To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors George Bathurst, Stuart Carroll, Marius Gilmore, Paul Lion, Philip Love, Asghar Majeed, Nicola Pryer, Derek Sharp and Leo Walters.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2015

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2015 be approved, subject to the following amendments:

·         p.20 to read: ‘Councillor Werner stated that he was disappointed with the motion and would not be able to support it. There was a need for housing to give people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder….’

·         p.22 to read: ‘Mr Hill, by way of a supplementary question, referred to the Peter Clarke report (‘Report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter, July 2014), in particular Recommendation 12:

"Recommendation 12: Unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances, there should be a presumption that an individual will only be a governor at a maximum of two schools at any one time. All local authorities and multi-academy trusts should review their current governor arrangements, and where they identify an individual holding multiple positions they should consider the appropriate steps to ensure that a wider range of people are able to hold governor positions and that no single individual has undue influence over a number of schools."

Mr Hill stated that the report had been accepted in Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education. He also highlighted that the duty imposed was placed upon councils themselves and not merely Academies.

·         p.22 to read: ‘Mr Hill, by way of a supplementary question, commented that looking at the company’s website he would not know that was what the company did; the site represented Two5Nine as a sort of ‘management consultancy’ company. He commented that Councillor Burbage’s declaration  as to whether or not the activities of Two5Nine were conducted for profit differed from that by Councillors Dudley and Bicknell.

Councillor Burbage responded that he was unsure which declaration was the most accurate and he would ensure that the correct declarations were added to the website. If the website was not clear in explaining the role of Two5Nine he would ask officers to add more detail.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item to be considered at this meeting

Councillors Colin and Samantha Rayner declared Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in the item ‘Petition for Debate – Poundfield’  as they knew the owners of the site. They left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillors Colin and Samantha Rayner declared Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in the Member Question A as they were both trustees of a trust that owned land that could be compulsory purchased by Heathrow. They left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Alexander declared Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Golf Cub’  as a member of his family was a member of the golf club. He left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Kellaway declared an interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Golf Cub’ as he had been a member in his year as Mayor and he was also a member of the temple Golf club.

Councillor Rayner declared an interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Golf Cub’ as he had been a member in his year as Mayor.

Councillor Sharma declared an interest in the item ‘Budget 2016/17’ as he worked for a bus company.

Councillor Dudley declared an interest in the item ‘Public Questions’ as he was a founder and chair of Governors of Holport College. His wife was a founder and governor. His youngest child would also likely to attend the school from September 2016.

Councillor Bicknell declared an interest in the item ‘Public Questions’ as his son was Director of Sport at Holyport College.

Councillor Smith declared an interest in the item ‘Public Questions’ as his wife worked in administration at Holyport College.

Councillor Brimacombe declared Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item ‘Maidenhead Golf Club’ as a he owned two properties with 300m of the golf club and one adjacent to the site. He left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

To receive such communications as the Mayor may desire to place before the Council

The Mayor submitted in writing details of engagements that she and the Deputy Mayor had undertaken since the last meeting, which were noted by the Council. She commented that there were lots of wonderful people in the borough doing great work and she thanked them all.

A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 17 January 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a full Council meeting.

The petition reads as follows:

‘We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to designate the Poundfield area in Cookham, including land adjacent to the Nursery School, as a Local Green Space in the new Local Plan’

The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate such petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 17 January 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a full Council meeting.

The petition read as follows:

‘We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to designate the Poundfield area in Cookham, including land adjacent to the Nursery School, as a Local Green Space in the new Local Plan’

The Interim Planning Policy Manager introduced the petition. He highlighted that the petition creator had stated that Poundfield was a crucial green space which was part of the fundamental character of Cookham and the request was directed to safeguarding Cookham’s essential character. The Borough Local Plan was the only avenue for designation as there was no Neighbourhood Plan in Cookham.

Mr David Ashwanden, Lead Petitioner, thanked the borough on behalf of the Cookham Society. The petition and report recommendation were both about preserving Poundfield, a 15 acre site in the Cookham Conservation area. Poundfield was ‘quintessential Cookham’ and was cherished by both residents and visitors. A key section in the Cookham Village Design statement was that Cookham was defined by its green spaces; Poundfield was a central green space. The online petition had been supplemented by a hard copy petition; at times people were queuing to sign. Poundfield ticked all the boxes: it was the right size and in the right place. Visitors to the Stanley Spencer gallery would often then go to Poundfield to look at the views the painter had created. There had been multiple attempts to develop the site; resistance by the village was clear.

Mr Dick Scarfe referred Members to the March 1995 edition of the Cookham Society newsletter which had stated ‘the Local Plan is vitally important for Poundfield. Five attempts over the years had failed. The developer survives to fight another day, the village can only lose once’. The edition also referred to church bells ringing in celebration when local people had won the day against the developer. Mr Scarfe then referred to photographs from the Maidenhead Advertiser in 1989 that showed 600 protestors had marched around the perimeter of the site, united in opposition to the controversial plan for development.  He hoped councillors would unanimously support the recommendation in the report.

Councillor Saunders referred to email correspondence earlier that day where he had suggested that:

·         an endorsement of the proposed designation of Poundfield as Local Green Space in the emerging Borough Local Plan does not prejudice or predetermine the undertaking, outcome or interpretation of future consultations or the subsequent examination or adoption of that emerging Plan;

·         the determination of future planning applications relating to Poundfield may reference and give weight to such an endorsement to the extent supported by the contents and stage reached of that emerging Plan.

Councillor Saunders commented that he believed the Council had heard a clear and compelling argument for why the area should be so designated.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 24 January 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a full Council meeting.

The petition reads as follows:

‘We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to provide immediate funding to enable work to commence at the earliest opportunity, within this financial year, on the agreed road safety proposal for Wraysbury Railway Station Bridge, Station Road’

The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate such petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 24 January 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a full Council meeting.

The petition read as follows:

‘We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to provide immediate funding to enable work to commence at the earliest opportunity, within this financial year, on the agreed road safety proposal for Wraysbury Railway Station Bridge, Station Road’

The Strategic Director of Operations and Customer Services thanked the petitioners for their hard work and efforts in securing more than 1000 signatures. Additionally, support had been secured from both Wraysbury Parish Council and Horton Parish Council.

He explained that Wraysbury Station railway bridge was controlled by traffic signals but did not benefit from an accessible footpath which potentially created road safety risks, particularly for pedestrians. Royal Borough officers had undertaken a feasibility study and created an outline design solution which repositioned the traffic signals on both sides of the bridge and incorporated a new footway.  This outline scheme would support the general principles of improving road safety and encouraging walking.

In summary, he welcomed the petition to improve pedestrian facilities from residents in Wraysbury and, subject to support from Council, would be very happy for officers to further develop the outline scheme, review costs and prepare a timetable for delivery which would be presented to Cabinet and shared with residents, Members, Horton Parish Council and Wraysbury Parish Council.

Council was addressed by Graham Cribbin and Henry Perez, Lead Petitioners. Mr Cribbin explained that he and Mr Perez had started the Wraysbury Speed Watch group to enable residents to inform and converse on any speeding issues they or their families had experienced. Over the past year the group had grown to 250 members, with many mentioning Wraysbury Station bridge as one of the key concerns. The group was aware of one fatality on the bridge and also one life-changing injury.

A site visit had been held in January 2016 with South West Trains, National Rail, the borough, Ward Councillor John Lenton and Parish Council Chairman Margaret Lenton. The group had walked across the bridge and reached the top when two buses had met; all had had to lean back onto the collapsed fence to avoid being hit. The lack of pathway meant those using wheelchairs or pushchairs had no access to the station or village shops. Everything that the group had spoken to the railway about had been undertaken. Further site meetings had taken place and a feasibility study and safety plan had been developed that would cost £85,000. The online and hard copy petition had attracted 2250 signatures, 70-80% of which were local residents.

Mr Perez explained that safety concerns relating to bridge access had been experienced by residents for over 20 years. In its current state the bridge was unsafe and not fit for purpose for pedestrian traffic. The population of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Kate Sheehan of Cox Green will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

I applaud Councillors Bicknell’s comments at the last full Council meeting held in December 2015, stating 'every child should be able to walk to school safely'.  As this is RBWM's policy, why was planning consent given to Holyport College without a safe pedestrian and cycle route being part of the planning approval conditions'

Kate Sheehan of Cox Green will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

The original Holyport College travel plan stated that you would offer FREE transport to all pupils attending the school and at your consultation meeting in Holyport prior to build you stated to me that no pavement was needed because free transport would be available.  Why are you now supporting a walking/cycling route rather than Holyport College providing free transport as promised?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

Kate Sheehan of Cox Greenasked the following question ofCouncillor D. Wilson:

I applaud Councillors Bicknell’s comments at the last full Council meeting held in December 2015, stating 'every child should be able to walk to school safely'.  As this is RBWM's policy, why was planning consent given to Holyport College without a safe pedestrian and cycle route being part of the planning approval conditions'

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he had checked the record of the meeting on 15 December 2015 and Cllr Bicknell had stated that 'every child should be able to get to school safely'. He continued to explain that the site now used by Holyport College was previously occupied by Holyport Manor school, an education establishment; permission was granted under application 13/00287 for the redevelopment of the site to provide a new secondary school.  The planning officer’s report to Panel on 28 May 2013, which he had chaired, clearly set out the highway considerations on which the application was assessed but also that the application was made on the basis of no pupil or staff member walking or cycling to school.  A draft travel plan was submitted with a transport assessment supporting the application and a condition of the permission was a requirement to have a full Travel Plan for the future.  This condition was discharged in consultation with highway colleagues.

Ms Sheehan, by way of a supplementary question, asked for confirmation that Holyport College be put on a list of all schools requiring safe routes and not prioritised?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that the council would consider safe routes for all schools; all would be looked at during the process. It was an evolving process.

Kate Sheehan of Cox Green asked the following question ofCouncillor D. Wilson:

The original Holyport College travel plan stated that you would offer FREE transport to all pupils attending the school and at your consultation meeting in Holyport prior to build you stated to me that no pavement was needed because free transport would be available.  Why are you now supporting a walking/cycling route rather than Holyport College providing free transport as promised?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he was perplexed as he had not offered free transport and he had not attended a consultation meeting. As per the previous answer all schools in the borough would be provided with safe routes.

Ms Sheehan stated that she had submitted the question to Cllr Dudley rather than Councillor D. Wilson.

Councillor Dudley explained that originally there was free transport for pupils as part of the Travel Plan; those rights had been grandfathered for pupils still at that school who joined in 2014/15. Those attending from 15/16 onwards would have to pay for transport.  Parents and friends of pupils were keen that pupils could walk or cycle to school and had resented a petition to tis effect. The school has set aside over £80,000 in s106 funding and the council had agreed to look into such a scheme.

Ms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To receive any petitions presented by Members on behalf of registered electors for the Borough under Rule C.10.

          (Any Member submitting a petition has up to 2 minutes to summarise its contents)

The following petition was presented by Councillor Rankin:

‘We the undersigned ask the council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to urgently review the traffic calming measures on Frances Road in consultation with the residents to ensure that effective controls are in place to reduce traffic speeds and the potentially damaging impact of heavy vehicles on house, caused by vibrations as they pass over the existing arrangements.’

Councillor Rankin addressed the meeting to summarise the content of the petition. He explained that he and his fellow ward councillors had been presented a petition by the residents of Frances Road. The petition requested a review of traffic calming measures and consultation with residents and ward councillors. On the road traffic travelled too fast for an urban area and traffic calming measures had been put in place. Due to poor positioning of speed bumps this was causing vibrations within homes on the road.

The Mayor ruled that the petition should be referred to Cabinet for consideration

        To consider a report in relation to the above

Members considered approval of the programme of meetings for the Council, Cabinet and the various Panels, Forums etc for the 2016/17 Municipal Year. Councillor Burbage explained that a revised version was before Members following necessary changes as a result of the EU referendum on 23 June 2016.

Councillor Dudley proposed that an extraordinary meeting of the Council be arranged to enable Members to debate the EU referendum. This would not be a whipped vote.

It was proposed by Councillor Burbage, seconded by Councillor Dudley and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             The Programme of Meetings for the 2016/17 Municipal Year, (revised version circulated to Members at the meeting) be approved.

ii)            An extraordinary meeting of the Full Council be held to debate the EU Referendum; date to be confirmed.

        To consider a report in relation to the above

Members considered approval of an updated Pay Policy Statement for 2016/17 as required by the Localism Act 2011.

Councillor Beer commented that the document referred to the lowest paid and highest paid employees, but there was no information on intermediate grades. He also suggested that as quite a lot of staff worked in Windsor, a deal for discounted rail travel be negotiated similar to that already in place with Great Western for Maidenhead employees.

Councillor Burbage commented that the Pay Policy statement was only required to detail the highest and lowest paid employees, it was not intended to describe the entire pay structure. The information would be made available to Councillor Beer if he wished. He would look into the issue of discounted rail travel. Councillor Rayner commented that an approach had already been made and, unfortunately, rejected.

It was proposed by Councillor Hollingsworth, seconded by Councillor Rankin,

and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council approve the Pay Policy Statement 2016/17 and publishes it on its website by 31 March 2016.

        To consider a report in relation to the above

Members considered the Council budget for 2016/17.

The Lead Member for Finance thanked all officers for their hard work and diligence that made the budget possible. He thanked all Members, in particular those newly elected in May 2015, as the budget was a joint effort. He highlighted that Andrew Brooker, the Head of Finance, was leaving at the end of March 2016. Mr Brooker had been with the borough for almost 20 years and was a fantastic officer.

The Lead Member explained that the budget was based on three pillars:

·         Low taxation. The borough had the lowest council tax outside of London and believed deeply that residents were taxed on the money they earned and should not be taxed again.

·         Protection of the most vulnerable. Investments were being made in adult social care and children’s services.

·         Investing for the future. The council was investing to make the borough a better place to live. The council was working to build the tax base to enable this to happen.

The budget was set against a challenging settlement from central government. In 2015/16 the grant was £28.7m; this would reduce by 45% to £15.1m by 2019/20. Yet again council tax was being frozen at a Band D level of £906.95. In real terms this was a reduction of 0.8% as RPI was 0.8% in September 2015. In nominal terms this represented a reduction of 12.6% over seven years or 31.4% in real terms. The council was taking the opportunity to introduce the 2% Adult Social Care precept. To achieve the freeze, savings of £5.7m had been identified with a further £14.6m in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) to 2019/20. This has been achieved through efficiencies rather than cuts to frontline services.

The capital programme totalled £25m, of which £15m was corporately funded. Expansion of secondary schools would use £2.5m, which formed part of an overall programme for school expansion totalling £20m.

To achieve its objectives the council had to build its tax base. The assumption was for the equivalent of 1000 band D properties to be built every year in the borough. The council had invested £680,000 from the development fund in the Borough Local Plan process.

The government settlement had been so severe that the treasury had reconsidered and had subsequently provided £500m of transition grant funding. The borough would receive £1.3m for each of 2016/17 and 2018/19. This funding would be passed to the development fund.

The Opposition Spokesperson, Councillor Mrs Jones offered her thanks to the officers for their hard work to produce budget and to Andrew Brooker, the finance team and the Directors for their time. She explained that, as in previous years the Opposition did not consider providing an alternative budget to be a proper use of the council’s limited resources given the large majority the current administration held.

She had stood at the Council meeting in 2015 and asked for a freeze on council tax because of service pressures, but as always there were speeches full  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

a)    Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor D Wilson, Lead Member for Planning

An Airports Commission Report stated a Heathrow Third Runway would generate 112,400 jobs needing 70,400 new houses, 5,000 in RBWM.   Please explain the appalling failures to inform residents about the enormous problems this would create above the 12,000 homes we are already struggling to accommodate, and why no objection has been made to the Commission or Parliament?

b)   Question submitted by Councillor Rayner to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

What progress is the Royal Borough Council making in installing dust, pollution and noise monitoring devices in the area of a Waste Transfer Station in Hythe End Wraysbury?

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Rayner to Councillor D. Wilson, Lead Member for Planning

If the RBWM was to receive incontrovertible evidence that the original Certificate of Lawful Use for Hythe End Farm was applied for unlawfully, what steps would the council take?

d)   Question submitted by Councillor Lenton to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Adult Services & Health

Following Berkshire East PCT’s failure to implement the provision of a replacement surgery in Wraysbury, promised in 2006, and  the PCT’s subsequent withdrawal of support for the minor ailments scheme, would the Lead Member please confirm that the Council will vigorously oppose any proposed down grading of the Pharmacy service in Wraysbury to the residents of Horton and Wraysbury.

e)    Question submitted by Councillor D Evans to Councillor D Wilson, Lead Member for Planning

Could the Lead Member inform me as to how many residential dwellings (houses, flats, and apartments) were completed in the Royal Borough in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015?

f)     Question submitted by Councillor E Wilson to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Will the Lead Member join the Dedworth Spring Day on Saturday 5th March?

g)   Question submitted by Councillor Rankin to Councillor Rayner, Lead Member for Highways and Transport

The residents of Frances Road have collected a petition expressing concerns about traffic speeds and vibration to houses in Frances Road and have requested the introduction of effective traffic calming. Can the Lead Member please give a commitment that the petition will be fully considered and traffic calming options be prepared for consideration by the Residents' and Ward Members?

h)   Question submitted by Councillor Grey to Councillor Ms Stretton, Principal Member for Culture and Communities

Will the Lead Member investigate the state of the Royal Plaques on Victoria Bridge and Albert Bridge which are in need of some attention, as many residents and visitors pass these on the bridges?

(The Member responding has up to 5 minutes to address Council. The Member asking the question has up to 1 minute to submit a supplementary question. The Member responding then has a further 2 minutes to respond)

Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor D Wilson, Lead Member for Planning

An Airports Commission Report stated a Heathrow Third Runway would generate 112,400 jobs needing 70,400 new houses, 5,000 in RBWM.   Please explain the appalling failures to inform residents about the enormous problems this would create above the 12,000 homes we are already struggling to accommodate, and why no objection has been made to the Commission or Parliament?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that Councillor Beer had long requested this in standing up for the borough in relation to Heathrow. The council had been at the front of campaigning. As a leading member of 2M, the council had made  a strong and co-ordinated challenge to the third runway at every step. This had intensified since the deeply flawed report had been published. Following this a detailed technical critique had been sent to all MPs, expressing the report’s weaknesses. Ministers had been lobbied through joint correspondence and submitted to committee. The council was determined to do all it could to prevent expansion.

Councillor Beer, by way of a supplementary, commented that there was concern that the bodies mentioned had been challenged on air quality and noise but not on infrastructure. He would like to see a joint submission against runway three on the grounds of the stress on the housing structure. He asked if the Lead Member would agree?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he would like to look at the information Councillor Beer had before moving forward. The council would continue to lobby the government. He had had conversations with the other Berkshire authorities in the reference group.

Councillors C Rayner and S Rayner left the room for the duration of the discussion on this question

Question submitted by Councillor Rayner to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

What progress is the Royal Borough Council making in installing dust, pollution and noise monitoring devices in the area of a Waste Transfer Station in Hythe End Wraysbury?

Councillor Cox responded that Royal Borough officers were actively investigating noise and dust complaints associated with the operation of a concrete crusher on the site in question.  Officers were undertaking visits to the area of the site to assess noise levels.  Using noise recording equipment in this location could be difficult due to the high ambient noise levels and other noise sources in the location, for example it would be very difficult to determine that recorded noise, without the officer being present to hear it at the time, was attributable to the activity in question.  The Environment Agency was investigating noise complaints from activity on the site generally that was covered by the Environmental Permit.

Council officers were also investigating dust complaints when they undertook their visits.  The Environment Agency notified residents in their newsletter of 26 November 2015 that they had installed a dust monitoring unit near to the site.  This was a six month study so would conclude in May 2016.

Councillor Rayner, by way of a supplementary, asked for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the Council’s Constitution, the Mayor called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 10.00pm.

     RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the meeting continue past 10.00pm.

a)    By Councillor D. Wilson:

The Post Office has announced that it may close or franchise its branch in Maidenhead.

This Council expresses concern at the loss of services that are currently to the local community, which will be a loss, and will press the Post Office to rethink their decision.

b)   By Councillor Smith:

Many residents speak to me with concerns of cars speeding in residential areas. Current government regulation prohibits councils from putting up 30mph 'repeater' signs and painted roundels on street lit roads. I ask that:

This Council writes to the Minister of State, asking him to scrap this regulation, clarify the law, and delegate to local authorities like Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead the power to put up 30mph repeaters and roundels where they are needed.

By Councillor D. Wilson

Councillor D. Wilson introduced his motion. He explained that the council was

concerned at the proposal by Post Office Ltd. to either close or put out to

franchise the service in Maidenhead High Street. The issue was beyond politics

and he urged all to sign up to the petition on the council’s website. With other

smaller branches closing the main Post Office was needed, particularly in light of

demographic changes.

Councillor Ilyas stated that the closure or franchising out would have a

substantial effect on the community. The Post Office had recently completed a

consultation in Furze Platt to move the post office to another location and reduce

services. The communication about this consultation referred residents to use the

main Post office in Maidenhead if services were reduced.

Councillor Hill commented that one third of small businesses used the Post Office

every week. A study in Essex assessed the impact of a Post Office closure,

which resulted in small businesses losing 25% of turnover. He requested the

opposition direct people to the petition on the council’s website. He also asked

the press to publicise the link to the petition.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that the council had been told the post office

in Maidenhead was uneconomic yet there had been no transparency in their

calculations.

Councillor Werner stated that all were in agreement that it would be ridiculous to

close the Post Office in Maidenhead or move it to another location. There was

very high internet usage in the borough but not all elderly residents were able

or willing to use it therefore the Post Office was a vital service. He had heard a

rumour that the Post Office were deliberately trying to cause queues on the

branch to stop people wanting to go there. The Post Office was located at  the

quiet end of the High Street and its closure would be drastic on the businesses

there. Councillor Werner was happy to recommend people to go to the council’s

e-petition. He was aware there was already one of over 2000 signatures in the

Post Office itself. He suggested all be encouraged to sign each other’s petitions.

It was proposed by Councillor D. Wilson, seconded by Councillor  Werner and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council expresses concern at the loss of services that are currently to the local community, which will be a loss, and will press the Post Office to rethink their decision.

By Councillor Smith:

Councillor Smith introduced his motion. He explained that in 2002 councils had

been prohibited  from using 30mph repeaters and roundels. This general

prohibition had come about as a result of case law as it was difficult to gain

convictions if some roads had the signs and others did not. Nationally the

problem of speeding in 30mph areas had declined however the DfT stated that

45% of drivers still speeded. In his ward there were long straight roads in semi-

rural areas that were a particular problem.

Councillor E Wilson endorsed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

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 item 15 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: 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 15-16 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider a report in relation to the above

To consider the above report.

The Mayor agreed to add this urgent item to the agenda on 18 February 2016.