Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Tuesday 9 March 2010
iv
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
9 MARCH 2010
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
9 MARCH 2010
PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Howes (Chairman), Beer, J Evans, Holness, Mrs Kemp and Mrs Luxton
In attendance: Councillor Bicknell.
Officers: Mrs Bailey, Mr Gould, Mr Gigg, Mr Herlinger, Mr Hitchen, Mrs Hornby, Mr Livingstone, Mr Miller, Mr Oram, Mr Penhaligon
part i
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Hunt and Stretton.
82/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Beer declared a Personal interest in the Thames Water presentation due to being a member of the Parishes Flood Forum and the Royal Borough Flood Forum.
Councillor Holness declared a Personal interest in the Maidenhead Town Centre Area Action Plan – Report of Preferred Options Document Consultation due to being a member of St Mary’s Church.
83/09 MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 9 February 2010 be approved.
84/09 RUN OFF FLOODING
Members received a presentation by Simon Rawles, Mark Dickinson and Hilary Murgatroyd from Thames Water on Run-off Flooding. During the presentation, the following were raised –
- Ø There were three types of sewer: Foul water sewers, Surface water sewers and combined sewers and that Thames Water had a duty to provide public sewers and to clean and maintain them. They also had a duty to provide and extend sewerage systems but did not have a duty to provide capacity to deal with flood water.
Ø That Thames Water carried out a basic clean-up service which included – litter picking, washing down of affected areas, pumping out of basements and disinfecting areas where appropriate. The basic clean-up service did not include removal of carpets, furniture and clothes, re-landscaping, drying out and redecorating affected areas. It was noted however, that Thames Water would not leave a customer without first ensuring that the area was safe and clear.
Ø That in the region of 96% of incidents related to blockages in the system.
Ø That sewer flooding in Thames Street, Windsor was due to fat, oil and grease (FOG) building-up at which time the sewer collapse was repaired. It was noted that sewer cleaning takes place on a 6-monthly schedule, particularly where there is a high density of restaurants, public houses etc.
Ø That sewer flooding in Dedworth Road, Windsor was external flooding on 13 January 2010 due to FOG blockage. The sewer in question was cleaned on an annual schedule.
Ø That sewer flooding in Wootton Way, Maidenhead was due to two properties which flooded on three occasions. Investigations indicated that it was due to a highway flooding problem at which time sewer cleaning was carried out.
Ø That sewer flooding in Francis Chichester Close, Ascot where Thames Water had received reports of twelve flooding incidents which had affected 7 properties although only one property had experienced hydraulic flooding in 2002. Detailed investigations identified operational issues which caused flooding and that the pumping station had been upgraded to reduce the risk of flooding. Investigations were still ongoing.
Ø That Thames Water shared the view of customers that sewer flooding was unacceptable and that they wished to address the future risk of flooding. Thames Water expressed a wish to work with customers to reduce the disposal of inappropriate items into the sewer system. Thames Water also reported that it would be working with the Environment Agency, Highways Agency, Defra and Local Authorities to develop catchment-wide solutions for the longer term. It was noted that due to the sewer system being an open system Thames Water could not be responsible for what the public throws into that system and for this reason, Thames Water would be working with the agencies above to attempt to educate customers in what may be put into the system and what may not.
Members were disappointed that no action had been taken in relation to Wootton Way but were informed that meetings between Thames Water and Borough officers had taken place to look into making Wootton Way a specific priority in relation to surface water flooding. This issue was still ongoing.
Thames Water confirmed that should exceptional rainfall occur they would assist customers as far as they possibly could.
Thames Water also confirmed that they respond to planning applications when notified particularly in relation to S106 funding. Thames Water commented that they were not statutory consultees on planning items although they would inform the Local Authority of any sites they would have an interest.
Concern was raised in relation to the Ham Island bridge which was covered in rust and was thought to be unsafe due to the volume of heavy traffic which travels across the bridge. Thames Water agreed that they would look into this issue although they do periodically test.
85/09 SERVICE MONITORING REPORT
Members received the Service Monitoring Report.
Mr Peter Hooper addressed the Panel in relation to the Clarence Road roundabout and Windsor Relief Road scheme. It was confirmed to Mr Hooper that the Council had received £5m to undertake works to the Windsor Relief Road and £2m to undertake works to the Clarence Road roundabout and that the monies had been combined which would enable the Council to carry out the works concurrently. The Panel noted that a contractor had been appointed with works to start within the next few weeks. The public would be notified in advance and it was recognised that there would be some disruption during the works, but was hoped it would be kept to a minimum.
It was confirmed that talks were being held with Legoland in relation to the Park and Ride facility in the hope that spaces would not be lost once the planned hotel was built, although it was noted that there were no plans for the number of parking spaces to be reduced.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL – 09.03.10
The Panel expressed concern in relation to the cycle route on the Windsor Relief Road at the time of the improvements and hoped that sufficient measures would be taken to ensure the safety of cyclists who used the route. Officers agreed to look into this and would also promote the existing cycle route between Windsor and Slough, which ran alongside the railway line. The Panel also expressed a wish that cycle routes across the Clarence Road roundabout be given high consideration.
The Panel noted that up until November 2009 targets were being achieved, but that due to the adverse weather conditions and the present economic climate these targets were difficult to achieve.
86/09 MAIDENHEAD TOWN CENTRE ACTION PLAN – REPORT OF PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT CONSULTATION
Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 25 March 2010 on the Maidenhead Town Centre Action Plan – Report of Preferred Options Document Consultation and noted that the document went out in January 2010. The next stage in the process is for the report to be taken to Cabinet before being finalised and being sent to the Secretary of State.
The Panel also noted that Maidenhead had suffered in recent years due to surrounding towns being better served by retailers and ageing office space within the town. It was also noted that there was a need for a traffic management plan. The Panel were informed that PRoM had endorsed the report.
Officers confirmed that the recommendation ii) in the report would clarify the delegation of changes to the final document prior to Council approval to ensure that Council would see the final document prior to it being put before the Secretary of State. The Panel noted that once the report had been to Council, a six week consultation period was required before submission.
The Panel raised concern in relation to the proposed remedial works to Maidenhead Bridge on the A4 and noted that this could cause temporary problems with traffic flow through Maidenhead. This would enable officers to assess the level of disruption which could be caused once works on the town centre commenced.
Members noted the importance of having green spaces available in the Royal Borough and welcomed the latest tree planting scheme. Members also raised concern that no building should be more than 6 stories high, and officers confirmed this would be taken into account, although maybe in key areas taller buildings could be accommodated.
The Panel noted that housing would be encouraged within the town centre as it would have convenient access to all amenities within the area. The possibility of building a small theatre within the plan was raised, although it was hoped this would not be in direct competition with Norden Farm, but that they should complement each other. The Maidenhead Civic Society were keen for a theatre to be incorporated into the plan.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report be endorsed and recommended to Cabinet with the additional comments in Recommendation ii) to clarify the delegation of changes to the final document prior to Council approval.
87/09 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2971 – 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 4 and 5 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”