vi

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

Also present: Councillor Mrs Endacott.

Officers: Mr Carr, Mr Herlinger, Mrs Hornby, Mr Perkins, Mr Smith, Mr Stallwood, Mr Turner and Mr Walter.

29/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apology for absence was received from Councillor Holness

30/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Beer declared Personal interests in the following –

Flooding, due to being a Parish Councillor in Old Windsor and a Council representative at the Thames Flood Forum

Heathrow Airport: Environmental Noise Directive: Draft Noise Action Plan 2010-2015, due to being a member of the Royal Borough’s Aviation Forum and a Council representative on LAANC.

Old Windsor Petitions, due to being a Parish Councillor in Old Windsor

31/09 FLOODING

Members received a presentation on Flood Risk Management from Mr Hill and Mr Croucher, representatives of the Environment Agency. Some history of the Environment Agency (EA) was given and then more local issues were reported on, in particular the Lower Thames Strategy which was due to go to public consultation on Monday 14 September 2009. It was noted that there were to be six public (drop-in) sessions in October after which an extensive public consultation document would be produced. It was noted that the EA would be writing to the Chief Executive of the Royal Borough, the Leader of the Council and Councillor Wiles for their comments.

The EA reported on the Grant scheme for Household Resistance and Resilience and commented on the eligibility of properties based on flood history and risk. It was also noted that maintenance was a big issue and that the role of the EA was that it had permissive powers to maintain and improve the main rivers in order to ensure the efficient passage of flow and to manage water levels.

The role of the Riparian Owner was also noted in that they had responsibilities for maintaining the beds and banks of the watercourse and for clearing any debris, that they were responsible for keeping the bed and banks clear of any matter that could cause an obstruction and they were responsible for keeping clear any structures owned, such as culverts, trash screens, weirs and mill gates.

The EA reported that six main items, out of 92 recommendations, had been recognised following the Pitt Review, as follows –

Ø Knowing where and when it will flood
Ø Reducing the risk of flooding and its impact
Ø Being rescued and cared for
Ø Maintaining power and water supplies and protecting essential services
Ø Staying healthy and speeding up recovery
Ø Better advice and help for people to protect their families and homes

The Panel noted that there were ongoing discussions between the EA and Royal Borough on the appropriate format continuing along with discussing and agreeing NI 189 Indicators.

In relation to Surface Water Management Local Authorities, (LA’s) were to take responsibility for surface water flooding and included production of Surface Water Management Plans under the EA’s overview. It was noted that the Royal Borough had not received any Government funding as yet, due to those finances being allocated to areas such as Gloucestershire, Sheffield and Leeds being the hardest hit areas in the 2007 floods, but it was possible that the Royal Borough may still yet receive funding once further funding became available.

It was noted that every grant possible had been applied for. It was thought that due to the worst affected areas of the 2007 flooding, funding was being prioritised to those areas. It was noted that a second tranche of funding was due to become available from the Government, and it was hoped the Royal Borough would be one of the recipients as it was generally accepted that it was in a high risk flood area. The Panel noted that the last grant applied for was in the region of 4 months ago and that an application would be made once the second tranche of funding became available.

It was also noted that grants were available for householders at risk of internal flooding and that following an analysis of properties in the area, very few were deemed to be at risk. However, since the July 2007 floods, this number could have changed and was being looked at. Members believed that residents should be made more aware of potential funding available through publicity. It was generally believed that the July 2007 flooding was a 1/1000 year event.

The Panel were informed that the six public consultation meetings to be held by the EA would take place in areas between Datchet and Teddington.

Following a water course becoming blocked earlier this year in Old Windsor, Members were informed that the local EA had two inspectors and that any feedback in relation to a problem would be acted upon once received.

32/09 SERVICE MONITORING REPORT

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 24 September 2009 on the Service Monitoring Report. The Panel recommended the report for approval at Cabinet.

The Panel noted that Risk Assessments were carried out in relation to car parking statistics on an ongoing basis and was always looking for ways to maximise income for the Council.

RESOLVED: That the report be recommended to Cabinet.

33/09 CAR PARKING & WINDSOR PARKING STRATEGY

Members received an update on the car parking and Windsor Parking Strategy.

Mr Peter Hooper addressed the Panel in relation to this item. Mr Hooper commented that he submitted a report to Mr Walter and Mr Ben Smith following a meeting with Mr Peter Brown in relation to car parking income and expenditure for 2007/2008 where income was £21,000 and expenditure was £48,000. His report included some simple ideas in relation to better signage and further possibilities for the Dials car park. Mr Hooper questioned whether the £27,000 difference was improving to which was answered that it was presently similar.

The members noted that work on the Relief Road and Clarence Road roundabout was scheduled to commence in Spring 2010 with completion around September 2011, but it was hoped that with some co-operation these works could be completed earlier. It had been noted that the increased traffic to Legoland had presented problems in the summer with traffic jams extending along the Relief Road to the motorway.

Members were informed that agreement with Centrica had been reached and that a Park and Ride system will be in operation at weekends starting before the Christmas period. Talks were ongoing with the Windsor Racecourse for a 400-spaces park and ride system to be operated, although on race days and on special occasions, the number of spaces would decrease to 200. Members expressed concern in relation to the Park and Ride system particularly on race days and special occasions as the volume of traffic was so great that people using the park and ride would have difficulty in accessing the car park.

Members also expressed concern in relation to the King Edward VII hospital weekend parking, as it was felt that the car park was too great a distance from the centre of Windsor to walk back with heavy bags of shopping.

34/09 HEATHROW AIRPORT: ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE DIRECTIVE: DRAFT NOISE ACTION PLAN 2010-2015

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 24 September 2009 on the Heathrow Airport: Environmental Noise Directive: Draft Noise Action Plan 2010-2015.

Mr Jamieson addressed the Panel in relation to this item. Mr Jamieson commented that although officers had done their best, the document was inadequate. It was noted that whilst officers in the Borough and neighbouring Council’s have the expertise with which to analyse and respond to the consultation, generally, members of the public don’t have this skill and therefore the consultation was flawed in that respect. Mr Jamieson commented that the Cranford Agreement had now been abolished although the report claims that is hadn’t and that the timetable involved was 2 years to develop plans with a further 2 years to implement.

The Members agreed that comments from the Aviation Forum expressing their dissatisfaction be included in the covering letter that would accompany the Royal Borough’s response to the consultation. Members noted that the views of the Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) was of the same opinion to that of the Aviation Forum and also noted that public perception of the BAA was that they were not doing a good job. There was pressure on Heathrow Airport to place the Noise Action Plan into operation as soon as possible although residents were of the opinion that activity at Heathrow was to be increased.

Members agreed that the two local MPs would be written to requesting their support. Members also wished that under Appendix 2, the responses to questions 1 and 2 be strengthened from ‘not very’ to ‘not at all’ and the response to question 3 from ‘not very sufficient’ to ‘not at all sufficient’. Members were also of the opinion that they were dissatisfied that BAA plc was the ‘competent authority’ in relation to noise matters and felt that it should be an independent body who take responsibility for this issue.

RESOLVED: that the report be submitted to Cabinet for approval subject to the inclusion of the following –

· That the two local MPs be written to for their support.
· That under Appendix 2, the responses to questions 1 and 2 be strengthened from ‘Not very’ to ‘Not at all’ and the response to question 3 from ‘Not very sufficient’ to ‘Not at all sufficient’.
· Members wished to make their opinion known they were very dissatisfied that BAA plc was the ‘competent authority’ in relation to noise matters and that it should be an independent body who take responsibility.

35/09 CAR PARKING CHARGES 2010/11 & 2011/12

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 24 September 2009 on the Car Parking Charges 2010/11 & 2011/12 and particularly noted that under 3.1.1. of the report the Council had sought to ensure that any changes in the pricing would encourage residents and visitors to visit the town centres.

Members also noted that 3.1.3 of the report was to be amended from ‘dedicated bays will be created’ to ‘all bays would be dedicated for the new half hourly rate’. Members were informed that the Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce supported the scheme and a letter was due to be received from the Windsor Chamber of Commerce which also supported the scheme.

During the discussion, it was reported that members of the public who parked in the River Street car park, Windsor, were confused as to the parking charges in the evenings, particularly theatre goers. Members were informed that the 7pm to midnight tariff was due to be abolished and a 9am to 9pm tariff introduced.

RESOLVED: that the report be submitted to Cabinet for approval subject to the amendment of 3.1.3 to reflect that all bays would be dedicated for the new half hourly rate.

36/09 OLD WINDSOR PETITION – ROAD WORKS AT SHOPPING CENTRE, ST LUKES ROAD BUS SHELTERS TO BE ERECTED AT BUS STOPS, OLD WINDSOR

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 24 September 2009 on the Old Windsor Petition – Road Works at Shopping Centre, St Lukes Road. Bus Shelters to be Erected at Bus Stops, Old Windsor.

Members noted that the Ombudsman had commented that there was no case to answer in relation to the matter of the road works, as these works had been undertaken after which they were independently inspected and passed.

Members noted also that in the matter of the bus shelters there was one bus shelter in Straight Road and that J C Decaux provided this shelter at no cost to the Royal Borough. It was noted that Councillor Beer (Old Windsor) had visited the works in St Lukes Road and there were no significant loose paving’s that were evident. The Panel was, therefore, not supportive of the petition relating to St Lukes Road.

RESOLVED: that the report be submitted to Cabinet for approval. However, it should be noted that Councillor Beer (Old Windsor) had visited the works in St. Lukes Road and no significant loose paving’s were evident. The Panel was, therefore, not supportive of the petition relating to St. Lukes Road.

37/09 SPEED CAMERAS – PERFORMANCE REVIEW

Members received an update on the Speed Cameras – Performance Review and noted that the final report was due to be presented to Cabinet in December. The Panel agreed that once the final report was available, it would be emailed to Members for comments due to there being no convenient Planning & Environment meeting where the report could be presented. It was reported the Safer Roads Partnership was concerned that generating income via fines was inefficient. It was noted that there were limited ways associated with this issue.

A review of each camera site had been carried out and it was noted there was one site of concern in relation to the historical aspect of accidents that had occurred there. It was to be noted there was to be a proposal of taking out some cameras and using mobile enforcement as an alternative. Councillor Rayner had written to all Members, Parish Councils and schools of gauge opinion of speed cameras and speed limits and had received 22 responses. A summary would be included in the report to be presented to Cabinet in December.

During the discussion members raised the question of reducing speed limits outside schools in the Royal Borough to 20mph. Members were informed that traffic calming measures would need to be installed at a cost of approximately £25,000 per school. It was noted that a system of amber lights outside schools, similar to those used in some European countries, could be considered. Speed limits when approaching villages could also be reduced to 20mph.

38/09 CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS – PRESENTATION

Members received a presentation on Certificate of Lawfulness and noted the following:

Ø That the Council was asked to confirm a proposed use or development was lawful and did not therefore need planning permission. This was because it was beyond the control of the planning systems or because it was within the control of the planning system but did not need the Council’s permission, such as permitted development.
Ø That the Council was asked to confirm an existing use or development was lawful and was therefore beyond enforcement action. This was because it was beyond the control of the planning systems or because it was within the control of the planning system but did not need the Council’s permission, such as permitted development.
Ø Timescales for existing use or development was beyond enforcement action were 10 years for changes of use, 10 years for breaches of conditions, 4 years for operational development, for instance buildings, structures etc, and 4 years for use as a house. It must also be demonstrated “on the balance of probabilities” and not “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
Ø In decision making, if a legal judgement only, the decision is therefore not on “planning merits”, for instance, whether the Council liked it or not. Applications for proposed use or development cannot be called to Panel for decision, which was a matter of law, and that applications for existing use or development could be a judgement call on the evidence available.
Ø The reason for the recent increase in numbers of applications received were that the Council no longer gave free written advice on the need for planning permission., the introduction of Home Information Packs, that Planning agents saw the opportunity for a service and also the wider householder “permitted development”.
Ø That most outbuildings were not subject to Planning permission in Green Belt area and that a building of up to 4 metres could obtained a Certificate of Lawfulness.

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 items 13 and 14 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”