x

PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Howes (Chairman), Stretton (Vice-Chairman), Beer, J Evans, Holness, Mrs Hunt and Muir

Also present: Councillor Mrs Knight.

Officers: Ms Bailey, Mr Herlinger, Mrs Hornby, Mr Johnson, Mr Oram, Mr Perkins, Mr Slaney, Mr Stallwood and Mr White.

19/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None were received.

20/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None were received.

21/09 PETITION: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IN THE LOCAL PAPER IN NORTH MAIDENHEAD

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 July 2009 on the Petition: Development Proposal in the local paper in North Maidenhead. Members noted that an article had appeared in the Maidenhead Advertiser reporting on a large development proposal. A petition was sent and presented at the last full Council meeting with over 100 residents who objected to the scheme. Members noted that this scheme was the third such scheme that Peter Prior had submitted and that he had not approached the Council before approaching the Press. The Panel agreed unanimously that the report be submitted to Cabinet in its present form.

RESOLVED: That the report be submitted to Cabinet.

22/09 FLOOD & WATER MANAGEMENT BILL AND FLOOD MONITORING

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 July 2009 on the Flood & Water Management Bill and Flood Monitoring. Mr Perkins reported that the Flood Monitoring Report would be available every 6 months.

Mr Perkins reported that the consultation process on Flood & Water was almost complete and that the Council would have to respond to DEFRA by 24 July 2009. One of the key aspects of the Bill would put the Royal Borough as head of the Flood Authority. It would co-ordinate partners and create a multi-agency working group. Mr Perkins reported that a meeting with the Environment Agency (EA) and Thames Water (TW) would take place to look at requirements to implement the Bill. A local Flood Forum would also be created via the Community Partnership Board.

Local Authorities would be charged with creating Surface Water Plans which some authorities around the county were already piloting.

Appendix A outlined the likely implications and Appendix B was a letter to DEFRA for Cabinet approval which was signed by the Lead Member. DEFRA alluded to different pots of money, but local authorities agreed that it would not be sufficient to meet their needs. It was noted that Gloucestershire and Leeds should get grants following the flooding in 2007.

Mr Perkins reported that there were 188 specific questions in the 400-page document and that a response was being prepared. Once completed and agreed this would be submitted. It was noted that DEFRA had specific dates for key activities and that they were working with the Planning Department.

During a long discussion, the following points were raised –

Ø With reference to Point 3.1.17 in the report, it was noted that Thames Water had been invited to attend but that they had cancelled and therefore this point should be amended to reflect this. Mr Perkins agreed to do so and reported that Thames Water would attend a future meeting.
Ø That the 400-page document referred to was available on the Royal Borough website and Mr Perkins agreed to place a copy in the Members Room.
Ø With reference to 3.1.2 Members requested how many of the remaining Pitt recommendations had been implemented. Mr Perkins replied that many had been achieved or were well progressed and that 5 or 6 recommendations were longer term.
Ø In relation to an Officer Working Group, it was noted that this group would need to meet more than twice a year due to the increase in flooding issues in the Borough. It was noted that the EA flood risk maps were not relied upon by residents as the areas of potential flooding frequently changed.
Ø In relation to Parish Councils being consulted Councillor Beer commented that his local flood warden was unaware of the consultation. It was also noted that the EA was placing more responsibilities on local authorities as their policy on climate change was amended. Members noted that the Borough had large reservoirs and that they require much upkeep. Wolf Lane reservoir held slightly over 10000 sq.m and had part of Thames Water’s sewage systems. It was noted that a Reservoir Response Programme was being developed particularly in light of the history with run-off flooding, rivers, water mains etc.
Ø Members agreed that the two local MPs would be written to alerting them to the recommendations being put forward.

RESOLVED: That the report be recommended to Cabinet, subject to the inclusion that the Council write to the two local MPs alerting them to the recommendations being put forward.

23/09 CONSULTATION ON CLAMPING

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 July 2009 on the Consultation on Clamping. Members noted that a pro-forma was attached to the consultation but that the Borough may respond how it wished. Members agreed that it was a ‘step in the right direction’ but that it didn’t go far enough.

During the ensuing discussion, the following points were raised -

Ø If clamping was prohibited and replaced by a ticket-based scheme, the time between the issue of a ticket and a vehicle being allowed to be towed away, should the owner not return, should be increased to 2 hours from the I hour suggested.
Ø That a comment be added to the draft response, and report, that the pounds where towed cars were kept should be required to be local, accessible and easy to find.
Ø That a comment be added to the draft response, and report, that should fees be charged on the basis of the number of days a car was impounded, then these should be full days.
Ø That a comment be added to the draft response, and report, that the suggestions should not be applicable to vehicles illegitimately parked on military land or in other similar sensitive areas.
Ø That signage should not be just adequately sized and visible, but that it should be clear, legible and lucid.

RESOLVED: That the report be recommended to Cabinet, subject to the inclusion of the comments from the Panel as detailed above.

24/09 NEW LEGISLATION RE: BUILDING CODES – PRESENTATION

Members received a presentation by Mr Jason White the forthcoming changes to the Building Regulations. During the detailed presentation the following points were made –

Ø Part G ‘Hygiene’ : new requirements come into effect on 1^st October 2009 – in particular new water efficiency requirements for new homes will be introduced and temperature control of bath hot water.
Ø Part L ‘Conservation of Fuel and Power – 25% improvement on current energy efficiency standards will be introduced in 2010
Ø That consultancy approach would be expanded
Ø Closer collaboration and involvement of other departments in the Borough
Ø That services would need to be adapted to meet and support both clients’ needs and the obligations of the Council.
Ø Building Control Consultancy would be maintained
Ø Cost effective business on behalf of the Council would be provided
Ø That a highly respected service would be maintained.

The following key marketing objectives were –

Ø To maintain current market share of business ‘maintain, gain and retain’ existing customer base.
Ø Improve market share of building control applications within the RBWM district, with key objective to make the Borough the ‘Building Control Authority’ of choice.
Ø To raise public and customer awareness of the Building Control services provided by the Borough.
Ø To strengthen links with internal customers and Local Housing Associations which would in turn help secure RBWM as the principal Building Control body / provider.

25/09 CHANGE TO PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT – REPORT AND UPDATE

Members received a report and update on Changes to Permitted Development for householders. It was noted that the rules for extensions and alterations to houses that could be undertaken without planning permission being sought from the Council had been changed in October 2008. Officers initially had to work with some residents who had been affected by the change in rule, but that in reality the changes had not yet had a major impact on the Borough.

Members also noted that there was a cumulative impact of larger extensions and outbuildings that did not need planning permission in areas particularly sensitive to change such as Conservation Areas, the Green Belt and Areas Liable to Flood and that it was likely to become an issue which had the greatest resulting impact in the medium to long term. It was reported that residents, whilst not needing a Certificate of Lawfulness to undertake such work, felt more comfortable in having that evidence for a variety of reasons. This is one reason why there have been increased applications for Certificates over the last year.

Members agreed that this was a useful early ‘snapshot’ and requested an update in about six months’ time. The Panel also noted that a presentation in relation to Certificates of Lawfulness would be a provided to the Panel in September.

26/09 SERVICE MONITORING REPORT

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 July 2009 on the Service Monitoring Report and noted that the level of car parking income was below target in Maidenhead and that, despite reports in the local press that there were 70 people working in the car parking department the more accurate figure was 15 but that staffing levels were constantly under review.

Members were made aware of the different indicators shown on buses, the figures of which were based on fuel prices, transport etc.

RESOLVED: That the report be recommended to Cabinet, subject to the inclusion of the comments from the Panel as detailed above.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

To consider passing the following resolution:-

"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 10 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”