PRESENT: Councillors Bursnall (Chairman), Bathurst, J.Evans, Miss Evans (sub for Bicknell), Fido and Grey (sub for Mrs Quick).

Also Present: Councillor Fussey, Councillor Penfold and Inspector Mark Millward (Thames Valley Police).

Officers: Anne Dackombe and Tanya Leftwich.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillors Bicknell and Mrs Quick.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None.

MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Forum held on 2 June 2011 were approved as a correct record.

UPDATE ON WHAT IS BEING DONE TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF LATE NIGHT ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE TOWN CENTRE

The Chairman explained to Members that Colin Hague, a local resident, had previously requested that this item appear on the agenda but that due to unforeseen circumstances Inspector Millward from the Thames Valley Police (TVP) had been unable to attend the meeting. It was noted that Inspector Millward had since met with Mr Hague to discuss this item and had agreed to attend the meeting today to answer any additional questions with regard to the impact of late night anti-social behaviour in the Town Centre.

Colin Hague has previously informed Members that he had believed that more action was required by the Councils Licensing Authority against offending premises within the Town Centre and that increased visibility from the Thames Valley Police was also required.

In response to questions, it was noted that:

· The night-time economy shift patterns had changed and it was classed as a separate resource. It was noted that the night-time economy shift patterns overlapped on Friday to Sunday evenings. Inspector Millward informed Members that the neighbourhood team were running ‘Operation Lawless’ patrols in the areas surrounding the Windsor Town Centre and ‘Operation Legless’ in Maidenhead. Members were informed that the core shift patrolled the surrounding areas of Windsor on a daily basis, which also included the Eton side of the Royal Borough.
· Inspector Millward informed Members that there was currently one Sergeant and eight PCSOs on duty per shift.
· Inspector Millward explained that due to cuts to resources, staffing of the night-time economy now needed to be managed and bid for.
· Mr Holdstock stated that he was glad to hear that frontline policing had not been affected but that having to complete admin work would no doubt affect the amount of time available to patrol the Royal Borough. Inspector Millward responded by explaining that the prisoner handling team helped deal with the admin work and that the TVP were constantly making things simpler in order to help keep officers out patrolling the streets. Mr Holdstock requested that this subject be explored further in the future.
· Inspector Millward informed Members that the TVP ran a local CID investigation team around violent crime and that whilst they had kept a handling team it had been reduced to ten staff.
· Councillor Grey informed Members that with regard to the Councils Licensing Authority dealing with offending premises within the Town Centre, the Goswell Hill area had improved and there were now a only a couple of premises in the process of appealing the decisions made by the Council. It was noted that until an appeal was processed and heard these two premises could continue to trade. Councillor Grey explained that the TVP were working to introduce and ratify a new regime but that this would take time. It was noted that problems would exist until the Government revised the 2003 Licensing Act to allow local authorities more control in joining up the licensing and planning process. Mr Malier appealed to Members not to issue licenses that the TVP could not police.
· Inspector Millward explained that where a planning and premise licence differed the premise should abide by the earlier of the licensed hours but confirmed that the TVP did not prosecute planning issues.
· Inspector Millward informed Members that they had so far conducted ten test purchases, used the drug sniffer dogs seven times and the drug itemiser four times. It was noted that Specials were usually used to increase teams.
· Inspector Millward explained that the TVP found alcohol abuse very hard to control within the Royal Borough and informed Members that attitudes to alcohol needed to change before things improved.
· Members were informed that the Police Station in Ascot was manned by volunteers. It was noted that sometimes due to sickness absence police stations might not be open when stated but it was noted that Windsor Police Station was the main priority when assigning staff.
· It was noted that by joining the Community Messaging scheme it helped keep people in touch with their local TVP and advised of the areas in which to stay vigilant. Councillor Penfold explained that the Community Messaging scheme was being promoted by people knocking on doors in the Royal Borough and that the Community Safety Manager was also looking to promote it via the Around the Royal Borough newsletter which he endorsed.
· Inspector Millward informed Members that whilst he believed the TVP had adequate resources for most situations they had been stretched in August when they had been required to assist the MET Police. It was noted that the TVP were currently assisting the Essex Police.
· Inspector Millward informed Members that Slough no longer had a night-time economy and that Maidenhead and Bracknell were very quiet but that people from all around were known to visit Windsor for a night out. It was noted that it would be interesting to see what happened to the night-time economy whilst the Olympic Games took place.
· The Chairman explained that initiatives such as the taxi-marshalling scheme helped the TVP to disperse people from the Town Centre. It was noted that Section 27 notices were also being issued by the Thames Valley People which related to their behaviour and which gave the person the option to leave the area or be arrested.
· National Government was now considering using ‘Polluter Pays’ which was where establishments that were open after midnight paid the costs of cleaning the area, the costs of Policing, etc.
· Inspector Millward informed Members that compared to last year serious assault was down to 33.5%, public nuisance was down to 36% and anti-social behaviour was down to 35%. It was noted that these figures very positive to hear and were heading in the right direction.

Inspector Millward explained that both Members and residents could contact him directly at the Maidenhead Police Station if necessary.

The Chairman thanked Inspector Millward for attending the meeting.

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING OPTION 4 AREA BASED SCHEMES WINDSOR AND ETON PRIORITIES

The Chairman welcomed the Communications and Marketing Manager, Anne Dackombe, to the Forum and asked her to explain why this item had been added to the agenda. The Communications and Marketing Manager explained to Members that the Cabinet Participatory Budget Sub-Committee which had met on the 21 July 2011 had delegated powers to the Forum to decide the allocation of £50,000 for the Windsor and Eton priorities as voted on by local residents. The Communications and Marketing Manager went on to explain that whilst she was responsible for administering the scheme she had no powers with regard to how Members would vote.

It was noted that the Council was very keen to involve local people in how Council Tax in the Royal Borough would be spent and Members were informed that this was the second year this scheme had been running. The Communications and Marketing Manager explained that almost 3,000 responses had been received which was approximately 20% up on last year’s figure. The Communications and Marketing Manager went on to explain that £50,000 had already been allocated to Maidenhead schemes and £25,000 to Ascot and Sunnings schemes.

Members were informed that more than two-fifths of residents who had participated in the survey (44%) had chosen to vote for schemes in the Windsor and Eton area. It was noted that one in ten had indicated that they did not want any money spent on the specified schemes whilst the remaining residents had ranked six schemes in order of importance for how a total of £50,000 should be spent in Windsor and Eton. Members were informed that the highest proportion of residents had selected pavement repairs and maintenance as their top priority scheme (37%) with the Olympic Legacy Bridge across the Thames being voted second preference with 20%.

The Chairman informed Members that three members of the public had registered to speak on this item and invited them in turn to address the Forum:

1) Mr Jamieson informed Members that he wanted to speak ‘against’ the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme. Mr Jamieson informed everyone present that the consultation outcome made it clear that the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme was only a priority for a minority of the residents in the Royal Borough. Mr Jamieson, a member of the West Windsor Residents Association (WWRA), informed Members that only 80 people had attended the WWRA AGM which had not given a fair representation of the 1,000 households it covered. Members were informed that Mr Jamieson did not believe the Legacy Bridge title was appropriate as it would not be used during the Olympics and as such did not fit the criterion. Mr Jamieson went on to explain that the proposed location of the bridge had been opposed by landowners. Mr Jamieson concluded by stating that he did not believe this scheme should receive any of the ratepayers’ money.

2) Mr Brown informed Members that he wanted to speak ‘in favour’ of the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme. Members were informed that this scheme had been entered into in March 2011 and the legacy vision had been presented to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) on the 8 September 2011. Members were informed that a petition had been running since Christmas which now had 2,500 signatures in favour of a public bridge which would allow the public to access rowing, kayaking and the Thames Path. Mr Brown informed Members that the Environment Agency had recently scrutinised the scheme and given it the green light and that following a presentation on the 8 September the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) had, in principal, stated that they found it to be a good, well thought out legacy. Mr Brown explained that funds were now required in order to move this scheme forward. Mr Brown said that whilst landowner consent had been a problem with the previous scheme it was now felt to be okay. Mr Brown concluded by informing Members that the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme would cost in the region of £4million but that £13,000, if allocated, would be used to fund the pre-planning application work and landowner consent.

3) Mr Holdstock informed Members that he wanted to speak ‘in favour’ of the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme. Members were informed that the WWRA comprised over 1,000 households and that at the AGM the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme had been voted for and had since been endorsed by the petition. Mr Holdstock went onto explain that the location of the footbridge was within easy reach of the Jubilee River, Dorney Lake and the Olympics. Members were informed that if the Health White Paper was enacted it would place responsibility on the Royal Borough to promote public health and the proposed footbridge would therefore go towards helping address that obligation. Mr Holdstock went on to inform Members that the Olympic Games would cause residents major disruption as approximately 800 coach journeys per day were expected to begin with and that, by investing in this scheme the Council would be investing in residents’ wellbeing.

The Chairman asked everyone present if anyone else had anything they wished to add and the following was noted:

Mrs Moss informed Members that she wished to speak ‘in favour’ of the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme. Mrs Moss informed Members that the bridge would be located on a heritage site and that all finds had currently been found in the Oxford area. Members were informed that a book was being written about the ancient burial site and that, as such, the site should be able to be accessed easily. Mrs Moss went on to explain that young, obese people, the elderly, young families, those without transport or no desire to drive and service families had all signed the petition in the Dedworth Post Office in support of the Legacy Bridge across the Thames scheme. Mrs Moss concluded by saying that she hoped the Olympic Legacy Bridge across the Thames would attract people to Windsor from all over the world.

Mr Malia informed Members that whilst he too had signed the petition in favour of the Legacy Bridge across the Thames scheme he was a little cautious about allocating funds to the scheme until landowners’ consent had been received.

Mr Sullivan informed Members that he wanted to speak ‘against’ the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme. Mr Sullivan informed Members that he had been told that additional details would be provided at the AGM and that whilst he felt a very enthusiastic job had been done by the WWRA he did not believe the scheme to be an Olympic legacy. Members were informed that residents would be able to see an end product with the other schemes being considered but not with this scheme. Mr Sullivan suggested that the people in favour of the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme cover the £13,000 cost themselves as pavement repairs and maintenance works were a higher priority which had been waiting sixteen years to be completed.

Councillor Fido informed everyone present that he had spent many hours agonising over this item as it involved a scheme in the Ward he represented. Members noted that Councillor Fido believed that the meeting tonight was not to debate the pros and cons of the schemes but to make a recommendation on the priorities that were contained in the consultation paper. Councillor Fido explained that whilst he did not dispute that the bridge scheme had its merits there were still questions such as funding, land issues, on-going maintenance and management questions that needed to be answered. Members were referred to the consultation paper which clearly stated how the sample base of 1,301 Windsor residents had responded and explained that Councillor Cynthia Endacott had emailed to say that in the current financial climate the money needed to be spent on repairs to the pavement, some of which were in an appalling condition, and to ensure that pavements and roads were able to be cleared in a severe winter. Councillor Fido went on to explain that a big concern to him was that residents in his Ward had been confused about the Participatory Budget Schemes. Councillor Fido concluded by stating that he felt he had no option but to abstain from voting on this item.

In the ensuing discussions the following was noted:

Ø Councillor Penfold explained that he believed it was imperative that an approval be given by the Olympic Delivery Authority before any work went ahead.
Ø Councillor Sue Evans informed Members that tree roots had caused pavements in the Royal Borough to become dangerous and that she felt it would be more beneficial to both residents and tourists if the pavement repairs went ahead.
Ø Councillor James Evans informed everyone present that whilst this was the last opportunity to allocate this tranche of money, the next financial year would see the Olympics gathering momentum and that the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme might be something that could be put on the back burner to see if the ODA gave its blessing and if landlords gave their agreement. While the signatures on the petition showed the bridge scheme was popular it was not a top priority with residents in the Participatory Budget exercise.

The Chairman asked for a show of hands from Members and residents present as to whether they believed some, part or all of the funds should be allocated to the Olympic Legacy Bridge scheme. The Chairman informed Members that he believed that the Forum should allocate the £50,000 to the pavement repairs and maintenance scheme as it had been ranked the highest priority by the sample base and was a basic requirement for the Royal Borough.

RESOLVED (5 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstained - Councillor Fido) that £50,000 be allocated by the Windsor Town Forum to the Windsor & Eton ‘Pavement repairs and maintenance’ scheme, as delegated by the Cabinet Participatory Budget Sub-Committee which met on the 21 July 2011.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

It was noted that the next meeting would take place on Monday 6 February 2012 at 7.00pm in the Guildhall, Windsor.

Any items suggestions for the next meeting were requested to be emailed to the Chairman (Cllr.Bursnall@rbwm.gov.uk) and / or the Clerk (tanya.leftwich@rbwm.gov.uk).


MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, ended at 8.35pm.