a)    By Councillor Cannon

 

As a member of Royal Berkshire Fire Authority I bring this motion to the Council to demonstrate our commitment to the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service motion to ensure the safety of RBWM buildings and residents from the risks of fires.

 

This Council:

 

i)       Acknowledges that sprinklers and other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) save lives, protect property, reduce the impact of fire on the environment, reduce interruption to business and improve safety for individuals in the community in general and firefighters. In recognising these benefits support the National Fire Chief’s Council position on sprinklers by writing to Central Government to express support for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings.

 

ii)      Commit to installation of sprinklers or other AFSS within its own building stock when planning for and constructing new buildings or as a retrofitted solution when undertaking major refurbishments of existing buildings.

 

iii)     Through the planning application or building control process, promote and support the installation of sprinklers or other AFSS for all new or refurbished buildings and particularly those that present the most significant risk to the public and firefighters.

 

 

b)  By Councillor Taylor

 

Following the declaration of a climate emergency this year, along with the spells of record breaking hot weather, I ask the council to commit to addressing the responsibilities it has to residents during this extreme type of weather.

 

This Council:

 

i)             Ensures that correct and helpful information is provided via the council’s communications channels and libraries to assist people during periods of hot weather.

ii)            Liaises with other support groups / charities to see what help can be offered to those who are most vulnerable in the Borough.

iii)           Establishes a Heat Mitigation Research Working Group to discuss what responsibilities the council may have moving forwards to tackle the inevitable changes to a wider range of issues including building regulations, responsibilities for existing housing stock and general heat relief.

 

 

c)    By Councillor Davey

 

The Police tell me one of the main reasons young people start getting into trouble is limited parental support after school.

 

This Council:

 

i)             Recognises many 15-18 year olds could benefit from community support after school for approximately 3 hours a day.

ii)            Commits to working harder to find solutions to give our youth the best possible start in life.

 

 

d)   By Councillor Del Campo

 

 

According to a recent freedom of information request (number 74334, November 2019), there are currently 766 empty homes in the Royal Borough. The same request shows that no Empty Dwelling Management Orders have been issued in the last five years. Bringing these empty homes back into use could avoid the need to build on several green-belt sites in the borough.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

i)             Promote the grants and support available to owners of empty residential properties to bring them back into use

ii)            Use all reasonable powers to bring empty residential properties back into use

iii)           Write to the inspector of the borough local plan requesting the urgent removal of green-belt sites with allocations totalling up to 766 empty homes.

 

 

e)    By Councillor Baldwin

 

While fireworks bring much enjoyment to some people, they can cause significant problems and fear for other people and animals (including pet animals, farm livestock and wildlife). Animals affected not only suffer psychological distress but can also cause themselves injuries – sometimes very serious ones – as they attempt to run away or hide from the noise.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

i)     Actively promote a public awareness campaign about the impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people – including the precautions that can be taken to mitigate risks

ii)    Write to the UK Government urging them to introduce legislation to limit the maximum noise level of fireworks to 90dB for those sold to the public for private displays

iii)   Encourage local suppliers of fireworks to stock ‘quieter’ fireworks for public display.

 

f)     By Councillor Hill

 

This Council agrees to review and evaluate all pedestrian crossings on safe walking routes to school and in the vicinity of schools, with particular emphasis given to crossings on main roads, and put in place measures to mitigate identified risks.

 

 

Motion a)

 

Councillor Cannon introduced his motion. He explained that in the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority Annual Plan 2019 – 2020, the Fire Authority had committed to:

 

• Promote and influence the fitting of sprinklers in all buildings where appropriate.

• Engage with local authorities and encourage the retrofitting of sprinklers where it supported both occupants and firefighter safety.

• Continue to work with building developers and designers to introduce sprinklers as a part of an alternative design package; ensuring the appropriate levels of fire safety are maintained.

 

In support of these objectives Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) proactively endorsed the installation of sprinklers systems in educational, domestic, industrial, commercial and residential premises. Currently, under the Building Regulations in England sprinklers should be fitted in schools, warehouse premises0f 20,000m², buildings over 30m high and single and multi-storey shops over 2000m².

 

On behalf of the UK fire and rescue service, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) had published a clear position on sprinklers and Automatic Water Suppression Systems (AWSS) with a view to save lives, property and ensuring residents and firefighters were as safe as possible.  In addition to lobbying for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings, Fire Authority members had been asked to put the motion to their councils for adoption.

 

Councillor Cannon amended recommendation iii to replace the words ‘the planning application or building control processes’ with ‘building regulations’.

 

Councillor Larcombe raised concerns about the costs of the proposal and how enforceable it would be. He was also concerned it did not refer to buildings with flammable cladding.

 

Councillor Werner stated his support for the motion, with the amendment.

 

Councillor Hill commented that he had undertaken fire risk assessments therefore he knew them to be very lengthy. He was concerned that fire officers did not visit private landlord premises. He felt an inspection process should be introduced to approve and certify the installation of sprinklers and AWSS.

 

Councillor Bateson commented that it was important to recognise the role sprinklers played. They were the most effective way to extinguish a fire before the fire service arrived. They saved lives, protected fire fighters and reduced damage to properties. The report from the Fire Chiefs Council had highlighted that when suppression systems operated, they were 99% effective at containing or extinguishing the fire.

 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Cannon, seconded by Councillor Bateson, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council:

 

i)       Acknowledges that sprinklers and other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) save lives, protect property, reduce the impact of fire on the environment, reduce interruption to business and improve safety for individuals in the community in general and firefighters. In recognising these benefits support the National Fire Chief’s Council position on sprinklers by writing to Central Government to express support for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings.

 

ii)     Commit to installation of sprinklers or other AFSS within its own building stock when planning for and constructing new buildings or as a retrofitted solution when undertaking major refurbishments of existing buildings.

 

iii)    Through building regulations, promote and support the installation of sprinklers or other AFSS for all new or refurbished buildings and particularly those that present the most significant risk to the public and firefighters.

 

Motion b)

 

Councillor Taylor introduced her motion. She highlighted that 2019 had brought many extremes of weather to the UK. Along with severe flooding there were record breaking hot spells with temperatures reaching 38.7 degrees. Spells of hot weather would become more common and the UK was a country that traditionally was not used to dealing with the issue.  Extreme weather affected residents, especially those who were most vulnerable or homeless, pneumonia and flu could cause serious illness and as a result the council had to provide additional support via SWEP and CWP.

 

NHS England, along with the Met Office, sent out weather warnings during times of extreme heat. Heat exhaustion and heat stroke could be fatal, especially in the most vulnerable and elderly who were less able to regulate body temperature. In 2017/18 almost 3000 people were admitted to hospital due to heat related ailments and in 2018/19 this rose to 8700. Heat was something that could seriously affect residents’ health even those that were not vulnerable and put an increased strain on the NHS.

 

The NHS website offered advice during times of hot weather but for people without the internet this would be hard to access. She wished to see the advice echoed on information sheets in libraries, council buildings, charities, doctor’s surgeries and other community centres. Simultaneously, the council could encourage social landlords to send the literature to their residents, along with regular updates on the council’s social media.

 

Refill was a national campaign. There were currently 31 Refill outlets in Maidenhead and 41 in Windsor. They encouraged people to ditch single use plastic and to stay hydrated. She would like the council to explore the possibility of installing outdoor water fountains in both town centres.

 

Councillor Taylor had raised her concerns with Theresa May, MP, earlier in the year. She had assured Councillor Taylor that the government was working to implement legislation to overcome the issue with new builds. During the climate hustings she had also recognised that current housing stock would need to be retrofitted. Building sustainable housing was not enough. The council needed to ensure those responsible for maintaining and repairing the properties understood the systems being used. Residents also needed to be informed of ways they could make their homes more comfortable at little or no cost.

 

The relevant minister had written to Councillor Taylor via Mrs May’s office in October 2019 with information on what the government was doing in relation to heat mitigation and a link to research undertaken, to determine costs for house builders and home owners should this mitigation be retrofitted.  He had also highlighted in relation to residents in rented accommodation that under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities had powers to tackle poor property conditions including excess heat which impacted on health. In many countries air conditioning was the solution but it was costly in the UK.  Planning permission may also be an issue in conservation areas.

 

Councillor Taylor stated that she would like to see a review on repairs that social landlords carried out. During winter months some repairs were prioritised for the most vulnerable residents to ensure they were not cold. Heat rises therefore those on the higher levels of buildings suffered more. When lifts broke down, those with disabilities could not get up and down the stairs easily. She would like to see a system of priority repairs during hot weather as well as cold. The council should be proactive so that when legislation was passed it was ready with an idea of costs. Social landlords would have the daunting task of retrofitting their housing stock so it would be in residents’ interest to research in advance what could be done.

 

Councillor Taylor was asking Council to establish a Heat Mitigation Research Working Group to pull all the necessary information together and start a plan of action. It could liaise with charities and other organisations including social landlords to ensure all were informed. Councillor Taylor stated that she had worked with Councillor Stimson to ensure that efforts were not being duplicated with the Climate Emergency Group.

 

Councillor Stimson comments that when legislation came through pockets of money would become available. If the council was ready in would be in a position to take advantage.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Taylor, seconded by Councillor Stimson, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council:

 

i)             Ensures that correct and helpful information is provided via the council’s communications channels and libraries to assist people during periods of hot weather.

ii)            Liaises with other support groups / charities to see what help can be offered to those who are most vulnerable in the Borough.

iii)          Establishes a Heat Mitigation Research Working Group to discuss what responsibilities the council may have moving forwards to tackle the inevitable changes to a wider range of issues including building regulations, responsibilities for existing housing stock and general heat relief.

 

Continuation of Meeting

 

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A C25.1 of the council’s constitution, the Chairman called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 10.00pm.

 

Upon being put to the vote, those present voted in favour of the meeting continuing.

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the meeting continue after 10.00pm to conclude the outstanding business on the agenda.

 

 

Motion c)

 

Councillor Davey introduced his motion. Members noted that Berkshire Youth had said that young people wanted support to:

 

·         grow in confidence;

·         improve communication skills;

·         learn leadership skills;

·         increase personal resilience; and

·         improve their personal relationships/friends and social skills.

 

If the support and guidance needed was provided, youngsters were less likely to get into trouble. Creating an environment for young people to thrive had to be a priority for any sane society. While that responsibility rightly fell firmly at the feet of parents and schools, it could hugely benefit from positive contributions and leadership from members of the local community.

Young people aged 15 - 18 naturally challenged societal norms to find out who they were but with too little family, school and community support to provide boundaries then things could go wrong. There was also agrowing mental health crisisamongst young people. The Green Room in Windsor was providing support but only to the seriously deprived. Support was needed for all young people

Councillor McWilliams commented that there were some extraordinary young people in the borough. He did agree with the point about stronger communities; he was trying to achieve this in his ward. The youth services website had a lot of information on services available including self-esteem groups and the Girls Policy Forum. Schools and the voluntary sector also provided a lot of support. Councillor McWilliams highlighted the consultation on family hubs that was due to start in January 2020. He had a personal project to restart the Youth Council.

Councillor McWilliams proposed an additional recommendation:

Encourages all residents & stakeholders to take part in the RBWM’s consultation on transforming RBWM’s early help services into an integrated Family Hub model 0-19 (up to 25 years for young people with a learning difficulty or disability).

Councillor Davey accepted the amendment.

Councillor Carroll highlighted the excellent youth service, the Youth Ambassadors project and the Brighter Berkshire campaign.

Councillor W. Da Costa highlighted the Thames Valley Police cadet scheme in the borough. He referred to issues in South London where youth clubs had been closed leading to more negative influences on young people. This had led to an increase in issues such as knife crime. He never wanted that situation to occur in the borough therefore he urged more funding for youth centres. He also felt it was important not to outsource the services but have people involved who knew the young people and their communities.

Councillor Jones stated that she saw no reason not to support the motion as it was simply asking the council to look again at what could be done to support teenagers, particularly in the after school period.

Councillor Sharpe commented that some of the most deprived areas in the borough were in South Ascot; more youth facilities were needed there. Along with Sunningdale these areas were often overlooked.

Councillor Werner commented that each ward had areas of deprivation. Over the last ten years there had been a number of cuts to the youth services provision. If the council was going to tackle the issue it needed to ensure funding. Investment would be a saving for society in the long run. Pre-school years were also important therefore he encouraged residents to respond to the consultation to keep Children’s Centres in north west Maidenhead.

Councillor C. Da Costa commented on two successful programmes for young people in the borough:  upcycling of clothes that had been destined for landfill and the Food Academy. Funding was needed in all areas, not just deprived ones.

Councillor Hilton commented that not everything needed to be driven through the Council. This issue was raised by the Clerk at Sunninghill Parish Council at the Ascot Neighbourhood Action Group meeting in November 2019. The Clerk held the view that Charters School tended to look after pupils up to 16 years and it was 16 to 20-year olds who seemed to drift aimlessly and occasionally cause problems. The provision of something meaningful for them to do was thought to be of value. The issue was discussed again in December when Rob Hathorn, a Borough Lead Youth Worker attended the meeting.  The Ascot NAG was made up of representatives of two parish councils, the police, community wardens, a YOT volunteer, two sixth form boys from Charters School and public members.

 

Rob Hathorn provided an example of where the Youth Services team had successfully tackled groups of youths (15 – 18-year olds) in Maidenhead via twice weekly initial visits to chat to the group which then progressed to a 10 – 12 week project.  This had good outcomes but there was no ongoing programme. He had found it interesting that the two sixth form boys confirmed that 12-16 year olds were not interested in youth clubs, and preferred online gaming at home. At age 16 they start going out with mates. The sixth formers also made the point that anything organised had to be relatable to the young people.

 

A lot of ideas were presented at the meeting including the National Crime Prevention Awards and if the Youth Council at Charters had an interest, they could assist in setting up a programme which could potentially gain them an award.  This idea would be taken to the Student Leadership group which would be a good starting point to find out what young people at school would like and where.

 

Councillor Hilton believed there were three requirements for success: finding someone to own the project and see it through, an appropriate location to meet and necessary funding and lastly would the young people in question engage. He did not see an issue with the first two but the challenge would be how to engage young people.

 

Councillor Price commented that at a recent Windsor Town Forum the police had reported on their initiatives and funding available. She urged liaison with the police to take advantage.

 

Councillor Davey highlighted that young people who were struggling received a lot of attention, including from social services. Those being monitored would not be approached by people trying to get young people involved in things like county lines. Therefore support was needed for all.

 

Councillor Carroll confirmed that the council was coordinating efforts with the police to pool funding. The Children’s Commissioner report on the first 1000 days of a child’s life had highlighted the need to use funding in a targeted way. The Integrated Family hub model was evidence based. There were some Children’s Centres that were not being used therefore better targeting was needed.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Davey, seconded by Councillor McWilliams, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council:

 

i)             Recognises many 15-18 year olds could benefit from community support after school for approximately 3 hours a day.

ii)            Commits to working harder to find solutions to give our youth the best possible start in life.

iii)          Encourages all residents & stakeholders to take part in the RBWM’s consultation on transforming RBWM’s early help services into an integrated Family Hub model 0-19 (up to 25 years for young people with a learning difficulty or disability).

 

Motion d)

 

Councillor Del Campo introduced her motion. She explained that the draft Borough Local Plan proposed building on Green Belt sites which was to the detriment of residents and wildlife. Some were in areas of flood risk and there were numerous highways and infrastructure issues. Given the recent declaration of a climate emergency the council needed to preserve green spaces. Her motion proposed offsetting the 766 empty homes in the borough against the various sites identified for development.

 

She amended her motion to remove the word ‘empty’; from the third recommendation.

 

Councillor Brar seconded the motion. She felt the Inspector should be made aware of the 766 empty homes. There were sites, especially in Cookham, that should be removed from the Borough Local Plan to avoid destroying the Green Belt and wildlife.

 

Councillor Coppinger stated that the suggestion that 766 empty homes diminished the overall local plan housing requirement was incorrect. The Strategic Housing Market Availability Assessment (SHMAA), which had informed the housing figure in the Local Plan already took into account the fact that there were empty homes in the Borough as part of natural turnover in the housing market.  In any case the housing figure was a minimum target and seeking to remove 766 units from the projected housing requirement would be without justification and would potentially render the plan unsound for failing to meet its objectively assessed housing need.

 

Councillor Coppinger explained that to seek to do so would be an entirely flawed position for the Council to take, given the submitted position to the Planning Inspector of the council that recognised the need to deliver homes, and the fact that this would require a very small amount of Green Belt release.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that Green Belt land was vital for carbon capture but also for maintaining biodiversity. He asked, if the SHMAA included empty homes, was this figure 766 or lower? If it were lower, could the difference be utilised to reduce the objectively assessed need?

 

Councillor Baskerville commented that he had worked with officers ten years previously to bring empty properties in his ward back into use. The previous administration had tried to tackle the subject with little success. Experienced officers with commitment and determination were needed. Bringing properties back into use demonstrated a clear message to owners that the council would persevere, was a more efficient use of space and improved the quality of the local environment.

 

Councillor McWilliams highlighted that only six EDMOs had been used across the country because of the criteria required. Legislation had not been a great success. Of the 766 empty properties, only 268 had been empty over two years. Only 97 had been empty over 5 years. Since the Empty Homes Strategy was implemented in 2017, the number of empty over two years had reduced from 303 to 268. The ambition was to reduce this further but the policy of 100% council tax premium had encouraged movement.

 

Councillor McWilliams explained that he was able to support the first two recommendations as the council was already doing what they requested, but he could not support the third recommendation with its linkage to the BLP.

 

Councillor Hill supported the principle because he did not think the council did enough to bring empty homes back into use, although he accepted the motion was flawed. In his view the BLP was in a dire state anyway. It planned for 16000 homes when only 14500 were needed. 766 therefore did not need to be built on the golf course site. He objected to the objectively assessed need figure.

 

Councillor Del Campo commented that she was not attempting to derail the BLP; she knew it had to be done. She also knew the council could not edit the plan but it could write to the Inspector to urge her to consider the proposal.

 

Members voted on the motion as amended by a show of hands; the motion fell.

 

Motion e)

 

Councillor Baldwin introduced his motion. He explained that according to the RSPCA 62% of dogs, 54% of cats and 55% of horses showed signs of distress during firework displays. The British Horse Society reported 20 deaths, 10 severe injuries, and 88 mild to moderate injuries in horses since 2010.

 

The relationship between for example 60 decibels and 70 decibels for the same sound source was not the same as that between 60 and 70 miles per hour on the speedometer of a car. The decibel scale was logarithmic: a change of 10dB was accepted as the difference in level that is perceived by most listeners as twice as loud. The Firework Regulations of 2004 prohibited any firework that detonated at a higher level than 120 decibels.  This was already the equivalent of being in the front row at a loud rock concert.  However, fireworks designated as F2 and F3, i.e. those that could be purchased by anyone over the age of 18, were routinely sold with a detonation decibel output of 150 to 175 decibels.  This was not at the lower end only 25% louder than it should be, but was nearer eight times louder than it should be.

 

Councillor Baldwin stated that the council needed to educate firework users of the dangers to which they were exposing themselves, their families, their neighbours and those animals that surrounded them. There was much that could be done without coercion or enforcement and some of those suggestions were detailed in the motion. However, even more could be achieved by raising the general level of awareness.  Members could use their connections and contacts within the wards to help spread the word.  Lead Councillors could do even more through their contact with senior officers and Heads of Departments.

 

Councillor Del Campo seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Cannon commented that this was a national issue rather than a council one. He did not think it was enforceable therefore he did not see how the council could take it forward.

 

Councillor Davies stated that Members should support the motion as the council would be able to promote the campaign, write to the government and encourage suppliers in the borough.  She was aware of the impact on dogs as she had previously volunteers with a dog rescue charity. Fireworks also had an impact on retired servicemen as they could trigger PTSD.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that the council could write to the government to urge for a change in legislation. Military veterans suffered three weeks of hell around bonfire night. Private displays were generally manageable but the large public displays were a problem.

 

Councillor Bhangra commented that fireworks were used in festivals such as Diwali. Fireworks had been used for hundreds of years. He did not think it was an issue the council could decide on; it was a national issue to introduce legislation.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa stated that the council had a duty of care to residents and their pets. Windsor was a garrison town and many military families stayed in the area. He felt the council could easily undertake a public information campaign in Around the Royal Borough. He acknowledged that the last recommendation would be difficult for the council to control but it could adopt a leadership position on the issue.

 

Councillor Haseler referred to a national petition calling for the banning of the sale of fireworks to the public. He felt that introducing the motion one year after the issue had been debated at the national level could be fruitless.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that the issue came up on local social media groups. Approving the motion would be a profoundly positive thing to do in the eyes of residents. Just because something had happened for hundreds of years did not mean it should continue in the same way. If the council could do something, however small, it should do so.

 

Councillor Price commented that Legoland was in her ward; the regular displays had been reported as a real issue for her residents. Community wardens monitored the situation to keep the displays within limits but they did affect the community. She therefore agreed with the motion in terms of informing people of steps they could take to mitigate the impact.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that to enact change would require a change in primary legislation. He suggested that Members could write to the two local MPs to ask them to raise the issue with ministers. He would be prepared to speak to Theresa May to urge her to raise the issue with ministers. If the motion had been brought in the summer an article in Around the Royal Borough could have been considered along with a social media campaign. An article could be included next autumn.

 

Councillor Singh commented that he had been a retailer of fireworks for 20 years. A number of changes had occurred over that time including raising the age to purchase to 18 and the banning of noisy fireworks such as bangers. The council was restricted in what it was able to do.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that Members seemed to have read the motion in very different ways. He was not asking for a change in primary legislation but just for a letter to be written. He thanked Councillor Johnson for acknowledging there may be an appropriate time for an article and social media campaign.

 

Members voted on the motion by a show of hands; the motion fell.

 

Motion f)

 

Councillor Hill introduced his motion. He explained that recently a member of the public had lost their life on Bray Road; they had been on the crossing when they were hit. There was an increased amount of traffic with all the new development. Residents had undertaken a detailed survey which alleged drivers were recorded speeding across the crossing and failing to stop. The council needed to do its utmost to avoid another tragedy.

 

Councillor Clark commented that he agreed with the sentiment of the motion but it implied this was not something that was already being done. There was already a policy in place that looked at all routes. Routes were considered to be acceptable if the following criteria were met:

 

·         A road with heavy traffic flow must have continuous adequate footway provision.

·         Roads with light traffic flow must have adequate step- off areas with good sight lines.

·         Roads with low traffic flow do not require step-off areas, but should have sufficiently good sight lines to be able to see approaching vehicles.

·         If there is a need to cross roads there must be sufficient gaps in the traffic flow and sight lines to allow enough opportunities to cross safely, or there must be traffic calming, formal / informal crossing facilities or a school crossing patrol.

 

He therefore proposed that the motion be amended to read:

 

This Council agrees to continue to review and evaluate all pedestrian crossings on safe walking routes to school and in the vicinity of schools, with particular emphasis given to crossings on main roads, and put in place measures to mitigate identified risks.

 

Councillor Hill stated that he did not disagree that the crossings complied with the regulations but traffic flows may have changed and people used different routes therefore assessments could be a few years out of date.

 

Councillor Clark highlighted that the school travel plans were reviewed regularly and there was an approved capital budget entitled ‘Safe Routes to Schools’ which was targeted at delivering measures identified through the travel planning process.

 

As part of the contract with ‘Project Centre Ltd’ there was a requirement to review, develop and promote school travel plans and deliver road safety training and education in schools. He therefore suggested that update on the status of all travel plans be sought.

 

Councillor Hill accepted the amendment proposed by Councillor Clark.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that a child had been knocked down outside a school in Dedworth in March 2019. A meeting had been convened with the police, community wardens, PCSOs, highways officers and school representatives. At the meeting on 3 April it had been decided to ask for a crossing but since then there had been no progress; nothing had been heard from the council. Councillor Da Costa had put in a capital bid in August 2019 but again he had heard nothing.

 

Councillor Clark asked Councillor W. Da Costa to email him with the details.

 

Councillor Larcombe commented that because of stationary traffic vehicles often drove over a crossing on the wrong side of the road in Datchet. Another crossing was needed on Slough Road near Churchmead School.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that a crossing was required in South Ascot for children going to school. Officers had turned it down. The whole area needed review.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that he had been working with Councillor Del Campo and Furze Platt Junior School and Furze Platt Infant School for a safer crossing. He was pleased to say a council bid for £30,000 had been put in. It was important that routes and crossings were reviewed. For example, the route to Furze Platt Senior School included a pavement which was not ideal. He would welcome the Lead Member looking into this issue.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hill, seconded by Councillor Jones, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council agrees to continue to review and evaluate all pedestrian crossings on safe walking routes to school and in the vicinity of schools, with particular emphasis given to crossings on main roads, and put in place measures to mitigate identified risks.

 

 

 

The meeting, which began at 7.30pm finished at 11.16pm.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN…….……………………

 

 

DATE……….………………………..