

	Option	Comments	Risk
	1. Note the review report and continue with the current P+D Operation following the introduction of the revised Shoppers Special tariff, for the foreseeable future until the long term impact of the Town Centre re-development is clear and the associated car park requirements are confirmed. This is Recommended.	This will be cost effective and avoid significant additional capital investment in the short term. Continue the Shoppers Special for a six month period whilst the redevelopment plans are progressed and until after the busy Christmas period. The majority of car park users are able to obtain their preferred stay periods and the P+D equipment has the added benefit of offering free evening residents parking after 7pm through the Advantage Card system.	Customers consider the pay and display system as unacceptable and decide to shop elsewhere, or make fewer trips to the town and reduce their overall spend within the local economy.
	2. Change the P+D system back to a PoF system	This will require invest in the region of £200K and may be premature bearing in mind the current re-development plans for the town centre.	The existing equipment will need to be stored until it is required to replace other Pay and Display units as they reach replacement time.

5.1 The review has considered the issues associated with the three main types of parking control systems and the different systems deployed in a number of towns adjacent or near to Maidenhead.

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 Comments will be inserted following the Planning & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel meeting on 3^rd November 2008.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Date: 3 November 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr. Mrs. Knight

Contact Officer(s): Chris Thomas, Head of Housing and Residential Development Tel: 01628 796091

Wards affected: All wards are affected

1. SUMMARY

The Council no longer owns or manages properties, but it does have nomination arrangements with Housing Associations in order to discharge it’s statutory duties towards the homeless and other vulnerable groups of people, including those with other housing needs such as overcrowding.

The mechanism used for selecting applicants for nomination is the Council’s Allocation Policy and Points Scheme, which are applied to the Local Housing Register.

Members have been concerned that the Points Scheme should ensure that the needs of local households are given the highest priority, and it was decided at the Cabinet meeting on the 13^th December 2007 that Officers should review this matter and bring back a report to Cabinet. Whilst applicants currently residing or in permanent full time employment within the Royal Borough are given 30 points more than anyone else, it is felt that an additional 10 points may increase the priority to a more appropriate level.

Officers were also tasked with looking at the benefits of introducing a Choice Based Lettings System within the Authority. Officers have had discussions with local Housing Associations who are keen to move towards such a scheme in partnership with the Royal Borough. Whilst there is no statutory requirement to implement such a scheme, it is a Government target for all authorities to introduce a choice based scheme by 2010. It would in fact appear that a large majority of local authorities in the country are now operating some form of Choice Based Scheme, including those in the rest of Berkshire.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has only just issued a Code of Guidance for implementing Choice Based Lettings in August 2008. The Code provides information about those factors which housing authorities should take into account in framing their allocation scheme to offer choice of accommodation to applicants.

On the 5^th December 2007 the Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel considered the issue and were keen that Members should have an input into the implementation of such a scheme. If Cabinet now wishes to implement such a scheme, then it may be appropriate for a cross party Member Working Group to be set up to consider the possible benefits of a local Choice Based Scheme, and to work on the details for implementing such a scheme.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That the Allocations Policy is amended and an additional 10 points be awarded for a local connection.

That a cross party working group of Members is set up to consider the detail of implementing a Choice Based Lettings Scheme.

3.1 Background

The Secretary of State believes that allocation policies for social housing should provide for applicants to be given a greater say and a greater choice over the accommodation which they are allocated, whilst continuing to ensure that the primary purpose of social housing is to meet housing need.

In January 2005, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), published Sustainable Communities: Homes for All. That document set out the Government’s choice based lettings policy objectives, which included making it easier to move between local authority areas, developing regional or sub regional lettings schemes, and greater information about options. ODPM also put in place a Government target to have Choice Based Lettings schemes operating in all local authority areas by 2010, although it should be noted that it is not a statutory requirement.

The Royal Borough has opted to wait for best practice to be developed in respect of Choice Based Schemes, and to await the Government guidance which has just been issued. It is therefore appropriate that Members give consideration to the benefits of such a scheme, and are actively involved in something that will fundamentally affect local residents through a radical change to the manner in which they access social housing locally. This change would basically mean that instead of the local authority selecting applicants on the basis of a points scheme, and nominating them for vacant social housing, the vacancies would be advertised locally and applicants would have to make applications directly to the landlord.

Contact with other local authorities seems to indicate that choice based schemes are operating successfully. The major concern however is to ensure that vulnerable people are not disadvantaged by having to seek accommodation for themselves and not having the ability to understand the system. It is also important to make sure that the system prioritises homeless households. Consequently all choice based systems have to include a method of prioritising the needs of applicants at the point of application for specific properties, which is of course what a points system does at the point of registration. It is very likely that the same households will be rehoused under either system, but choice based schemes are seen as being more transparent and gives applicants greater choice with their housing options.

Implementing a new scheme would require a new IT system, and a different type of administration for advertising vacancies and giving advice. The cost of this could however be shared with partner Housing Associations, which is already the case at present

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Award applicants an extra 10 points on the Housing Register.	This will increase the priority for local people on the Register.	Revenue: None. Capital: None.
	2. Do not award an extra 10 points on the Housing Register.	There will be no change to the current points scheme.	Revenue: None. Capital: None.
	3. Consider implementing a Choice Based Lettings System by setting up a Member Working Group.	This will allow the issues outlined in the new Code of Guidance to be fully explored, and to consider the benefits to local people.	Revenue: None at present. Capital: None at present, but a new IT system will require capital investment.
	4. Do not consider implementing Choice Based Lettings locally.	The Council should at least consider the issue in detail before deciding not to implement a new Choice Based system, as it will not achieve the Government’s 2010 target.	Revenue: None at present. Capital: None at present.

There are no risks attached to giving an additional 10 points for a local connection.

The risk of not implementing a Choice Based Lettings System is that this would not achieve the Governments target, and lead to some form of sanction.

The risk of implementing a Choice Based Lettings System is that it may impact detrimentally on vulnerable households if not considered properly, and could impact on the use of B&B and temporary accommodation for homeless households if satisfactory arrangements are not put in place to prioritise their needs.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

The local Housing Associations have been consulted.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

To follow

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

	Legal	Finance	Planning	Property	Procurement	DMT
Name:	15th Oct 2008	15th Oct 2008	N/A	N/A	N/A	9th Oct 2008
Date Approved:

	Directors Group	Lead Member	Ward Cllrs (if Appropriate)	Leader’s Office	Scrutiny Panel
Name:	15th Oct 2008	23rd Oct 2008	N/A	15th Oct 2008	3rd Nov 2008
Date Approved:

Date: 18 December 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr. Mrs. Knight

Contact Officer(s): Chris Thomas, Head of Housing & Residential Development Tel: 01628 796091

Wards affected: All Wards

1. SUMMARY

Strategically, housing is at the heart of place shaping and local authorities are encouraged to take full and proper account of housing as part of the strategic vision for the area. The Council’s previous Housing Strategy ran from 2004-7 so an updated Strategy is now due. The updated Strategy will be available for incorporation in the Sustainable Community Strategy.

The strategic housing role encompasses all aspects of housing work undertaken by the Royal Borough since stock transfer. It has a key role to play in addressing some of the challenges arising from the current economic crisis.

The draft Housing Strategy 2008-11 is a concise document, as encouraged by the government for ease of incorporation in the Sustainable Community Strategy. It seeks to place the housing issues and challenges faced by the Royal Borough in the context of national, regional and sub-regional approaches; and to make the appropriate links with other corporate work. Separate sub-strategies are under review for the Private Sector, Homelessness and Supporting People, and these areas are covered in detail along with the provision of new affordable housing. A key part of the document is the Action Plan which details the key challenges and the work planned to tackle them. The draft Housing Strategy 2008-11 Appendix is available in the Group Rooms, Members Rooms and from Democratic Services.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Cabinet endorses the Housing Strategy 2008 – 2011.

2.1 Background

It is expected that local authorities will regularly review their Housing Strategy. The statutory guidance “Creating Strong, Safe, and Prosperous Communities” published by Communities and Local Government in July 2008, reaffirms that the government considers that housing is at the heart of place shaping and encourages local authorities to take full and proper account of housing as part of the strategic vision for the area. It also confirms that the Housing Strategy (along with the Homelessness Strategy), should be incorporated within the Sustainable Community Strategy.

The Royal Borough’s previous Housing Strategy ran from 2004-7, and achieved the old “fit for purpose” criteria against which it was assessed by the Government Office for the South East. This proved quite prescriptive and the Government has now moved away from this, and local authorities are now given more freedom to decide how they will deliver on their strategic housing role.

The strategic housing role encompasses all aspects of housing work undertaken by the Royal Borough since stock transfer, including the work on homelessness and housing need undertaken by the Housing Options team, the work to provide housing related support for vulnerable people undertaken by the Supporting People team, and the wide variety of initiatives undertaken in relation to the private sector by the Environmental Health team. It also covers the work of the Housing Enabling Manager on the provision of new affordable housing (one of the Council’s Local Area Agreement targets), and an overview of the housing market as whole: both these areas involve close liaison with the Planning function of the Council.

The new Housing Strategy is being produced at a time of huge economic turmoil and uncertainty. Severe problems in the operation of the housing market have been apparent for some months and the effects of this will undoubtedly place additional strain on various areas of the Council’s strategic housing work over the period of the Strategy. In particular we are likely to see a rise in the number of repossessions, increased difficulty for first time buyers and others without a significant amount of equity, and subsequent increased pressure on the Housing Register. At the same time the ability of the Council to provide new affordable housing in partnership with the private sector is being compromised as housing development has slowed dramatically. Housing Associations too are finding it increasingly difficult to finance new development activity.

3. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Not endorse the draft Housing Strategy.	This would leave the Council without an up-to-date strategy for incorporation within the Sustainable Community Strategy in line with Government recommendation.	Revenue: None Capital: None
	2. Amend the draft Housing Strategy before endorsement.	This is possible, but further consultation may be required depending on the amendments.	Revenue: None Capital: None
	3. Endorse the draft Strategy.	If endorsed the Strategy would become a policy document for the Council, and can be incorporated within the Sustainable Community Strategy in line with Government recommendation	Revenue: None Capital: None

The risk of not endorsing the strategy is that the Council will not have an up-to-date Strategy in place for approaching the complex housing challenges in the Royal Borough in line with Government guidance.

Endorsing the strategy will ensure that the Council has a up-to-date Strategy and an action plan to direct its work in tackling housing issues in the Royal Borough over the next few years. It will also ensure that the Council is better placed to meet the challenges posed by the current economic crisis.

4. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

The development of the Housing Strategy has been consulted on at the Royal Borough’s Housing Forum meetings held in December 2007 and July 2008. A wide range of interested parties are invited to the Housing Forum. The draft Strategy is also being placed on the Council’s website.

5. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Will be added later

6. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities (Communities and Local Government July 2008)

Attached Appendix RBWM Housing Facts and Figures

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorisation:

	Legal	Finance	Planning	Property	Procurement	DMT
Name:
Date Approved:

	Directors Group	Lead Member	Ward Cllrs (if Appropriate)	Leader’s Office	Scrutiny Panel
Name:
Date Approved:

 Meetings 081103 Peosp Housing Draft Strategy 2008

Date: 18 December 2008

Member Reporting: Cllr. Mrs. Knight

Contact Officer(s): Chris Thomas, Head of Housing & Residential Development Tel: 01628 796091

Wards affected: All Wards

1. SUMMARY

The Royal Borough’s Housing Strategy seeks to ensure that everyone in the area has access to a decent home at a price they can afford, and the Local Area Agreement has a priority to increase the supply of affordable housing.

A review of homelessness has been undertaken by the Royal Borough’s Housing Options Team, and the self assessment health check toolkit issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government was utilised. This was used to establish how effective our services are in tackling and preventing homelessness.

Whilst there has been a decline in homelessness acceptances over the last five years, much of this has been the result of a pro-active approach to advice about Housing Options, utilising the private rented sector and advancing loans for deposits so avoiding the use of bed and breakfast accommodation wherever possible. There is however a possible threat to the current situation, which is posed by the global credit crunch, and its impact on the housing market in general. This may well result in increased levels of homelessness.

It is a requirement of the Homelessness Act 2002 and the associated Code of Guidance, that local authorities carry out a review of homelessness and adopt a strategy for dealing with the findings. The previous strategy ran from 2003 until 2008, so it has been necessary to undertake another review and to produce another strategy to cover the next period of five years.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Cabinet endorses the Homelessness Strategy 2008 – 2013.

2.1 Background

The Homelessness Act 2002 for the first time placed a statutory duty on local authorities to review homelessness within their administrative areas, and to produce a strategy for dealing with the problems identified. This was a direct consequence of the Government’s policy of reducing the use of bed & breakfast accommodation nationally, with a target of March 2004 being set for zero use in respect of families with children, for a period longer than six weeks.

The Royal Borough has been very successful over the period of the existing strategy, in that the March 2004 target was achieved several months before the target date, and the target figure has in general been regularly maintained ever since. This has been achieved through adopting a more pro-active approach to discussing housing options, rather than a re-active approach of accepting a homeless application, providing B&B, and then trying to find a solution to the problem. This has resulted in B&B only being used as a very last resort, and most families being moved on into alternative temporary or permanent housing within the six week period. This has meant major benefits for the families themselves, but has been a much more cost effective approach in respect of the homelessness budget.

It is therefore important that the new Homelessness Strategy is implemented in order to make sure that policies are in place to address any new challenges created in the coming years.

3. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Not endorse the draft Homelessness Strategy.	This would leave the Council without an updated strategy leaving it open to a legal challenge.	Revenue: None Capital: None
	2. Amend the draft Strategy before endorsement.	This is possible, but further consultation may be required depending on the amendments.	Revenue: None Capital: None
	3. Endorse the Draft Strategy.	If endorsed the Strategy would become a policy document for the Council, and ensure compliance with legislation.	Revenue: None Capital: None

The risk of not endorsing the strategy is that the Council would be in breach of its statutory duty to have in place a new strategy during 2008, and leave itself open to a legal challenge.

Endorsing the strategy will ensure that the Housing Options Team have a strategy and an action plan to direct its work over the next five years. It will also ensure that the Council is better placed to meet the challenges posed by the financial crisis as outlined elsewhere in this report.

A major risk in the coming years is the financial state of the economy, particularly in relation to banking services, the downturn in the housing market, problems with the buy to let market, unsold shared ownership units, the inability to obtain mortgages, higher interest rates, and a possible recession. This will limit the options available to people needing a home. Increases in mortgage repossessions may well result in an increased number of homelessness applications being made. Many developers have already stopped building out sites, and this has seen a decrease in the supply of new rented affordable housing units being made available through S106 agreements. If there is a significant increase in the levels of homelessness, and a decreasing supply of properties in which to house them, then it is possible that this would once again see an increase in the use of B&B and other forms of temporary accommodation. The Royal Borough had a very significant number of households in B&B and other temporary accommodation in 1993 at the time of the last recession.

4. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Consultation at workshop as part of Housing Forum.

Questionnaire compiled and made available to all callers to York House, Town Hall and Citizens Advice Bureau, mailed directly to key stakeholders and published on RBWM website.

5. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Will be added later

6. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 081103 Peosp Homelessness Strategy Action Plan

 Meetings 081103 Peosp Homeless Strategy 2008-2013 Draft

Date: 23 October 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Hilton

Contact Officer(s): Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, x6341

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This service monitoring report provides a monthly update on service delivery with emphasis on the impact on the council’s financial position.

1.2 Services are currently projecting expenditure £646k more than the approved estimate (last month £488k). Balances at year end are projected to be £5.381M.

1.3 There are no significant overspends reported in the capital programme. £2.665m of the capital programme has slipped to 2009/10 (last month £1.1m), of which £0.6m relates to Smith’s Lane Community Project, £0.3m on a Fire Health & Safety Compliance Project and £0.185m on Windsor Library improvements.

2. RECOMMENDATION: That:

i) The provisional revenue and capital outturn figures be noted.

ii) The capital programme variances and slippage identified in Appendix C be approved.

iii) That Directors work with Lead Members to develop proposals to contain expenditure within current budget limit.

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Background

3.2 As at 30 September 2008, total service expenditure for 2008/9 is expected to be £86,529k (up £159k from last month’s £86,370k).

3.2 Summaries of the Council’s provisional outturn Revenue and Capital financial reports are contained in Appendices A and B respectively. The revenue report includes income and expenditure statements together with a short Directorate report drawing members’ attention to key activities affecting the current and future years.

3.3 The Director of Learning & Care reports that its 2008-9 costs are projected to be overspent by £431k (up £158k from last month’s £273k).

The Children and Young People budget shows an increase of £124k in expected overspend to £491k since last month. Home to school transport, residential care for disabled and looked-after children have all seen further increases in projected outturn in the last month, partially offset by a further reduction in costs for external fostering.

Adult Social Care now reports an expected overspend of £20k (last month an underspend of £14k). Net external homecare costs have increased by £70k because of greater use of spot purchase contracts, whilst older people’s residential and nursing care costs have gone down by £26k as average contributions from service users are greater than budget. There is an additional net underspend of £10k on salary budgets.

3.4 The Director of Community Services reports a variance of £150k (down £30k from last month’s £180k) from the approved estimate.

There has been a grant of £10k within planning services for School Travel Plans. The expected shortfall in car parking income has increased by £5k to £170k. Ongoing vacancies within the Development Control Unit and Building Control Unit (-£30k) and a slight improvement in projections for some income areas (-£15k).

The Chief Executive reports that Corporate Services expenditure is expected to be £65k higher than the approved estimate (up £30k from last month’s £35k).

Registrars are anticipating that income will be £30k lower than budgeted in 2008/9 for wedding ceremonies due to the current economic conditions and a general year-on-year decline in the number of weddings conducted.

OVERALL POSITION

3.5 Appendix A summarises the project outturn position and shows project year-end reserves to have decreased by £159k to £5.381m

3.7 CAPITAL

Overall Gross Expenditure Budget

3.7.1 Total capital expenditure for 2008/09 is expected to be £34.412m, which is £2.740m below the approved gross budget of £37.152m. This is made up of -£75k variances and £2.665m slippage, summarised as follows: -

Exp Inc Net
£'000 £'000 £'000
Approved Budget August 2008 37,152 -24,004 13,148
Variances identified in July -75 0 -75
Slippage to 2009/10 -2,665 1,291 -1,374
Projected capital programme 2008/2009 34,412 -22,713 11,699


Projected Variances and Slippage

3.7.2 Community Services report that in comparison to the approved budget, there will be a net under spend of £91k. Learning & Care reports, as per last month, a net overspend of £16k in Schools (other). See appendix C for further details.

3.7.3 In addition to the £1.143m slippage identified in previous months, a further £1.522m has been identified in September. Details are in appendix C.

Overall Programme Status

3.7.4 The project statistics show the following position:

Number of Schemes in Programme 445
Yet to Start 8%
In Progress 57%
(Of which Ongoing Annual Programmes 7%
e.g.. Disabled Facilities Grant)
Completed 22%
Devolved Formula Capital Grant schemes 13%
(Data not available on budgets devolved to schools)

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT9+.a\| -

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Accept the report	Directors have a responsibility for managing their Services within the Budget approved by Council. Cabinet has limited power to vary those budgets within the overall budget and policy framework or to re-define the priorities agreed when the budget was approved. Cabinet does however have responsibility for considering the impact on future year’s budgets of the decisions taken.	Revenue Capital
	2. Reject the report	This is not an option as The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Royal Borough to monitor its financial position	Revenue Capital

Risk assessments are carried out as a matter of course for the delivery of individual services. The main Financial risks are included on the Council’s Risk Register . paragraphs 3.8 to 3.15 discuss the risks associated with the current economic downturn.

The Councils Financial Strategy outlines the measures available to it in the event of a series of events that lead to significant projected budget variances being reported.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

No specific consultation is carried out as this is a regular monitoring report

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Relevant components of this report will be considered by each of the four scrutiny panels as part of their next round of meetings.

IMPLICATIONS

7. The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

1. The Leisure Centres income levels are currently in line with budget as shown in the graphs. Car parking income is continuing as reported last month and the graph below shows a month on month comparison for the main tourist car parks in Windsor.
2. The measures to address these savings are shown on the detailed budget monitoring sheets.

3. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have recently confirmed, following consultation with Local Authorities, the size of grants to be offered for providing more free swimming to the over 60’s and under 16’s. The Over 60’s grant will match the loss of income at £39K per annum, and would therefore extend the limited free swimming we already offer to free swimming for all over 60’s at all times of public swimming. However the offer for Under 16’s is only £73K over two years whilst the loss of income would be £600K and so the Council is not in a position to pursue this.. The result is therefore a significant benefit for the Over 60’s and a great disappointment that the DCMS is not prepared to support our Under 16’s to the level required .

We understand our neighbouring authorities are mostly in a very similar position.










 Meetings 081103 Peosp Service Monitoring Report