The Sub-Committee received a report informing them of requests for traffic management measures that had been raised with officers.  These were measures that had either been previously reported or those that would not typically be addressed in other programmes, where funding had yet to be identified.  The following appendices were attached to the report:

The report explained that following meetings between Ward Councillors and the Leader of the Council, Deputy Leader and Lead Councillor for Climate Strategy and Transport, agreements had been made regarding those requests that could be removed and those that were considered to be a relatively higher priority.  The report therefore sought to have the outcome of those decisions reflected in the principal list moving forward and sought agreement for these changes that were summarised in Section 3.6.1 of the report and in Appendices 1 and 2.

With regard to the Principal List the report explained that the Council received many requests for new traffic management measures across the Borough and had several programmes in which they might be addressed, including the Waiting Restriction Review Programme and major strategic schemes. However, funding to address smaller scale, desirable general traffic management measures, was harder to secure.  Additionally, the Council’s limited engineering staffing resources covered a range of different workstreams and outsourcing did not necessarily represent best value for money.  A list of requested measures had been maintained for many years and numerous schemes had been delivered from it, primarily through local 15% Community Infrastructure Levy funding nominations.  The regular update reports had been clear that those requests on the list were not investigated, designed nor fully costed schemes and that undertaking such work would attract financial and resourcing costs and divert these resources away from developing other funded schemes.  The officer comments against the requests were high level observations/estimates, that had been based on a limited desktop exercise and owing to potential feasibility issues, and that the majority of requests would require legal statutory consultation, no requests on the list could be guaranteed as deliverable.

The report explained that the list had grown more rapidly than schemes could be delivered, which had led to understandable frustration about the length of time many requests had been on the list, without development being carried out.  Any estimation regarding the time at which development of a request would be likely to commence had not been possible.  There was a desire to change this position and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council and the Lead Councillor for Climate Strategy and Transport had met with Ward Councillors to scrutinise the list of requests, to streamline and prioritise them. The results of these meetings had been reflected in Appendices 1 and 2 which indicated the agreed priorities and those requests that should be removed from the list.  The results of this work had helped to streamline and focus the list and, alongside existing and potential new opportunities for funding and resourcing, sought to expedite potential delivery of these beneficial schemes across the Borough.

Ongoing scrutiny of the list was essential and Councillors and officers were asked to apply additional scrutiny when considering any new requests for inclusion on the list.  The Principal List represented a list of requests worth a considerable financial investment to the Council and decades of linear officer time to deliver and had been an open book for many years.  Any new requests should have considerable merit for being added and the report proposed that the focus should be on realising the development of these schemes and not returning to a situation where schemes were being regularly added with relatively low chance of development for many years.

The report did not necessarily affect major strategic transport and cycling schemes that had been funded as part of any major scheme project award from central Government and/or other sources.  However, it did currently include requests that had been received from the Reading Cycle Forum.  These had intentionally not been assigned a priority, as initiatives around Active Travel priorities that were being developed on other forums were expected to result in such requests being transferred to other strategic workstreams.  The Principal List was therefore expected to be adjusted accordingly in the future but, until that time, these initiatives would be retained.

The Sub-Committee discussed the report and it was agreed to remove the priorities for each request set out in Appendix 1, The Principal List of requests, and for each request to be reprioritised.  The Sub-Committee also agreed that the cycling schemes, as set out in Appendices 1 and 2, be removed and that they be looked at more strategically in other programmes/workstreams for example those relating to Active Travel and the forthcoming Local Cycling, Walking and Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) update.

Resolved –

(1)           That the report be noted;

(2)           That the priority scores listed against each request on the Principal List, as attached at Appendix 1, be removed and that a report be submitted to a future meeting on the prioritisation of the entries remaining on the List;

(3)           That having considered the Principal List, as attached to the report at Appendix 1, the following requests be removed:

·       Caversham Ward – Chiltern Road (Line no. 49);

·       Caversham Ward – Church Street (Line no. 50);

·       Caversham Heights Ward – Albert Road (Line no. 54);

·       All cycling related entries (also see (6) below).

(4)           That the removals agreed through Ward Councillor meetings, as set out in Section 3.6.1 and listed in Appendix 2 of the report, be agreed subject to the following entries being retained on the revised Principal List of requests:

·       Caversham/Thames Wards – Various Streets in Lower Caversham (Line no. 34);

·       Norcot/Southcote Wards – Shilling Close/Honey End Lane (Line no. 36);

·       Caversham Heights Ward – Upper Woodcote Road (and Woodcote Road) (Line no. 16);

·       All entries that related to 20mph zones located north of the river (also see (5) below).

(5)           That all requests listed in Appendix 2 of the report relating to 20mph zones located north of the river be retained on the revised Principal List pending further discussion by Ward Councillors;

(6)           That all cycling related requests listed in Appendices 1 and 2 be removed from the Principal List of requests on the condition that they be collated and be retained on a new strategic list for consideration in other programmes/workstreams;

(7)           That having considered the officer recommendations for each new request listed in Appendix 3 attached to the report, the four entries be added to the revised Principal List.