The Panel shall receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Walters and Councillor Blundell.

Councillor Sharpe and Councillor Reeves were attending the meeting as substitutes.

The Panel are asked to declare any interests that they may have.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12^th June 2023.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 12^th June 2023 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The report outlines a suggested topic submitted by a resident for consideration by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Topics can be suggested by residents and then considered by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel for further consideration. Residents are able to access the criteria on the council's website.

The suggested topic received as follows: “Bike thefts are occurring in broad daylight outside Windsor Leisure Centre. This is worrying and children are having their bikes stolen.”

The Panel are asked to consider the report and decide whether any further scrutiny is required.

The Chair explained that a resident had submitted a scrutiny topic suggestion on bike thefts outside Windsor Leisure Centre. There was concern that young people were having their bikes stolen from outside of the leisure centre and requested that the council review this to see what could be done. The resident had a number of suggestions which could be implemented to improve the situation.

Tim Golabek, Service Lead for Transport, provided the RBWM response to the suggestion. The council were aware of the bike thefts at a number of locations including Windsor Leisure Centre. It was important to note that the responsibility lay with the individual in ensuring that their bike was properly secured however the council would do its best to provide safe locations. This location had recently been reviewed and last year the council had received a grant from Active Travel England and a planning application had been made to create a secure cycle storage unit. The storage would be managed by Spokesafe and a visual ID check would be required to enter the unit, with a small fee charge. Officers from the council should not be involved in dealing with thefts, this was a police matter. The police could provide residents with things like UV stickers to identify stolen bikes which should be utilised.

Councillor Carpenter said that the plans sounded good, there was a need for more cycle storage in Windsor and across the borough. She asked if the target user was for those using the leisure centre or for residents wanting to access the town centre. The cycle storage would be built on the recycling centre, Councillor Carpenter asked if this would be relocated. A small fee had been mentioned, Councillor Carpenter asked how much this would be. She concluded by asking who would be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the cycle unit.

Tim Golabek explained that the cycle storage unit would cost a significant amount of money but had been funded through the grant which the council had received. The unit could be used by both those visiting the town centre and also the Windsor Leisure Centre. This was the first project of its kind in the borough and Tim Golabek was keen to explore other locations where secure cycle storage could be implemented. The charge was £1 per use but a further discussion would need to be had around the maintenance of the unit between Spokesafe and the council. The recycling centre location was not deemed to be beneficial due to the amount of fly tipping, Tim Golabek would check with colleagues in the Place team to see if there were any plans to relocate this.

ACTION – Tim Golabek to check with the Assistant Director of Neighbourhood Services whether the recycling centre at Windsor Leisure Centre would be relocated should the cycle storage unit plans be progressed.

Councillor Sharpe felt that this was a narrow scope on the topic, he asked what was being provided for residents from other areas of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

This is a Cabinet report which is looking to amend the speed limit on the A308 between Monkey Island Lane and the M4 motorway bridge from the current 40 mph to 30 mph. This is in response to requests from local residents and members of the Bray parish council.

The reduction is not supported by officers based on evidence gathered in the last two years using traffic count surveys. The speed at the 85^th percentile is significantly below the current speed limit and whilst minor injury-related incidents have been recorded by the police, the current limit appears correct of a road of this nature.

Furthermore, the police have issued a formal objection with the proposed changes likely to result in a high degree of non-compliance and as this road is part of a diversion route on the strategic road network does not believe that the proposed 30 mph limit to be acceptable.

The report will be considered by Cabinet on 27^th September 2023. The Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel are asked to consider the report, make comments on the proposal and agree a recommendation to be considered by Cabinet.

Tim Golabek said that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, Customer Service Centre and Employment, had requested that the section of the A308 between Monkey Island Lane and the M4 motorway bridge was reviewed and that the speed limit was reduced from 40mph to 30mph. This had been long requested, the highways team and the police had gathered data and recommended that the current 40mph speed limit was retained. The report would be considered by Cabinet at the end of the month and a decision would be made.

There were two public speakers on the agenda item. Councillor Cross was the ward Councillor for Bray and lived very close to this section of the A308. Police had advised that there was generally good speed compliance. Councillor Cross said that this data had been gathered towards the end of the pandemic and the way it had been finalised was against government regulations. There was an active and effective Speedwatch group and a speed camera on this stretch, she felt that compliance was ‘more than likely.’ There were a number of 30mph sections on this road already and as this was a diversion off the M4, it would be difficult to travel at a quick speed anyway. There had recently been a serious accident as a car was leaving Thames Hospice, a 1mph drop in speed could result in a 5% drop in casualty rate. Residents were afraid of leaving their houses, particularly with the narrow footpaths and this left walkers and cyclists vulnerable. There was strong support from the local community to reduce the speed limit.

Andrew Cormie was representing the Holyport Residents Association. He had circulated a document to the Panel ahead of the meeting setting out government guidance on setting speed limits. In planning, there was strict guidance which needed to be followed. He felt that the guidance had not been followed by the council on speed limits. Once light posts had been installed on this section of road, the speed limit should have been reduced. Andrew Cormie noted that a petition previously submitted to the council had been signed by over 100 residents on this issue. He urged the Panel to recommend to Cabinet that the speed limit should be reduced to 30mph.

Andrew Durrant, Executive Director of Place Services, thanked both speakers for their comments. He added that officers had worked with the police to provide a factual report and judgement. The discussion should be based around debating the proposal and forming a recommendation to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration.

Councillor Grove felt that this was a clear decision to make, considering the spacing of the streetlights, the width of the footpath and other street features, there could be similar comparisons made to other 30mph roads in the borough. She did not see anything in the report which convinced her that the road should be kept at 40mph. The council was supposed to look after the best interests of residents, a significant number of residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The Panel are to consider the work programme for the remainder of the municipal year.

Mark Beeley, Principal Democratic Services Officer – Overview and Scrutiny, suggested that an additional meeting could be added before January to consider further items on the Cabinet Forward Plan. Scoping documents had been completed on Tivoli and CIL, these would be shared with officers and the rest of the Panel shortly.

Councillor Majeed suggested that there could be a discussion on developments across the borough.

Councillor Carpenter said that she would like to review the Report It system and how it worked.

Mark Beeley said that the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel Chair, Councillor Moriarty, had also raised similar concerns which he wished to explore.

Councillor Baskerville had some concerns about the performance of Tivoli.

Mark Beeley said that a scoping document had been drafted by Councillor Carpenter which incorporated many of the issues which had been reported. Any further issues not captured could be added in once the document was sent to the Panel.