To comment on the Cabinet Report.

David Scott, Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships, explained to Members that the report was an update on the programme to date and sought delegation to exceed expenditure.

At Full Council, the Borough took the view after the temporary measures were installed, that a further risk assessment be carried out on predictable activities such as the changing of the guard that hostile vehicle measures (HMV) could be implemented to protect the changing of the guard, visitors and residents when the Town was busy. Following the assessment, an additional deployment was added at St Albans Street and Castle Hill. The Borough agreed to put a sum into the capital programme of £1.5m and the report was now seeking Cabinet agreement to extend that sum and proceed with the works.

The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships stated a lot of the design work for the permanent HVM had already been undertaken and the programme needed to proceed in a phased way. The temporary measures were labelled in the report as phase 1a. Work on phase 1b was taking place and he was looking to implement measures that improved the area while preventing an attack.

Thames Valley Police (TVP) had commissioned work to be carried out by a company that had lots of experience in producing HVM and they completed a feasibility study. The Borough then used that study and carried out some more detailed work. The services found in the ground are numerous and complex so work being done was to look at the best solution for each location.

Members noted the Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships continued to seek third party contributions to help pay for the measures and he had received confirmation from TVP and the Royal Collection Trust that they will be contributing to the works. The Royal Collection Trust were going to remodel their entrance to improve their visitor experience while keeping their visitors safe and that entrance would work with the new measures.

Phase two and three were looking at a wider foot print and achieving the same level of security as the current temporary barriers while being more aesthetically pleasing. The new barriers would link with new bus routes to help maintain traffic movement during the guard changes.

The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships stated the Borough was pursuing contributions from the Home Office due to the national prominence of the Castle. The Leader wrote to the Home Officer to try and attract a grant. London received a grant for their HVM so it was only fair that RBWM should try and obtain that too.

The Chairman stated it was a great scheme and it showed the Borough was taking the safety of residents and visitors very seriously. He asked if any of the proposed measures would be automatic bollards. The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships responded there were a number of solutions that could be activated. He confirmed to Members that the current barriers had been tested and they were a national asset and part of a national scheme. They had been designed and destructively tested to ensure they would withstand a hostile vehicle attack. Westminster had bollards and 10% of the costs were for what was seen above ground; the other 90% of the costs was below the ground due to the complex engineering required to stop vehicles. Energy absorbing barriers were also available.

The Chairman queried if police numbers in the Town would decrease once the scheme was implemented. The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships confirmed the measures need the police to operate them once they were in place. There might be changes to the additional staff resources such as wardens but, he did not think there was likely to be a reduction. The Chairman said police had to lock gates, if it was an automated bollard, the man power would not be needed. The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships said he could not confirm that would be the case.

Councillor Quick stated it was only right that the Home Office contributed to the scheme as the situation was not of the Borough’s doing. She added the current barriers were painted in colours that did not fit the area. The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships confirmed the new designs were being tested and were to have more of a historically aesthetic appearance.

Councillor Da Costa said RBWM needed to find £2m to implement the whole scheme. he asked if the phases were being implemented with the Metropolitan Police and TVP and also asked when phases 1 – 3 were likely to be completed. The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships replied the detailed work on phase 1a was almost complete. The costs were still subject to setting the price with the contractor and negotiations were ongoing. Phases 1b, 2 and 3 would need a separate round of approvals with more feasibility work to be carried out. Phase 1b would be the most important phase and then phases two and three would be to extend the foot print of events security. The initial feasibility work was commissioned by TVP and the work was carried out by MFD, and that work was paid for by TVP. He added the temporary barriers were a police asset and the Borough did not own them; and if a site required them more urgently, they could be moved. The Borough wanted a permanent solution that could not be moved.

Councillor E. Wilson stated it was an excellent paper and the new HVM barriers would protect visitors and residents so it was an investment to keep Windsor safe. He then queried the timing of commitments and asked when the Borough was likely to hear from the Home Office and the Royal Collection regarding their financial contribution. Councillor E. Wilson added that he hoped the new permanent HVM barriers would make Windsor look prettier. The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships confirmed the Borough had no control over the decision of the Home Officer or the Royal Collection Trust so there was no fixed contribution offer as yet. He added there had been some public engagement when the temporary barriers were deployed and the public would be offered another opportunity for residents to contribute to the final scheme design but, that would also depend on the topographical locations. Trial digs had commenced and a residents gathering was to be organised to inform them of the works.

The Chairman said completion of phase 1a was due between June and December 2019. The Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships confirmed the works would impact residents, therefore the Borough would try to keep disruption to a minimum. The Council needed to think about bus routes and access issues for residents as well as the Royal Family. In response to questions about how the works would affect the taxi rank outside the Castle, the Head of Communities Enforcement and Partnerships confirmed one option was to relocate the taxi rank on Thames Street. The Borough would also look into the possibility of carrying out the works overnight where possible but, it was very noisy works so a balance was needed.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Highways, Transport and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel endorsed the recommendations to Cabinet.