v


PRESENT: Councillors Beer, Holness, Mrs Hunt, Mrs Kemp and Thompson

Officers: Ms Bailey, Mr Herlinger, Mrs Hornby, Mr Oram, Mr Perkins and Mr Stallwood.

45/10 APPOINTEMENT OF CHAIRMAN

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor Thompson be voted Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

46/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillors Mrs Howes, Meadowcroft and Stretton.

47/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Beer declared a Personal interest in the Flood Monitoring item due to being a member of the Flood and Royal Borough Flood Liaison Groups. Declared an interest in the ‘Temporary Direction Restricting Permitted Development during the Olympics’ and ‘Olympics Progress Report’ items, due to being a member of Windsor Development Control Panel.

48/10 MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the Part I minutes of the meetings held on 13 September 2010 be approved, subject to the following amendments –

Ø Page ii, that is was not necessary to retrofit vehicles as stated in the penultimate paragraph.
Ø Page v, that Cabinet be advised “In conjunction with the comments listed above, that the Panel endorsed the report”
Ø Page vii, the Panel agreed that the scheme should not go forward.

49/10 MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the Part I minutes of the meetings held on 27 September 2010 be approved, subject to the following amendments –

Ø That it be noted Ms Bailey and Mr Oram were in attendance and that Ms Arlidge and Mr Carr were not in attendance.
Ø Page ix, fourth bullet point the sentence “in relation to flood risk management be inserted into the paragraph to read “Concern was PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL – 27.09.2010
Ø expressed in relation to the high sums that were being paid to the Environment Agency, in relation to flood risk management, and the panel was assured that this figure and any change in arrangements would be constantly under review.”

50/10 FLOOD MONITORING REPORT

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 25 November 2010 and noted that the report was the regular six monthly report updating Cabinet on any flooding issues and was for noting purposes only as there were no action points.

It was noted that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (the Act) had received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 but that it had not commenced by Ministerial Order before coming into effect. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) wrote to all Local Authorities in England on 16 September 2010 with details of the commencement timetable for the Act which was proposed for June 2011.

The Panel noted that the newly formed Flood Group had met twice and had made significant progress on risk assessments to recognise the top ten water courses and which would be identified by individual Parishes.

It was noted that a speaker from the National Flood Forum had attended a meeting of Parishes and Council and had spoken in relation to Insurance issues.

The Panel also noted the revised Flood Map and information relating to Battle Bourne Embankment and The Cut. They also noted the Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy (LTFRMS) was submitted to the Environment Agency’s (EA) Major Projects Review Group in February 2010 and had been recommended for approval. Subject to DEFRA approval and funding being made available, the first stage of the flood plain management work should begin in 2012 with engineering works beginning gin 2017 at the earliest.

During the ensuing discussion, the following was noted –

Ø Concern was raised in relation to Wootton Way and the A308 particularly immediately in front of Maidenhead station although it was reported that these issues had been raised in previous meetings. The EA had advised that it could potentially cost up to £10 million and that it was therefore not cost effective. It was agreed that the area would be closely monitored, particularly if a sudden and heavy rainfall should occur.
Ø It was noted that often flooding occurred once rivers had begun to back up leading to the volume of water having nowhere else to go which therefore led to flooding.
Ø It was also noted that in the past information from the EA was obtained in relation to flood mapping, but that would not be possible in future it would be the sole responsibility of the EA and it would be their responsibility to co-ordinate as laid out in the Flood and Water Management Act. However, it was noted that the Royal Borough was a Lead Local Authority who needed to prepare a Preliminary Assessment Report in relation to flood risk in the area by 22 June 2011. It was also noted that there was not sufficient staff to carry this out.
Ø Concern was raised that insurance companies continued to issue and quote for policies within certain postcode areas, and which was based on the EA flood map, which was often out of date, and therefore the sooner that local flood mapping was completed the better, as this could be used by insurance companies to update their records.
Ø The Borough had carried out remedial works to high risk flood areas although recognised that the area immediately in front of Maidenhead station was still a high risk area.
Ø Concern was raised that the Jubilee River had not fulfilled its potential. It was noted that the EA believed that it was correct in undertaking the scheme as Maidenhead and Windsor had not suffered significant flooding – apart from the heavy rain in 2007 – since 2000. It was in the EA’s best interests to get flood water to the sea as quickly as possible, and the Jubilee River helped with issues in the Thames.
Ø It was reported that due to cleaning of drains, when heavy rain occurred, standing water was not such an issue due to water draining away quickly.
Ø Concern was raised in relation to alleviation works which had been identified should carried out.
Ø In relation to point 3.1.3 concern was raised over the government which had ‘indicated’ that burdens on the Council would be fully funded. It was noted that £20,000 had been made available but that there was no further funding available. The new government was yet to make a decision on how this funding would be distributed.
Ø In relation to Battle Bourne Embankment it was noted that the current flood defence was installed in 1948 and the scheme needed enhancing. It was noted that funding would be ensured before proceeding.
Ø It was noted that if ditches became full, particularly in relation to Waltham St Lawrence, it was the responsibility of landowners to clear.
Ø It was agreed that a link to the list of Main River courses would be circulated with the Minutes –
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37837.aspx

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and note the importance of flood mapping and that the desire for alleviation works which were identified should be carried out.

51/10 SERVICE MONITORING REPORT

Members noted the Service Monitoring Report and noted the contents. There were a number of areas of concern, specifically around staffing. It was confirmed that workloads were changing and that some vacancies noted in the report would be reviewed over time.

The Panel noted the issue of car parking income which remained under budget although the numbers had improved, despite season ticket number sales being down. The Panel noted that various levels of paying to park had been introduced, for instance in Nicholson’s car park, 30 minutes’ residents parking rate of 40p and a shoppers rate of £2.00 to park for four hours were in place. There were many tariffs across the Borough to help the residents in particular. It was believed however, that on occasions 30 minutes was not enough time to park, complete business and ensure a return to the car within that time and this could potentially put people off visiting Maidenhead town centre.

The Panel was informed that a trial was being carried out at the Stafferton Way car park in Maidenhead and River Street in Windsor whereby people can purchase their tickets via mobile phones. This would mean that should someone have purchased a ticket and they were aware they would not be back at their car before the time ran out, they could then ‘top up’ by simply making a telephone call to pay by credit or debit card. This scheme was optional and had so far proved quite popular.

The issue of pay on exit versus the current scheme of pay and display was discussed. It was noted that the system had been changed relatively recently and to change back would cost a significant amount of money.

It was noted that the Maidenhead Rejuvenation scheme would need to include parking facilities to make it easier for the visitor and resident. It was noted that Hines Meadow car park had been rebuilt as part of the Sainsbury’s store development, but that the expected number of visitors using it had not materialised.

The Panel discussed the Thames Water site in Stafferton Way and wondered whether this site could be re-opened for park and ride purposes. However, the Strategic Director of Environment and Head of Planning had met with Thames Water and stated that this item was not a part of their Agenda at present. The Panel commented that with Crossrail coming to Maidenhead this item should be brought forward and discussed with Thames Water.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward.

52/10 TEMPORARY DIRECTION RESTRICITING PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT DURING THE OLYMPICS

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on the 25 November 2010 on the Temporary Direction Restricting Permitted Development during the Olympics and noted that permission was being sought from Cabinet to withdraw “permitted development” rights for the temporary use of land for the parking of vehicles, camping and markets (including car boot sales) by making a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) to become effective on 1 June 2012 in respect of the land shown. That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning & Development to confirm the Direction if objections were not received during the consultation period and that Delegated authority to the Head of Planning & Development to withdraw the Direction after the Olympics.

The Panel requested definition on when the Olympics ended, for the sake of the report, and noted that it would be the day after the Olympics had finished. The Panel then agreed that the temporary restriction should remain in place for the Paralympics, although it was noted that the large numbers were not expected for the Paralympics as they were for the Olympics, and that entrance for the public during the Paralympics would be through the front gate in Dorney. However, it was agreed to put the recommendation that restrictions remain in place until after the Paralympics forward to Cabinet.

The Panel noted that there would be a temporary bridge over the River Thames from the Windsor Racecourse, which was to be the main parking point. Visitors would also be able to access the site via boat, and would ‘land’ at the racecourse and again have to walk over the bridge as direct access to Dorney Lake from the river will be forbidden. This was due to the high level of security checks that would be in place. The Panel also noted that the Royal Borough was liaising with South Bucks as they were heavily involved as well although it was noted that because only members of the ‘Olympic Family’ will be accessing Dorney Lake from their side the same issues did not arise and therefore they would not be seeking the same restrictions although this remained under review.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report subject to the inclusion under c) of the Recommendation that it be considered the Direction remain in place during the Paralympics to cease on the last day of the Games.

53/10 OLYMPICS PROGRESS REPORT

Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 25 November 2010 on the Olympics Progress Report and noted that there were less than two years before the start of the Games. The report was for Members to note that actions had been done and what was yet to be done. The Council was very mindful of the impact the Games would have on the residents especially those around the Windsor Racecourse area. The Panel noted that, to date, no additional staff had been taken on. It was reported also that the Windsor & Maidenhead Voluntary Action (WMVA) was closely involved in discussions particularly relating to volunteers. It had been agreed that many volunteers would be required as marshals and ‘meet and greet’ amongst others. However, it was noted that LOCOG was advertising for volunteers, and it was assumed that many residents would put themselves forward. It was hoped to advertise that volunteers were wanted via our website as there was a link to the Royal Borough’s Olympics website. The Panel noted that Maidenhead had been named as a stopping off point for Dorney Lake and therefore volunteers would be required to assist visitors in getting to the Dorney Lake site, via the Windsor Racecourse.

It had been decided by the ODA that there would be a temporary bridge across the River Thames from the Windsor Racecourse meaning that visitors would park at the racecourse and walk over the bridge to Dorney Lake. Security would be very tight and therefore access direct to the Lake from the River might not be possible.

The Visitor Manager had already hosted a number of representatives from foreign teams showing them what the Royal Borough had to offer. It was noted that the Royal Holloway College in Egham was to be an Olympic village with competitors staying there and who would therefore bring in more visitors to the Royal Borough. However, it was also noted that as well as the accredited press who would be attending, there would also be the non-accredited press who would need to be guided around the Royal Borough supporting the good news stories reported. It was noted that the Visitor Manager was aware of this and had already been talking to press agencies around the world.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward.

54/10 MEETING

The meeting, which began at 6.30pm, concluded at 8.42pm