To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies received from Councillor Nicola Pryer.

To receive any Declarations of Interest.

None received.

To confirm the Part I Minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 24 February 2016 be approved.

To receive and consider the above report.

RBWM Transformation Programme 2015-2018: An Agile Council

Simon Fletcher, Strategic Director of Operations stated the report introduced the Council’s Transformation Programme. The key points highlighted included:

Ø  The Borough had been transforming for a number of years.

Ø  The paper set out £24.5m of savings since 2013/14.

Ø  The environment in Local Government continued to change and there is significantly less central funding available.

Ø  Resident expectations (of the Councils services) were increasing at a time when significant budget  reductions  needed to be implemented.

Ø  The Borough wanted to continue to provide excellent services for residents, in an environment of reducing funding, and to do that, the Council had to become an Agile Council

Ø  Details of the Transformation Programme were set out on page 14 of the report from paragraph 2.4.

Ø  The Borough has some exceptional managers and the Council’s ambition was to have the best managers across the whole of the Council and not just in some areas.

Ø  As budgets reduced and the organisation as a whole reduced in size, the Council would likely directly employ a smaller workforce.

Ø  A smaller Council for the future would be a place people would want to work for.

Ø  Transformation is something which will be ongoing in the future.

Cllr Beer raised concerns that if the workforce was smaller, would there be enough officers to carry out the work required; he was concerned that targets would not be met. The Chairman stated he felt it was a strategy that would be achieved and the officers were confident they could achieve it. He added the Council had already made £24m of savings in the last few years and the Council could spend wisely and still get things done. The Chairman stated it was an ambitious programme but officers had made reductions successfully and he supported the recommendations.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That: The Panel recommend Cabinet approve the refreshed RBWM Transformation Programme 2015-18: An Agile Council.

To receive and consider the above report.

Simon Fletcher, Strategic Director of Operations gave a brief summary or the report which included the following main points:

Ø  The footbridge was part of the highway owned by the Royal Borough and is therefore subject to Street Naming Legislation adopted by the Council.

Ø  Mr Scaife requested to rename the bridge after losing his son to drowning.

Ø  The Borough felt that if the bridge is renamed as Michael’s Bridge, it would serve as a deterrent to other would-be swimmers.

Ø  Eton Town Council had withdrawn their objection to renaming the bridge.

Cllr Hunt stated she felt it was much better to name it Michael’s Bridge because as soon as you say it, it makes people think of safety. The Strategic Director of Operations confirmed the campaign to rename the bridge had peaked a lot of local media interest who are awaiting the outcome of the decision once it has been to Cabinet.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That: Members fully endorsed the recommendations to Cabinet.

To receive and consider the above report.

Ben Smith, Head of Highways & Transport gave Members a brief summary of the report which included the following main points:

Ø  The report provided an update on the potential introduction of a Road and Streetworks Permit Scheme.

Ø  The report was seeking approval in principle to the initiative and to consult with utility companies and stakeholders on the proposed scheme.

Ø  Utility companies would be required to notify the Council over works due to be carried out and obtain a permit.

Ø  The permit would give the Council more controls as utility companies would have to apply and pay for a permit.

Ø  Utility companies would have to state the hours they required the road and traffic measures they would implement to reduce disruption.

Ø  Companies would need to apply for a permit every time they wanted to carry out works.

Ø  The Borough would need to consult with all utility companies and then a paper would be brought back with the consultation results.

Ø  The paper requested £120k budget to carry out the consultation and implement the scheme.

Ø  The scheme should help to minimise congestion and inconvenience for residents and motorists.

Ø  Part of the exercise was to survey roads and establish best practice for each road. That will help the Borough know when peak and off peak traffic times were. The utility companies could then work around those times.

Ø  If utility companies don’t comply with permits, they could be fined.

Ø  There was a range of charges with upper limits and an appeals process for utility companies.

Ø  The scheme should be self-funding, however, the Council would not be making a profit from it.

Ø  Part of the road network survey would be to establish which roads were suitable to night time works.

The Chairman stated it would give control back to the Borough and would get utility companies working together and they would also be held accountable for the standard of works carried out. He added it was a very good scheme. The Head of Highways and Transport confirmed there was an increase in Local Authorities moving towards the permit scheme approach. Slough Council had also recently adopted the scheme. He also confirmed that parish councils were able to provided input to the consultation.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Members fully endorsed the recommendations to Cabinet.

This report has been moved into Part II.

This report was moved into Part II.

To receive and consider the above appendices.

To receive and consider the above report.