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

 

What byelaws are in place to prevent spitting and public urination in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and does his department have plans to introduce new byelaws to prevent these problems?

 

b)   Question submitted by Councillor E. Wilson to Councillor S. Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Will the Lead Member confirm community use agreements are now in place for the Dedworth Community All Weather Pitch and similar pitches across the Borough?

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Lion to Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Will the Lead Member explain why Streetcare sanctioned a drop kerb on Clare Road and was this decision communicated to and developed with the ward members?

d)   Question submitted by Councillor Jones to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Adult Services and Health:

 

Could the Lead Member detail the smoking cessation targets and why they are not being achieved?

 

e)    Question submitted by Councillor Jones to Councillor D. Wilson, Lead Member for Planning:

 

Could the Lead Member detail the reason why the draft Borough Local Plan is putting forward approximately 105% of the housing target?

 

f)     Question submitted by Councillor Hilton to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Can the Lead Member for Environmental Services explain whether his Directorate is able to regulate home boarding and dog walking providers in the same way that it regulates kennels?

g)   Question submitted by Councillor Carroll to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

 

Can the Lead Member please advise on the key principles and objectives of the forthcoming parking strategy and how residents in Boyn Hill and across the Borough can best engage with ongoing plans and raise issues about parking? 

 

(The Member responding has up to 5 minutes to address Council. The Member asking the question has up to 1 minute to submit a supplementary question. The Member responding then has a further 2 minutes to respond.)

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

 

What byelaws are in place to prevent spitting and public urination in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and does his department have plans to introduce new byelaws to prevent these problems?

 

The Lead Member responded that there was a specific byelaw for urination only, drafted in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972; namely, Byelaw 20: “No person shall urinate or defecate in a public place”.

 

However, since the drafting of this byelaw, the most appropriate method of addressing the issue now sat within the Environmental Protection Act 1990, for which a £75 fixed penalty notice (FPN) could be issued (reduced to £55 if paid within 10 days). Two FPNs for this offence had been issued in 2016/17. The arm of the legislation had not been used historically for spitting, but would be looked into to see if it could be changed. No new bye laws were foreseen. However, the use of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO) could be used to improve the situation.

 

Councillor Yong, confirmed she had no supplementary question.

 

 

b)   Question submitted by Councillor E. Wilson to Councillor S. Rayner, Lead Member for Culture and Communities:

Will the Lead Member confirm community use agreements are now in place for the Dedworth Community All Weather Pitch and similar pitches across the Borough?

The Lead Member responded that a Community Use Agreement was in place for the all weather pitch at Dedworth Middle School and at similar pitches across the borough. This allowed Dedworth to have use of a top class facility in school hours, and community use at other times. She thanked all the volunteer coaches. There were a number of all weather pitches located at other schools in the borough, all were subject to use agreements based on legally binding facilities agreements. The pitches at Charters Leisure Centre had been used by the community for over 10 years via the lease agreements with the Charters Recreation Trust and the School. The pitches at Cox Green Leisure Centre were on land owned by RBWM and use by the school was governed by a facilities agreement, as was the case at Furze Platt.

 

Councillor E. Wilson, by way of a supplementary question, asked whether a Community Use Agreement was in place on day one as was promised.

 

The Lead Member responded that unfortunately this had not happened due to school holidays, however it was now in place.

 

c)    Question submitted by Councillor Lion to Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

Will the Lead Member explain why Streetcare sanctioned a drop kerb on Clare Road and was this decision communicated to and developed with the ward members?

The Lead Member explained how a resident could achieve a ‘cross over run up’ or dropped kerb, allowing motor vehicles to cross a public footpath on to their land.   The highways department had a system in place which contained a set of criteria to allow or not allow a resident or business to do this. The cost included a fee for officer time to check for utilities such as gas pipes and water mains under the cross over point and the construction which was carried out using preferred professional contractors. One of the major factors was that any vehicle crossing the footway must not hang out obstructing the footpath.

 

It was not part of the current process to involve ward councillors unless it was controversial for some reason. That said he would be more than happy to arrange a meeting with officers for Councillor Lion and any other ward councillors to attend in the new year.

 

Councillor Lion confirmed he had no supplementary question.

 

 

d)   Question submitted by Councillor Jones to Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Adult Services and Health:

 

Could the Lead Member detail the smoking cessation targets and why they are not being achieved?

 

The Principal Member for Public Health responded that this was a targeted service focussed on high risk individuals. The targets were 220 four week quits per annum, specifically, 88 (40%) pregnant service users, 44 (20%) mentally ill persons and 88 (40%) young people under 18years.  Additionally 130 four week quitters at 12 weeks using the same target group break down formulae. It was important to note that the national and local demand for stop smoking services had decreased.  This was potentially attributable to the introduction of e cigarettes. There had therefore been fewer people requesting support locally and nationally. Small cohorts yielded small numbers.  The council had a targeted service of vulnerable and hard to reach groups. In the first instance it would be expected that until full awareness and implementation had been enhanced, the council would not be on target. In relation to the young people cohort, evidence supported smoking prevention in young people and peer led interventions such as the ASSIST programme to stop smoking and prevent uptake.

 

The Principal Member outlined actions to get the service back on target:

 

·         A new Public Health consultant had recently been appointed.

 

·         The provider contract was being closely monitored, with assurance being provided that:

 

-          Closer working relationships were being established with primary care

-          The service was being actively promoted and the offer from national smoking cessation services

-          The provider was contacting early year’s professionals and services to formally offer training and smoking cessation support.

 

·         The Public Health team were promoting  the targeted service and national programme across youth servicesand seeking to embed smoking cessation and prevention in young people into the PSHE network.

·          Public Health had commenced work with Windsor Ascot & Maidenhead CCG to develop a case by case process for the review of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease being referred to the Stop Smoking Service.

 

Councillor Jones, by way of a supplementary question, asked if, should more resources be required to reach targets, would this be reviewed?

 

The Principal Member responded that this could happen if needed, but he was confident with the planned actions that targets could be achieved.

 

 

e)    Question submitted by Councillor Jones to Councillor D. Wilson, Lead Member for Planning:

 

Could the Lead Member detail the reason why the draft Borough Local Plan is putting forward approximately 105% of the housing target?

 

The Lead Member responded that Cabinet agreed to extend the Plan period by 1 year to 2033, which required a buffer zone of 102% rather than 105%. The council had met with the Inspector on 3 November 2016 who had advised that it would be extremely prudent to have a buffer zone.

 

Councillor Jones confirmed that she had no supplementary question

 

 

f)     Question submitted by Councillor Hilton to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

Can the Lead Member for Environmental Services explain whether his Directorate is able to regulate home boarding and dog walking providers in the same way that it regulates kennels. 

The Lead Member responded that local authorities were responsible for animal licensing which covered traditional pet boarding establishments such as animal kennels, and included home boarders where animals were kept in the home.  The council operated a licensing scheme for dog kennels and catteries and a review was being undertaken for home boarder licensing with the aim of extending the licensing regime for these businesses in the new year.

 

There were no controls or specific regulations relating to dog walkers, however, the council could look at the applicability of Public Space Protection Orders to control the number of dogs that any one person could have under their control in areas where problems with large numbers of uncontrolled dogs had been evidenced.  Similarly, unfair trading regulations applied to dog walking businesses in order to protect consumers from unfair and misleading practises or operators that were not professionally diligent.

 

Councillor Hilton, by way of a supplementary question, explained that he asked the question as an Ascot resident left their small dog with a dog walking establishment in Windsor for it to be walked and looked after for the day.  When they returned to collect the dog they learnt that the proprietor had gone out leaving their dog and two others locked together in a room and that their pet had been mauled and killed. What was particularly disturbing was that the business had a very professional web site that stated they were fully insured and DBS checked which created a level of credibility that in this case was not deserved. Would it be possible to issue a recognisable Council logo to be displayed on accredited dog walking and home boarding establishment web sites to protect dog owners from the unacceptable emotional stress that this Ascot resident had experienced?

 

The Lead Member responded that he would of course look into the possibility of this with officers.  The introduction of a home boarding establishment licensing scheme in the new year would as a minimum enable those who were licensed to reference this on their marketing material.  Customers would also be able to undertake cross references and reassurance checks with the council and their licensing records.

 

 

g)   Question submitted by Councillor Carroll to Councillor Cox, Lead Member for Environmental Services:

 

Can the Lead Member please advise on the key principles and objectives of the forthcoming parking strategy and how residents in Boyn Hill and across the Borough can best engage with ongoing plans and raise issues about parking? 

 

The Lead Member responded that the new parking strategy set out how parking management in the Royal Borough should progress over the short to longer term.  The strategy confirmed the council’s objectives to make better use of existing parking stock and ensure adequate provision so that spaces were available at locations that maximised the potential for achieving transport, social, economic and environmental goals, while also achieving a balance between supply and demand for both on-street and off-street parking. Local residents and business needs would as far as possible be prioritised.

 

The council would engage with residents, business and key stakeholders about major decisions relating to parking schemes through consultation exercises.  Boyn Hill residents and indeed all residents of the Borough were encouraged to feedback to the council when these opportunities arose.  More locally, the council would continue to undertake resident consultations in situations where any new or amended parking arrangements were proposed within the vicinity of people’s homes.

 

Residents who were experiencing problems due to inconsiderate or illegal parking on the public highway should contact the Customer Service Centre to report such issues.  These would be forwarded onto a parking officer for investigation.

 

Councillor Carroll, by way of a supplementary question, asked would the parking strategy specifically deal with letting help residents know where and how they could park across the Borough?

 

The Lead Member responded that the document included information and helpful explanations of different parking schemes and restrictions.  These were intended to help residents and visitors park compliantly.  It also confirmed that the borough would have a firm but fair approach towards enforcement.