Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Monday 13 September 2010
vii
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
13 SEPTEMBER 2010
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
13 SEPTEMBER 2010
PRESENT: Councillors Meadowcroft (Chairman), Beer, Mrs Hunt, Mrs Kemp, Mrs Newbound (substituting for Councillor Holness) and Stretton
Officers: Ms Arlidge, Mr Carr, Mr Gould, Mr Herlinger, Mr Hitchen, Mrs Hornby, Mr Miller, Mr Penhaligon and Ms Penn.
part i
25/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Councillors Holness and Mrs Howes.
26/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None were received.
27/10 MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings held on 5 August 2010 be approved subject to noting that Mr Herlinger was in attendance at the meeting.
28/10 RECYCLEBANK PRESENTATION
Members received a presentation from Mrs Sue Igoe, Managing Director of RecycleBank UK and noted the following points in relation to RecycleBank Rewards Non Bin Households.
Two solutions had been researched, the Automatic Participation Verification and the Individual Participation Verification.
‘Tags on Bags’. Households would receive bags with RFID tags to attach to them, which in turn would be recycled. The vehicle or disposal bins would have RFID tracking technology. At the end of each collection, RecycleBank would collect the weight tickets and participating RFID numbers and then would convert the weight to Points which would be redeemable at national and local reward partners. It was noted that this would be reliant on householders using the tags and that the rewards would be shared among those ‘blocks’ of residents who had activated their accounts. Concern was expressed that the more residents who activated their accounts the less points they would earn.
The cost of Tags on Bags would be in the region of £3.25/hh/annum and that vehicles would need the technology to be installed at an estimated £10,000 per PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL – 13.09.2010
vehicle. There would also be ongoing charges for distributing bags and tags. Logistical implications would also need to be considered.
‘Tags on Homes’. The householder would recycle with bags. The operator would have hand-held devices which would read tags on the homes. At the end of each collection RecycleBank would collect the weight tickets and participating RFID numbers and then would convert the weight to Points which would be redeemable at national and local reward partners.
The costs of the ‘Tags on Homes’ was estimated at £3 per household. However, the costs of the hand-held devices and employing operatives to reach each registered household would be an estimated £2,000 per unit per loader. It was noted that there would be lower productivity due to having to access each home individually and that timelines would significantly be pushed back.
During the Research and Development, Individual Participation Verification was recommended, in particular two schemes - “I Recycled” with tags on communal bins and “I Recycled” (enhanced).
“I Recycled” with Tagged Communal Bins. This would enable the household to recycle, the user would receive a reminder email from RecycleBank at which point the user would respond to that email in order to report they had recycled and claim their Points. The recycling event would be recorded in the RecycleBank database. At the end of each day/week, RecycleBank would collect the days weight tickets by communal bin and by weigh bridge tickets. Everyone who had responded to the message would be awarded points based on the group they are associated with, for instance the specific communal bin, sacks, etc. The system would then convert the weight to points which would be awarded to householders.
The costs associated with “I Recycled” with Tagged Communal Bins would be in the region of £7/communal bin, which included fitting costs and price of low frequency tags. There would also be an additional charge for ongoing management of collection process as well as an additional charge for customized resident communications.
“I Recycled” Resident Experience. A ‘welcome’ email would be sent out to residents with an activation code. Each household would then activate their account either online or on the phone. Householders would sign up for reminder emails to recycle and collect their points. This would be an online ‘experience’ for residents as they could log onto their account and report their recycling. Residents would also be able to report missed weeks for up to one month.
Communal bins would be tagged and residents would be linked to their associated communal bin. Vehicles would be retrofitted with scales and RFID equipment. Targeted marketing would be sent to specific housing units based on their recycling weights and claimed participation.
This scheme would be cost effective due the scheme being affordable in which savings from increased recycling would be used to offset a significant partition of costs. It would also be consistent as they resident’s experience with the rewards programme was almost identical to residents with bins. There was no retrofit necessary which meant a cost saving.
The Panel noted that the RecycleBank Customer Service centre was outsourced in Ipswich and numbers of employees were dependent upon the time of year, as it was noted there were peaks and troughs within the year. The Panel expressed concern in relation to the fairly high turnover of residents, particularly Forces personnel and noted that should a resident move out, the onus was upon the new resident to inform RecycleBank of that fact.
The Panel wished to express their thanks to the Managing Director of RecycleBank UK for the presentation.
29/10 THAMES VALLEY SAFER ROADS PARTNERSHIP - REVIEW
Members discussed the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership Review which was due to be submitted to Cabinet, as a report, on 28 October 2010 and the Panel’s views were being sought for inclusion in that report.
Members noted that the cost of maintaining speed cameras was £100,000 per financial year and also noted that the Government had cut back on the Capital Grant that the Royal Borough received although there had yet to be notification in relation to the Revenue Grant. The Panel noted that speed enforcement activity was likely to be cut back if the relevant Grants were not received.
During the ensuing discussion, the following points were raised –
- Ø This issue was considered nine months ago when the decision was taken to continue as it was considered a deterrent and an effective way of reducing accidents.
Ø That in Oxfordshire, it had been proved that traffic speeds had increased where a fixed speed camera had been removed.
Ø That Portsmouth University were carrying out surveys in Swindon and that the Members would be interested to read the outcome of those surveys.
Ø Average speed enforcement being introduced was put forward, as had been introduced on motorways through roadworks. However, it was noted that this could only be effective on straight roads with no turn-offs, otherwise it would be difficult to enforce. It was also noted that there was only one manufacturer of average speed cameras which meant that the cost of production was very high, in the region of £150,000.
Ø Most sites of fixed speed cameras around the Royal Borough were those where Councillors had raised concerns.
Ø That residents would be concerned if fixed speed cameras were removed and that possible lobbying would occur if this were to take place.
Whilst the Panel generally supported the use of mobile speed cameras, the majority of Members were not convinced of the safety benefits of fixed speed camera sites, although the deterrent effect upon speeding was acknowledged.
30/10 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (S106 AGREEMENTS) – UPDATED FORMULAE AND LIST OF PROJECTS AND FINANCIAL REPORT
Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 30 September 2010 on the Developer Contributions (S106 Agreements) – Updated Formulæ and List of Projects and Financial Report and noted that this included information on performance for 2009/10.
The SPD has been updated, with the removal of completed projects, and the addition of new projects such as those identified in the Maidenhead Town Centre Area Action Plan (MTCAAP). The standard formulae costs have been revised to reflect latest guidance and information. The multiplier for education takes account of increased building costs and an allowance for Rising 5’s; the Community and Indoor Sports facilities multiplier takes account of rising building costs and the Waste Disposal multiplier has been subdivided into Houses and Flats categories.
The Panel noted there was a 10% increase in S106 contributions compared to 2008/09, although income had yet to reach levels achieved in 2007/08.
Members expressed concern they had not received a hard copy of Appendix 1 and therefore had not had sufficient time to scrutinise it. Members were advised hard copies were available in the Members Room, and the Council’s web page contained an electronic link to the report.
Members noted that the income from agreements inHurley and White Waltham Ward for 2009/10 was greater than the annual expenditure. Members were advised this occurred because funds were being saved up until there was sufficient to deliver specified projects which would happen in future years. Disappointment was expressed at the amount of funding submitted towards building the pavilion at Braywick and the new Manor Green School in Cox Green and that little funding was being allocated to rural schools. Members were informed that, in accordance with the rules for seeking S106 contributions, only those schools which had insufficient room to accommodate the children anticipated to arise from a new development could benefit from funding. Funding was also used for secondary schools which the children from within a Parish were most likely to attend, even if that school was not located within the Parish boundary.
In the case of Indoor Sports contributions, money was being allocated to the three main sports centres: Magnet, Charters School and Windsor Leisure Centre.
Members noted the disparity of income between Ascot and Maidenhead was directly related to the amount of development in each area.
Members noted that parishes had been encouraged through the Parish Roadshows to recommend projects for funding at the time they are consulted on planning applications. These recommendations are again referred to when contributions are collected, and the income allocated to projects.
The Panel expressed some concern over local residents, in rural areas particularly, not being able to afford to live near their families in the area they had always lived, due to not enough affordable housing being made available. It was noted that in order to make the most efficient use of funding gathered for affordable housing, it was often necessary to divert this from villages and rural areas to the centre of towns.
Members were informed that Officers closely monitor income and expenditure, and no funding has been held for so long that it must be spent within the next two years. Members were informed that the main reason funds remain unspent is that developer’s contributions are being collected from a number of developments within an area and are pooled until sufficient funds are collected for each identified project..
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward.
31/10 PLANNING FOR AN AGEING POPULATION SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 30 September 2010 on the Planning for an Ageing Population Supplementary Planning Document
The Panel expressed concern that the Supplementary Planning document had not been circulated as it was not a ‘standalone’ document and that therefore they had not had sufficient time to read the full report. The Panel noted that this report was in relation to being prepared to enable the ageing population within the Royal Borough to remain in their own properties for longer and to ensure that those properties were easily accessible. The Panel noted that there was a high proportion of elderly people in Berkshire, and in particular within the Royal Borough. The following points were raised during the discussion –
- Ø That in relation to 3.2.8 in the Supplementary Planning document, it was noted that Council Offices were not included.
Ø The current building regulations did not include everything that was in the Supplementary Planning document.
Ø Members expressed concern that people would not be able to stay in their houses longer if they were not up to the standards as set out. It was also possible that those who were elderly and either single or couples would be asked to vacate their family-sized properties should it be wished that a family be homed.
Ø Some Members also raised concern that the new regulations ‘dictated’ the way new homes were to be built without any flexibility.
Ø Members noted that most developers were presently building to the minimum percentage of accessible housing permitted by planning law, and not the maximum as proposed.
Ø Members noted that some of the proposals included sockets at waist height and lowered window sills.
During the discussion Councillor Beer expressed his support for the report’s recommendations. Councillor Mrs Newbound had already left the meeting and therefore had not expressed a view on this item. Councillors Meadowcroft, Mrs Kemp, Mrs Hunt and Stretton all expressed some concern over the implication for developers, particularly in relation to building design requirements and regulations. Concern was also expressed at how far these proposals went as they wished to see more flexibility in building regulations. In a majority view, the Panel therefore agreed that Cabinet be advised that they did not endorse the report and, that it should not go forward (Councillors Mrs Hunt, Mrs Kemp, Meadowcroft and Stretton in favour; Councillor Beer against.)
RESOLVED: That Cabinet be advised the Panel did not endorse the report and expressed concern over the implication for developers particularly in relation to building design requirements and regulations and therefore Panel recommended on a majority view that it should not go forward .
32/10 PARKING STRATEGY
This item was withdrawn by Officers from the Agenda prior to the meeting.
33/10 DIAL-A-RIDE AND SHOPMOBILITY: REPORT ON THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME OF RECENT TENDER
Members received a report on the Dial-A-Ride and Shopmobility: Report on the Process and Outcome of Recent Tender and noted that the contract was awarded to a company with 21 years of experience and, on balance, was the most appropriate for the work. The Panel noted that WAMU would be taken on by People to Places although a former manager had accepted redundancy. All other volunteers had agreed to move across to People to Places.
The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor Mrs Howes, requested that this report be brought to Panel due to the way the process of the tender was completed, and also due to the Panel not being able to scrutinise and comment upon the report at a meeting as the time-scales did not allow, although the Chairman agreed it could be emailed to the Panel members for comments ahead of the Cabinet meeting.
It was noted that People to Places received other funding, as well as fund-raising for themselves. It was also noted that People to Places relied very heavily upon volunteers but that drivers, in particular, had to be specifically trained. Members noted that many ‘users’ used both services.
The Panel noted that there had been a lot of interest in the tender, but that only two had been submitted. The Panel believed that this was due to the service being specialised, as wheelchair accessible vehicles would need to be provided. Some taxi firms had expressed an initial interest in the tender, but it was likely that the outlay for accessible vehicles would have been too great leading to them not tendering.
34/10 PETITION FOR A SAFETY CROSSING OPPOSITE JENNER’S CAFÉ
Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 28 October 2010 on the Petition for a Safety Crossing Opposite Jenner’s Café and noted that the petition had around seven hundred signatures and that there were three possible locations for the proposed crossing. Members expressed concern at the safety of the trees that lined the pavement on the Thames side of the road and hoped that by putting in a crossing they would not be harmed. Members were informed that this issue was being looked into. Concern was also expressed that if the crossing were to be located opposite Jenner’s Café that, due to it being on a bend, drivers would be unable to see sufficiently far ahead to slow down and stop in time. Conversely, it was noted that pedestrians could potentially have a similar problem in not being able to see oncoming traffic from around the bend.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and it should go forward.
35/10 WORK PROGRAMME
The following items are scheduled for discussion at the meeting of the Panel to be held on 8 November 2010 –
- Ø Service Monitoring Report
Ø Flood Monitoring Report
Ø Temporary Direction Restricting Permitted Development During the Olympics.