To receive the above report.

The Chairman welcomed residents from Oaken Grove to the meeting and explained that one resident, Mandy Hall would be given three minutes to address the Panel. He wanted to go through a few points of the report before opening the debate and allowing the residents of Oaken Grove to speak.

the Head of Commissioning – Communities stated the report was a positive paper as an additional £420m had been awarded to local authorities from central government to improve the conditions of the highways; £965,000 of that funding had been awarded to RBWM. In addition to the £3.4m already spent on the Council’s highways, the report reiterated the process the Borough went through to produce a list of programmes to be considered. Oaken Grove were to receive £20,000 to improve the footways and the rest of the report illustrated a suggested programme of how the rest of the funds could be spent.

The Chairman stated on page 12, it listed a surface dressing scheme but, the scheme was not fit for purpose in areas it had already been carried out. He had exchanged emails with the Leader of the Council and the Head of Commissioning – Communities had agreed to look into the issues. He understood surface dressing was a cheaper option but, he had been receiving emails from residents complaining about it. A lot or residents were experiencing chipping of the surface and areas where the surface dressing was already bare. The Head of Commissioning – Communities stated there were sites that failed and others that did not fail; it was a cost effective way of mending a road and prolonging the life of the road. It was a very weather dependent scheme and if the weather was not right, it could affect the surface; if there were a lot of turning movements of vehicles on the surface dressing, that would also increase chippings. If the dressing was carried out on a straight road, it worked well but, some areas failed and would be repaired free of charge. He added that paragraph 2.9 of the report showed the areas of surface dressing which failed and that no surface dressing was being carried out in 2019.

The Chairman stated the report listed Frescati Way to Norfolk Road to receive a resurfacing programme but, it needed to be extended further towards Pinkneys Green because there were schools and traffic lights there and the vehicle movements had caused damage to the road surface.

Councillor E. Wilson said the resurfacing debate was being held up and down the country where officers stated what treatment should be used, but residents and Councillors state it was not good enough. The same happened in the Clewer area of Windsor. The Borough had always used it on big, straight roads but, in Windsor it had been used in residential roads that were not busy and so residents were still finding lots of loose stones. He wanted to know if surface dressing treatments were to continue being used in residential roads. He appreciated the contractor was going to pay to repair the roads that had failed but, it needed to be stated in the paper that residents were not going to pay for repairs to be carried out.

Councillor E. Wilson stated that an extra £1m in road improvements to be carried out by the end of the financial year was a lot of repairs to be concluded in two months. If surface dressing was not to be used, would that impact how quickly the works could be carried out. Councillor Quick stated surface dressing had been used on pavements and the stones were not bedding in; residents were walking tar into their homes. The Borough could not afford for residents to be in a position here pavements were rotting as well as walking tar into their homes; it needed to be a top priority. The Chairman said he had received similar complaints, he sent an email to the Leader, the Lead Member for Highways and the Head of Commissioning – Communities. The Leader had responded to his email. He had also raised the issue at Cabinet Briefing and stressed that £1m to be spent on surface dressing was not appropriate and that an audit of all areas that surface dressing had been applied to needed to be completed. Then those areas needed to be remedied and if necessary, treated with a different material as the current dressing was not good enough. Councillor E. Wilson said one issue was the treatment of roads in 2018/19 but it was not so much about a specific road, but more about how the Borough moved forward as surface dressing was an effective way of prolonging the life of a road. The Head of Commissioning – Communities said the Borough trialled a system that was not quite a full resurface but it was not good enough. The sites that failed were to be repaired with a different surface. From a technical point of view, there was value in using surface dressing although Officers agreed that it was not a suitable surface dressing to use. He added the £1m additional funding would not be used to dress surfaces in the same way that failed and there was no surface dressing schemes listed in the report.

The Chairman stated the report listed plain and resurface schemes but not how much had been paid for the schemes. The Head of Commissioning – Communities confirmed he did not have the figures as the works had already been completed and those items had been added to the report to give context. All the works were done with £1.7m that was given at the beginning of 2018/19 with a further £1.7m provided later in the year.

The Head of Commissioning – Communities explained £1m of schemes were to be completed by the end of the financial year 2018/19; therefore, the contractors had been booked to ensure there were enough resources for the works to be completed on time. Once the schemes were approved, the contractor was ready to start.

Councillor Sharpe said the works were welcomed and it was good to get the works done but, there was not much going on in the south of the Borough. The Borough were getting road improvements done but, the Council needed to look at the road network and infrastructure needs as the population increased. The Head of Commissioning – Communities explained Officers prioritised main routes first. A technical assessment would be carried out and then they looked at if the road served a bus route or a school, if it was a main route to a doctors; then after that assessment completed, they then took into account requests from residents. the Council was very proactive in getting roads repaired and officers did have a reserve list and had been successful in getting some of the roads in the reserve list repaired and that reserve list acted as a rolling works list.

Councillor E. Wilson stated he was hearing that surface dressing could be useful. He felt the Head of Commissioning – Communities was leading on that and knew what should be used on the Borough’s roads. With regards to Councillor Sharpe’s point on resurfacing roads, he said it could be difficult to see what was happening in an area and asked if there was a meeting of Members representing the area to have discussions on a number of roads that needed attention. Then those Members could put forward a list of roads to Officers to consider. Councillor E. Wilson said he had done that for the Dedworth area and Head of Commissioning – Communities was working through that list. Requests for road repairs should be driven by Members as well as officers.

The Chairman stated approximately £70,000 was to be spent on Vicus Way; £20,000 to be spent in Ascot but, there was to be £277,000 to be spent at Pinkneys Green. He asked why that area was getting so much more funding for improvements than other areas. The Head of Commissioning – Communities explained that Vicus Way ran alongside new residential properties and the recycling plant so there was an increase in traffic and the road was now in a very poor condition. Vicus Way also had not been included in any previous work schemes before. A technical assessment was carried out following a Member and resident request at Pinkneys Green. The works were an area based approach covering a batch of roads which would be attended to all together in a similar way to the roads of Dedworth. A number of roads in Pinkneys Green were very busy with traffic but, they were not main routes so had not come to the fore before. It was a cost effective way of dealing with whole areas. Councillor E. Wilson said it was a very good paper with £1m worth of improvements being delivered in two months; residents should notice the difference.

The Chairman invited resident Mandy Hall to speak for three minutes regarding the trees in Oaken Grove and the need for repairs to the pavements.

Mandy Hall stated it all started when she went to work one morning and when she came home, a huge red oak tree had been removed. There was no notice of its removal and the notice pinned onto the tree said maintenance would be carried out. following the removal of the tree, she put notices through resident’s doors asking if they were upset about the tree being removed and most of them were upset. There were people that lived next door to the tree that had damaged or ripped up the pavement and needed attention but, the residents felt they needed notice of any works. Some trees were diseased but, she later found out that trees did not need to be felled due to disease. Mandy Hall stated it was not good enough for residents. Some residents love the trees and other had problems with the trees causing damage. She added she liked big trees such as oaks. She did not want silver birches to be planted and requested an ability to communicate with the Council on the matter.

Mandy Hall carried out a survey of residents on the street and asked if people wanted to be notified if works were going to be carried out and 85% of residents said yes. There was a mismatch between what people wanted and what happened. She would like more red oak trees planted and people wanted more trees to replace those that had been taken down and a consultation needed to take place. Residents were interested in preserving the red oaks and were also very concerned about the grass verges as they wanted them to stay. Mandy Hall added residents paid to live there and yet there was no consultation.

Helen Leonard, Arboricultural Co-ordinator, stated the Borough had a duty of care and tree inspections were carried out every five years. During the last round of inspections, five mature oak trees were identified with disease which meant those trees lost their strength and could collapse so, the Borough needed to action the works. Notices were placed on the trees three weeks prior to the works starting. One ward Member was also notified. The notices were not there as a consultation but, to notify that the works were to be carried out. the trees that were removed would be replaced during the planting season and there was notification of the planting on the RBWM website. the Arboricultural Co-ordinator said she would check to ensure the trees listed for planting were online. One tree being planted was a sweet gum tree which was consistent with other trees on the street; it was smaller than a red oak. The Arboricultural Co-ordinator had a meeting with the contractor about pavements being repaired and they had been marked out. none of the grass verges were to be tarmac, but the edging was being replaced. Vacant verges would have additional trees planted next autumn to restore the avenue feeling to the street.

The Borough’s contractors were arboriculturally trained and RBWM Officers also viewed the trees to ensure the right decision was made. Officers tried to ensure trees did not damage structures and if it was deemed that an RBWM tree was causing damage, the Borough would remove the tree. Residents could contact officers to request the removal of a tree that was causing damage. A structural engineer could also make sure any damage was not caused by a tree. The tree causing damage would be removed and replaced with a less damaging effect to the house.

Uniformity was important so Officers were trying to plant liquid amber trees to give the same colour as the red oaks. They looked similar to a maple with a neat crown and would provide the right effect down Oaken Grove.

A resident explained they had a big tree outside their house; 20 years the Council said it would be replaced but it wasn’t. the tree then damaged the pavement and destroyed one of his walls and it would not be long until it damaged his house. The Chairman said there should be consultations on what trees should be chosen. He received an email saying the Council admitted the tree was causing damage and asking when the tree would be replaced, and when the pavements would be repaired. He asked if Ward Members would be notified next time tree work was to be carried out and asked if residents could request a TPO on the remaining oak trees. Residents wanted to be made aware of any works to trees prior to the works commencing. If roots affected a pavement, could the pavements be changed instead of removing trees. The Chairman added the residents wanted a meeting with tree officers. The Arboricultural Co-ordinator stated all future tree work would be publicised on the Council’s website and if residents registered for alerts, they would receive an email notifying them of any works. The Council did not usually do leaflet drops to notify residents as notices were put on trees instead.

A resident of Oaken Grove stated there was a survey carried out approximately 20 years ago, and it decided the trees were not suitable for Oaken Grove. The Council wrote to residents to say the trees were to be removed, but they were never removed. The resident asked why the trees were neglected and why the Council then said they were suitable. The Council had made the decision 20 years ago but they did not understand why the trees were not removed. The Arboricultural Co-ordinator responded she was aware of her predecessor saying the trees were not suitable but not aware of any Council decision to remove the trees. The department followed the Council’s strategy and policy unless there was a specific problem. In terms of repairing the pavements, the works were due to be carried out during February 2019 half term so as not to disrupt the children.

Councillor E. Wilson said this was an issue in his Ward today due to the same disease of the trees. The underlying issue residents had was communication so he suggested a meeting with Ward Members, Officers and residents. regarding communications, work was carried out on Dedworth Road and three trees were removed due to pavement damage. As Ward Member, he knocked on doors to communicate the works and in most cases, residents were not interested but, one lady said she was pleased he had knocked as she had cared for the trees for many years. The Council, as an authority could not predict when works would be needed, but the council needed more variety of trees in parks. Residents deserved a meeting to resolve their issues and they wanted a plan.

A local resident said it was great if the tree was not outside your house, but when it was outside your house it was a problem. They added residents did not feel listened to and the action they would have preferred had not been taken. They needed a strategic way forward. Residents said they had reached the situation as a result of years of neglect and they needed an ongoing maintenance plan. The chairman stated the Panel and Officers had listened to all of the residents’ comments and he had attended some meetings with some residents. some wanted the trees, some were having problems with their houses due to the trees and young families with buggies were having problems with the state of the pavements caused by the trees. Residents responded saying there was a verge at the opening of the road and they wanted it restored and rectified with some bollards installed to stop parking on it. The Arboricultural Co-ordinator confirmed she had requested the Highways Engineer to assess the verge to see what protective measures could be installed.

Resolved Unanimously: That the Highways, Transport and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel considered the Cabinet report and endorsed the recommendations within the report.