vi

PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Howes (Chairman), Beer, Bursnall (substituting for Cllr J Evans), Mrs Hunt, Stretton and Werner (substituting for Cllr Holness).

Officers: Ms Bailey, Mr Gould, Mr Herlinger, Mrs Hornby, Mr Oram, Mr Penhaligon, Mr Perkins, Mr Slaney

44/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Evans, Holness and Muir.

45/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Beer declared a personal interest in the Flood Monitoring Report due to being a member of the Parishes Flood Liaison Group.

Councillor Mrs Knight declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the Call In of Cabinet Decision – 22 October 2009: The Preliminary Budget Report due to holding a post at RecycleBank.

Councillor Rayner declared a personal interest in the Flood Monitoring Report due to a portion of his land being effected by the report.

46/09 MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 12 October 2009 be approved.

47/09 CALL IN OF CABINET DECISION – 22 OCTOBER 2009: THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET REPORT

Mr Hooper commented that he had attended the recent meeting at White Waltham and noted that details relating to the Windsor Parking Strategy were missing. Mr Hooper also commented that the weekend parking facility at King Edward VII hospital was not used. Mr Hooper had also inspected the Park and Ride at Legoland and noted that this facility was also not used. Mr Hooper reported that he had written to Mr Oram and Cllr Burbage in relation to car parking issues and cost savings to be made. Councillor Mrs Howes commented that there was a regular review of the parking strategy.

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 26 November 2009 on the Call In of Cabinet Decision – 22 October 2009: The Preliminary Budget Report. During the ensuing discussion in relation to the Preliminary Budget Report the following points were raised -

Ø It was confirmed in relation to the Review Directorate operating levels and overheads, that details could not be aired as there were areas of restraint but that ways of restructuring were being looked at.

Ø It was confirmed that in relation to Highways Maintenance, funding was being received from Salix Carbon Trust for energy saving devices. Funding on highways had not been changed and that there had been some success in capital investment.

Ø It was also confirmed in relation to Efficiency savings – Highway maintenance and street lighting, and also Car parking service review, that there was to be a plan which would be published after Cabinet had given its approval.

Ø In relation to Traffic management, in particular the Safer Roads partnership, that Cabinet had commented it would give the SRP more time to meet the targets. The Safer Roads Partnership was described to the Panel as forum comprising members from all the Berkshire authorities who worked with the Police in relation to speed cameras. It was also noted that the Borough used to receive the proceeds from fines relating to speed cameras but that this had changed recently. The SRP also dealt with mobile speed cameras.

Ø In relation to Planning applications, it was noted that numbers of applications had dropped in recent months. It was hoped that when an ‘upturn’ occurred, that developers would submit applications once more on abandoned sites around the Royal Borough.

Ø That in relation to Waste Disposal the £75,000 quoted was not as much as the Panel had expected. Caution was urged in expecting the figure to be revised to a more ambitious target. It was noted that there was a decline in waste which could be related to the recession as there had been a decline in materials being thrown away. It was noted, for instance, that a few of the free newspapers had ceased trading, which therefore presented a knock-on effect in relation to waste.

Ø In relation to lean thinking, consultants were being employed to help the Council identify savings by streamlining processes. An individual was being employed as part of staff to work alongside front-line employees and will report back.

Ø The Panel noted that a lean thinking system in relation to Planning was to be introduced to take out any unnecessary processes. For instance, Planning Officers would undertake a site visit upon receipt of an application, and at the same time would place a yellow Notice, therefore this would give the public more time to be notified of the Planning Application.

Ø It was noted also that service levels to the residents would not be affected.

RESOLVED: UNANIMOUSLY. The Panel agreed no further action need be taken.

48/09 CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISALS FOR ETON AND WINDSOR TOWN CENTRE, INCLUDING MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSALS.
Mr Hooper commented that a petition a year ago was submitted. English Heritage was also contacted in relation to the works. Cabinet had agreed the option to relay the road if external funding was achieved. Mr Hooper reported that he had submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to find out where funding had been obtained but he had received no answer from the Council.

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 26 November 2009 on the Conservation Area Appraisals for Eton and Windsor Town Centre, including Management Plan Proposals.

The Panel noted that the petition in relation to Gloucester Place was handed to the Ward Councillors. Three options were considered by Cabinet which agreed the third option whereby if external funding were found the Council would match up to £50,000.

It was agreed that the Chairman would be written to with information on where the funding was obtained from. Once the letter had been received, it was agreed that Panel Members would be emailed with the information.

RESOLVED: UNANIMOUSLY. That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report.

49/09 SERVICE MONITORING REPORT

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 26 November 2009 on the Service Monitoring Report and unanimously resolved that Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report.

RESOLVED: UNANIMOUSLY. That Cabinet be advised that the Panel endorsed the report

50/09 GREAT WESTERN ROUTE UTILISATION STRATEGY

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 26 November 2009 on the Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy.

Mr Hooper commented on the two high speed proposals as referred to in Lord Adonis’ report. One was to create a High Speed Hub at either Royal Oak or London Heathrow and noted that the Heathrow Hub would be more convenient, especially for residents of the Royal Borough.

Members noted that representatives from the Borough had met with Network Rail and reported that open dialogue between the Borough and Network Rail in relation to branch lines as it was noted that many members of the public used the branch lines within the Royal Borough.

Members agreed that should electrification of the mainline between Paddington and Bristol take place, then it should be impressed upon Network Rail that the two local branch lines should be electrified also. However, if the decision was taken that the work would not be carried out, then the work on the branch lines should also be postponed.

If electrification should take place, concern was raised in relation to the Brunel bridge although officers had been assured that particular care would be taken when assessing how best to proceed with works on the bridge to minimise the impact.

Members discussed whether a ‘through’ service should be installed once more through Windsor from London, and it was noted that this would be very difficult and costly to undertake.

RESOLVED: UNANIMOUSLY. That Cabinet be advised that the Panel endorses the report subject to the change in wording as follows –

· That the Royal Borough supports electrification of the Bristol to London rail line, and would encourage electrification of the two branch lines should the mains works be carried out, but would also recommend that should work not be carried out to the mainline, that electrification of the branch lines also not be carried out.

51/09 FLOOD MONITORING REPORT

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 26 November 2009 on the Flood Monitoring Report and noted that this was a regular update.

Members noted that in relation to the Lower Thames Flood Risk Strategy nothing had happened recently and that the Lead Member was to write to the Chairman.

In relation to the Flood Bill, members were informed that there was to be an announcement within the next 2 weeks although it was expected that the Bill would be a ‘slimmed down’ version.

During the ensuing discussion the following points were raised –

Ø In relation to the Lower Thames Flood Risk Strategy (LTRS) the Environment Agency (EA) would publish the results of a consultation by 4 December 2009. Exhibitions had been held in Datchet and Wraysbury where the general response was positive. However, concern was expressed as to how long it would take for the scheme to be implemented. All riverside Parish and Councillors had been encouraged to respond to the EA consultation.

Ø Members also noted that, referring to the flood risk map, zone 3 was a significantly large enough expanse to concern members when it came to building on this land as it was considered to be high risk flood area.

Ø Concern was also expressed that no in-house flood group had been set up. It was reported however, that an officer sub-group had been convened with the intention of inviting members to attend a formal flood group. However, due to the fullness of the Corporate diary, it had been difficult to recognise a suitable date when all relevant parties were able to attend. It was agree this matter would be looked into as a matter of some urgency.

Ø That the reference to bird strike be removed as it was considered not relevant in this instance.

Ø It was agreed that the many acronyms in the report would be spelled out in full.

RESOLVED: UNANIMOUSLY. That Cabinet be advised that the Panel endorses the report subject to the inclusion of the above comments

52/09 LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN – ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2008/09

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 17 December 2009 on the Local Transport Plan – Annual Progress Report 2008/09.

Mr Hooper commented that the Royal Borough had been requested to supply £2m which was not included in the report. Mr Hooper also commented that congestion on the platform at Windsor station was a concern.

Members noted that the decision to allocate funds was brought before a previous scrutiny to ensure a sound decision process had been carried out.

During the discussion the following points were raised –

Ø A new travel initiative had been introduced to Borough staff encouraging them to cycle to work where possible, and financial assistance in the purchase of bicycle’s was being offered. Pool cars were available for staff should they be required to travel to business appointments. A screen saver was to be uploaded to all workstations in the Borough to encourage and inform staff of the initiatives available.

Ø Members commented on the traffic jams that had occurred during the summer months in relation to Legoland and visitors to Windsor. It was noted that there were days when the traffic stretched back along the relief road and back onto the M4. It was reported that monitoring had taken place and that the phasing at the traffic lights on Imperial Road was being looked into to prevent the same levels of tailbacks experienced in the summer. It was recognised that there was still work to be carried out in relation to the traffic and that with the possibility of Thames Street having two-way traffic, this had the potential to alleviate traffic as well.

Ø The Windsor Royal Racecourse had agreed that a Park & Ride system would be put in place. A honeycomb ‘matting’ would be laid on the grass area to be used and the Racecourse had assured it would still be able to cope with the Park & Ride on race days as they believe they had the capacity.

RESOLVED: UNANIMOUSLY. That Cabinet be advised that the Panel endorses the report.

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 11 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972”