a)    Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

How is the Council seeking to ensure it can be proactive in protecting residents from noise, odour, pests and other nuisance or public health risks which it can foresee as likely from proposed development or activities, including agricultural operations?

b)   Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Adult Services and Health

How is RBWM supporting the concerns of our rural community pharmacies that the Department of Health review may have unintended adverse consequences on the sustainability of locally accessible and GP support services?

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor D Wilson, Lead Member for Planning

It has become evident that the DCLG's public consultation entitled ‘Technical consultation on implementation of planning changes’ includes proposals to speed up the process which may reduce the ability of the public to influence and Councils to fully control planning applications.  Why has this not been considered by the Planning & Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel?

d)   Question submitted by Councillor Bhatti to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Will the Lead Member please confirm that he will engage with the local community and in particular with any concerned residents in Clewer North when implementing the Prevent strategy?

e)    Question submitted by Councillor Bhatti to Councillor Burbage, Leader of the Council

In my ward, there are many young people who over the holiday periods don't have much to do because of the lack of leisure and entertainment facilities. Would the leader consider the possibility of a multiplex centre in Windsor or a Designer Outlet if the opportunity ever arose?

f)     Question submitted by Councillor E. Wilson to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Will the Lead Member thank all members of the public who took part in the recent Clean for the Queen campaign and say how his officers will be encouraging residents to take part in similar events in the future?

a)    Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

How is the Council seeking to ensure it can be proactive in protecting residents from noise, odour, pests and other nuisance or public health risks which it can foresee as likely from proposed development or activities, including agricultural operations?

Councillor Cox responded that the Environmental Protection Officers worked very closely with colleagues in Development Control and provided pre-application advice where requested for proposed developments that may have an impact as described in the question.  Officers also routinely reviewed planning application lists to identify any proposed development that may have such detrimental impacts and provide expert advice and, where necessary, recommend planning conditions to regulate operations and protect residents accordingly.

Unfortunately, current environmental regulatory frameworks offered limited pro-active scope to deal with such impacts where a site already benefitted from planning permission for agricultural use and where the scale of operation was intensified.  For example, environmental permitting schemes had very high thresholds before they applied.  Poultry farming operations of up to 40,000 birds and pig farming operations of up to 2,000 production pigs could be undertaken without the need for an environmental permit. 

He would of course liaise with the Lead Member for Planning to ensure officers remained vigilant in respect of this matter and that the council sought to lobby appropriate Government departments to request the appropriate regulatory frameworks be reviewed

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Saunders asked how far would the council pursue the necessary changes to planning and environmental rules and regulations to avoid these foreseeable risks being dismissed as irrelevant until after residents had suffered their avoidable consequences?

Councillor Cox confirmed that he had written to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Communities and Local Government to ask them to review the current regulatory and development control frameworks and that the associated thresholds be reviewed and amended in order to provide local authorities pro-active capability to protect their residents and communities from the issues identified that cause huge anxiety and potential impact if realised. He was awaiting a response.

b)   Question submitted by Councillor Saunders to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Adult Services and Health

How is RBWM supporting the concerns of our rural community pharmacies that the Department of Health review may have unintended adverse consequences on the sustainability of locally accessible and GP support services?

Councillor Coppinger responded that pharmacies were the focus of much attention at the moment. They were a vital part of the provision of Health Services within both the borough and across the whole country. With the pressure on the NHS and specifically GP surgeries, pharmacies were being asked to undertake more services traditionally provided by GPs. Through the Public Health team the council also commissioned services. Pharmacists were trained to a similar level to GPs and this expansion of their services was likely to continue. There was also mention of staff being present in surgeries. At the same time as this was happening the Department of Health was carrying out a review of the services provided to seek greater efficiencies.

One of the functions of the Health and Wellbeing Board was to approve a Pharmacy Needs Assessment to ensure the right number of pharmacies, which the borough had according to population. The council welcomed the extension of the role of pharmacies however it shared the concern of residents and pharmacists that in the search for efficiencies smaller rural pharmacies might no longer be sustainable and residents, especially the elderly, would suffer.

The council would submit a response to the consultation in which it would stress the need for community pharmacy services to be provided throughout the Royal Borough and especially within isolated communities.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Saunders asked how he could be assured the issue would have the appropriate profile in democratic forums of the council so that residents concerns could have an impact on the outcome of the ambiguous consultation.

Councillor Coppinger responded that the start was at Full Council. The item was also on the agenda for the Health and Wellbeing Board so it would be discussed with the NHS and CCGs.  

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Beer to Councillor D Wilson, Lead Member for Planning

It has become evident that the DCLG's public consultation entitled ‘Technical consultation on implementation of planning changes’ includes proposals to speed up the process which may reduce the ability of the public to influence and Councils to fully control planning applications.  Why has this not been considered by the Planning and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel?

Councillor D. Wilson referred to an email from Councillor Beer on 14 April 2016 where he had raised the same issue. A meeting of the Planning and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel was held on 18 April 2016; the deadline for the consultation was 15 April 2016. He apologised that the item had not been put before the Overview and Scrutiny Panel. He had responded via email to Councillor Beer the following day that RBWM would submit a response and he would circulate a copy to all Members. A response had been submitted; Councillor Hilton had also sent a separate response.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Beer highlighted that the consultation included proposals for scrapping outline applications. Instead there would be permissions in principal followed by technical details. This would make the system more complicated. The consultation also proposed the involvement of consultants in determining applications even if they had prior involvement. He asked whether the Lead Member was content that staff pressures were not properly meeting he council’s due to defend the interests of residents with eleventh hour responses to such imp0ortant matters.

Councillor D. Wilson responded that every local planning authorities were in a similar position as a result of the relaxation of permitted development rights increasing workloads considerably. Consultations came out on a regular basis. Officers tried to keep a close eye  on these although not all came from the DCLG.

d)   Question submitted by Councillor Bhatti to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Will the Lead Member please confirm that he will engage with the local community and in particular with any concerned residents in Clewer North when implementing the Prevent strategy?

Councillor Cox responded that the council was currently undertaking a full risk assessment in relation to Prevent and the legal obligation that the council had in this regard.  Officers would as part of the assessment be speaking to key community representatives and stakeholders to help inform the overall Prevent strategy.

Of course, any resident who had any concerns or queries in respect of Prevent could contact their local ward member who would be able to arrange for the appropriate council officer to look into the matter for them or provide advice and guidance as necessary

Councillor Bhatti confirmed he did not have a supplementary question.

e)    Question submitted by Councillor Bhatti to Councillor Burbage, Leader of the Council

In my ward, there are many young people who over the holiday periods don't have much to do because of the lack of leisure and entertainment facilities. Would the leader consider the possibility of a multiplex centre in Windsor or a Designer Outlet if the opportunity ever arose?

Councillor Burbage responded that he would.

Councillor Bhatti confirmed he did not have a supplementary question.

f)     Question submitted by Councillor E. Wilson to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services

Will the Lead Member thank all members of the public who took part in the recent Clean for the Queen campaign and say how his officers will be encouraging residents to take part in similar events in the future?

Councillor Cox responded that the community participation in the Clean for the Queen events was fantastic and he thanked, on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, everyone who took part.  He was sure Her Majesty would be very proud to see this Great British community spirit in action. Officers would look to continue working with residents on community initiatives and projects.  The Community Wardens were very active in this regard and it was something that he and senior officers were committed to going forward.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor E. Wilson asked if the Lead Member could tell Council about any projects or initiatives he had in mind?

Councillor Cox responded that he was currently looking to implement a specific programme throughout the borough communities focussing on dog fouling within parks and open spaces.  Community wardens and officers would be looking to work with community representatives in this regard. He would also be looking to increase the sign up of Community Recycling Champions and continued support for the adopt a street campaign and community clean up initiatives.