The Chairman nominated the Lead Member for Environmental Services to Chair the item.

Cabinet considered a review into possible safe routes to school for children that lived within a mile of Holyport College.

Cabinet was addressed by James Blunden, a pupil at the school, on behalf of the Lead Petitioner. Mr Blunden explained that when he first attended the school he had cycled but following concerns about safety he had stopped and now took the bus for the one mile journey. He was delighted that the council had supported the petition. The college had links to Wraysbury Primary and journeys between the two could now be taken on foot. Half the school population were boarders who felt trapped; they would now be able to walk into the village. He understood the complexities of the issue including lighting and path width and a spell of disruption for residents, but safety should be paramount.

Cabinet was addressed by Kate Sheehan. Ms Sheehan commented that she was a fan of walking to school as it provided so many wellbeing benefits. When the plan had been made to build a school on the site, many people including the parish council and borough planning staff had raised the issue of a safe route. They had been told by the founders that this was not a problem as a free school bus would be available.

Ms Sheehan stated that the report did not cover all the potential options:

·         The school could approach the Department for Education to request an additional grant for a safe route not specified at the time of build

·         Go back to the original transport plan which stated that free buses would be provided for all pupils in all years, which would negate the need for a footpath

·         Would the sponsor of the school be willing to fund the works?

·         The PTA could look at fundraising for the facility.

If the above were not possible (and point 2 would need clear indication as to why it was not possible), Ms Sheehan suggested the following needed to be looked at:

·         A full transport survey of the proposed junction improvements including vehicle movements once the school was full to see if the S106 funds would be needed

·         If the S106 agreement was rewritten, there would be no cost to the borough in time, money or legal fees

·         If in future any junction improvements were required, these would be fully funded by the school

·         Holyport College be added to the list of schools requiring safe routes and prioritised according to need

·         To enable an informed decision about benefits versus costs it would be useful for residents to have the number of pupils who could use the route, as the report suggested the number would be limited, and to ensure the borough was not setting precedent

Ms Sheehan stated that all she wanted was transparency and fairness on the use of limited resources.

The Deputy Lead Member for Streetcare and Windsor presented the report. He explained that the petition had been debated at Full Council, where the need to create and maintain a safe route had been recognised. A number of options had been considered; there was no magic bullet. Each route had been considered in terms of deliverability, affordability and likely usage. The proposal for a 400m walkway on the A330 was not ideal but it was proposed that it should now be consulted upon. A contribution of £83,000 would come from the school.

Councillor Jones stated that the safety of residents was paramount but she was extremely concerned that the original planning application had not highlighted the issue nor had it been covered in the travel plan.

Councillor Walters stated that from the beginning he had been supportive of the siting of the college. At an early stage the inaccessibility of the site had been recognised for walking or cycling. The approval for the planning application had said that it was on the basis that no pupil or staff would need to walk or cycle to the school. The college had therefore fully committed to the travel plan. After the school had been built a small group of parents had suggested pupils should be able to walk or cycle to the school. Officers had looked at the options in November and concluded that the number of children living within walking distance was low and safety concerns were likely to remain. Councillor Walters commented that in his opinion he could not imagine a more dangerous scenario than the proposal for a path on the eastern side of the A330. The footpath would be narrow and unlit. He asked the Strategic Director for Operations and Customer Services whether the proposal was a safe route.

The Strategic Director explained that the width of the proposed path (1.5m) would not meet the normal standard required for new developments. He quoted the highways engineer: ‘The new footpath is not unsafe. It is not ideal and did not meet the standards expected of a new footway built as part of  a development however it was consistent with other lengths of footway in the area and in some rural locations across the borough. The petitioners suggest that even if it was not ideal it was preferable.’

The Lead Member for Planning commented that he knew the area well as a  parish councillor and, as a governor, wanted children to walk to school. The proposal would also alleviate traffic problems.  He commented that the proposal for a new footpath around the village green would disrupt the oak tree and was unnecessary as there was plenty of space. He supported all the other options. The Strategic Director confirmed the village green area was not being proposed.

Councillor Beer commented that the travel plan had stated a minimum of 8 minibuses by 2018; he asked how many were currently in operation? He highlighted that the S106 funds were for junction improvements if traffic movements continued to increase. He did not believe cabinet was in a position to accept the change to the S106 agreement.

The Strategic Director agreed to provide the number of minibuses to Councillor Beer outside the meeting. In relation to the S106 agreement, planning colleagues had confirmed that such agreements were negotiated at the time of the application using the information available to the local authority and its consultees. It was negotiated on the basis of what was needed to mitigate the impact of the development, but if it was later agreed that this mitigation was not required or an alternative was demonstrated to be better then this could be agreed by the two parties to the agreement.

The Lead Member for Finance highlighted that Members were being asked to agree to a consultation on the proposed option. If the positions put forward during the discussion were valid, they would presumably be highlighted by the consultation. However if the consultation showed support, it would be rational to support the proposal.

The Strategic Director confirmed that the increase in traffic movements was not actively being investigated at the moment. If volumes increased in future, it would need to be considered. Any funding required in future would need to come from the annual highways programme budget.

The Managing Director confirmed that a written response would be sent to Ms Sheehan and the answers made publically available on the borough website.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i.            The new footway link along Ascot Road (between Holyport Green and Holyport College) forms the basis  of consultation on the recommended scheme detail with residents, Members; Bray Parish Council and Holyport College

ii.            Subject to the outcome of the consultation, the new footway link be delivered at the earliest opportunity

iii.           The approved capital programme 2016/17 be increased by £140,000 to deliver this project (Note: a  contribution secured from Holyport College of £83,000 is available to part fund the scheme)

(Councillors Bicknell, Coppinger and Dudley left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item)