Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Monday 14 March 2011 6.30 pm
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Document Title: Minutes of the Planning & Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 14 March 2011
Author: Liz Hornby
Creation Date: March 11
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
14 MARCH 2011
14 MARCH 2011
PRESENT: Councillors Meadowcroft (Chairman), Beer, Holness, Mrs Hunt and Stretton.
Officers: Mr T Carr, Mr Herlinger, Mrs Hornby, Mr Miller, Mr B Smith, Mr Stallwood and Mr P Turner
PART I
72/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs V Howes.
73/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were none.
74/10 MINUTES
- Ø RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings of the Panel held on 7 February 2011 be approved.
75/10 UTILITY WORKS ON THE HIGHWAY
Members considered the report being sumbitted to Cabinet on the Utility Works on the Highway and noted that the Lead Member for Highways and Streetcare requested that the report be brought forward. The report had brought together all activities, in particular noting that the short-term additional and compliance works. The Panel wondered whether particular times of the year could be investigated for some scheduled works, for instance during holidays and weekends, although clearly if there was urgent work to be carried out, there would be a need of flexibility. The Panel noted that traffic sensitive streets would be reviewed as it would afford Officers more control and that long term permits, bu negotiation could be granted. The Panel noted that there was a long list of enforcement issues to be referred to by Officers should the need arise. Members expressed some concern over the materials used, for instance tarmacadam which can deterirorate, and were assured that each utility company was informed what was to be replaced through negotiation.
The Panel noted that in relation to diversions, it was always the intention that similar roads would be used, for instanace if an A road was being worked on, traffic would be diverted to another A road, where at all possible.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward and recommended the following –
- Ø that special attention should be given to inactive sites.
Ø that ‘naming and shaming’ utility companies who had received fines through Press Releases etc.
Ø that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel would welcome back the report on the Permit Scheme
76/10 ORDER OF BUSINESS
It was agreed that the order of business as detailed in the Agenda be varied.
77/10 BADNELLS PIT REMEDIATION UPDATE
Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on the Badnells Pit Remediation Update and noted that this report had been specifically requested by Cabinet. The Panel noted that this site was monitored on a 24-hour, 7-day a week basis and that there was an officer on site who was monitoring. Weekly reports were also received and published on the Royal Borough website and at the Badnells Pit Residents Group meetings. The Panel noted that the health of local residents was being protected and the developer was keeping the residents informed all the time.
The Panel noted that there had been some complaints although not has many as had been expected. There had been complaints in July 2010 due to excessive dust and more recently complaints due to odour had been received.
The Panel noted that air samples were being taken on a very regular basis and tested by chemical analysis so officers had a good knowledge of what was on site. Nitrogen Dioxide was within tolerance levels and it was noted that no ‘nasty’ substances had been identified. The Panel noted that the trigger levels had been set quite low to ensure local residents’ safety. They also noted that monitors were in place around the perimeter fence.
Some odour had recently been reported and a meeting had taken place earlier that day as some reassurance was required from the developer. The site was being cleared in a systematic grid system, and should an alert be received, then clearing in that grid would be stopped until results from samples had been received. In the meantime, clearance would start in another grid. It was noted that there would be some asbestos on site, and this was being very carefully monitored. The Panel noted that the site had varying depths but were no deeper than 8 metres.
Members agreed that the report was useful in that it was very informative and written by Officers who had an in-depth knowledge of the site.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward. The Panel wished it to be noted how useful if was that Officers had a full and in-depth knowledge of the site which had been reflected in the excellent report.
78/10 TRAFFIC SIGNAL REVIEW
Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 31 March 2011 on Traffic Signal Review and noted the contents. The Lead Member for Highwats and Streetcare wished to reduce congestion in the Royal Borough and therefore an assessment of traffic signals was required. The Lead Member had written to the Parish Councils and all Ward Councillors in the form of a consultation to gain their views.
The Panel agreed that the report gave a better understanding of the potential issues in the Borough and noted that the AA, RAC, Town Partnerships and Chambers of Commerce were in agreement. It was agreed that the letter would be circulated again to Members as it transpired some had not received it.
The Panel noted that traffic lights did have a life limit in that they would wear out, or break down. Modern lights were now more sophisticated and it was hoped would have a longer life. It was noted that the Borough would not automatically upgrade or replace lights and would work on seeking alternative solutions. The suggestion that if some lights were in need of replacing, that mini roundabouts could be installed to replace those lights. It was noted however, that this would depend entirely on the siting of the junction. The suggestion of a helicopter survey was put forward as it was believed it would achieve much valuable information on where the traffic congestion was worse.
It was confirmed to the Panel that in respect of the refurbished Imperial Road, Clewer Hill Road junction, the lights were not operated manually and after some false starts the phasing of the lights had been finalised.
The Panel agreed that more focus should be given to Intelligent Traffic Lights nd therefore could not be amended as they would be required to be carried out. It was also agreed that it would be recommended to Cabinet that following the consultation, a technically prioritised list be brought forward to this Panel to consider those priorities.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward but recommended the following –
- Ø that focus should be given to Intelligent Traffic Lights.
Ø that a technically Prioritised list following consultation be brought forward to the Panel to consider priorities.
Ø that the Consultation letter be recirculated to all Members
Ø A walk through of the technical process of reviewing traffic signal sites be undertaken at a future Panel meeting.
79/10 MEETING
The meeting, which began at 6.30pm, ended at 7.53pm.
Chairman ……………………………………..
Date ……………………………………..