The Minutes of the meeting of 13 September 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Questions submitted pursuant to Standing Order 36 in relation to matters falling within the Sub-Committee’s Powers & Duties which have been submitted in writing and received by the Head of Legal & Democratic Services no later than four clear working days before the meeting.

A question on the following matter was submitted, and answered by the Lead Councillor for Climate Strategy and Transport on behalf of the Chair:

(The full text of the question and reply was made available on the Reading Borough Council website).

To receive petitions on traffic management matters submitted in accordance with the Sub-Committee’s Terms of Reference.

(a)        Petition – Hemdean House School

The Sub-Committee received a report on the receipt of a petition from Hemdean House School.

The report explained that the detailed content of the petition was not yet know by officers, but it was expected to request measures to reduce safety risks outside the school on Hemdean Road.  There had been good engagement between the school, Ward Councillors and officers around potential measures and officers would consider the content of the petition and submit a petition response to a future meeting.  Resultant agreed measures would require funding, so it was likely that the petition response report would recommend a new/amendment to and existing entry onto the ‘Requests for Traffic Management Measures’ report.

The report explained that representatives from Hemdean House School had been in contact with Ward Councillors and officers, following their review of Hemdean Road and considering changes that could reduce risks.  The proposals primarily included speed reduction measures, such as 20 mph, and traffic calming, signage as well as cycling improvements.  The school had been provided with high level feedback to inform their further review of desirable changes and had notified the Council of their intention to present a petition to the meeting. 

The section of Hemdean Road in the vicinity of the school was open to two-way traffic including a scheduled bus route.  There was a slight bend in the road as it passed the school and there was on-street parking on both side of the road to the north and south of the school.  Parking was restricted immediately outside the school by the provision of ‘School Keep Clear’ markings.  Within the last three year period of Police supplied data, up to 1 June 2023, there had been no recorded incidents on Hemdean Road between its junction with Queen Street and Hemdean Hill.  Officers had therefore considered requested measures to be in the context of risk reduction, rather than casualty reduction. 

The regular ‘Requests for Traffic Management Measures’ report contained an entry for a desired area 20 mph zone in Lower Caversham as a result of an earlier report having proposed a concept area including the section of Hemdean Road outside the school.  The Lower Caversham 20 mph zone concept had been developed at a time when significant developer contributions were expected.  Unfortunately, these did not materialise, however, this was still a desirable scheme for development and delivery.  While the scale of the concept area was such that it would require significant funding. Smaller nominations could contribute to a phased delivery on an area priority basis.

At the invitation of the Chair five pupils form Hemdean House School addressed the Sub-Committee.

Resolved –

(1)        That the report be noted;

(2)        That officers consider the content of the petition and provide a petition response report to a future meeting.

(b)        Petition – Holmes Road Traffic Plug

The Sub-Committee received a report on the receipt of a petition requesting the Council to install a one-way traffic plug on Holmes Road, at its junction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

A report on traffic management measures associated with the development at the former Wickes site on Weldale Street/Chatham Street and seeking approval to carry out Statutory Consultation on the introduction of loading restrictions within a vehicular exit onto Chatham Street related to the retail park that was previously occupied by Wickes and Iceland.

The Sub-Committee received a report on traffic management measures associated with the development at the Former Wickes site on Weldale Street/Chatham Street and sought approval to carry out statutory consultation on the introduction of loading restrictions within a vehicular exit onto Chatham Street related to the retail park that had been previously occupied by Wickes and Iceland.  An illustration of the proposal was attached to the report at Appendix 1 with an inset of that drawing showing the details clearer at Appendix 2.

The report explained that planning permission had been granted in March 2018 for the redevelopment of the former Wickes/Iceland site bounded by Weldale Street to the north and Chatham Street to the south.  The permission had included the provision of 427 residential units and one flexible ground floor commercial unit. The first phase of development had been completed with the second phase having commenced.  As a result of the development a S278 Highway Works Agreement was necessary which, amongst other things, was to close off the historic exit from the retail park on Chatham Street albeit that some egress was to be retained.  The design had ensured that vehicles could exit but the area was secured by way of bollards making the ramp mainly for the use of pedestrians.  The proposal consisted of providing a double yellow line no loading or unloading at any time restriction across the former exit to tie into existing restrictions either side of the former exit with the existing no waiting restriction to the east revised to also include loading or unloading.  The inclusion of the waiting restriction had been deemed necessary to ensure that indiscriminate parking or loading did not occur along the Chatham Street frontage of the development causing obstructions to the flow of traffic along Chatham Street and the intervisibility between pedestrians and drivers at the zebra crossing located at the Chatham Street/Friar Street/IDR roundabout junction.  The loading restrictions were therefore essential to dissuade drivers from parking vehicles within the recessed exit and close to the existing zebra crossing. 

Resolved –

(1)        That the report be noted;

(2)        That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake a statutory consultation in accordance with the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, for the proposals contained within Appendix 1, attached to the report;

(3)        That subject to no objections being received, the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to make the Traffic Regulation Order for the proposed scheme;

(4)        That any objection(s) received following the statutory advertisement be submitted to a future meeting;

(5)        That the Head of Transport (or appropriate Officer) in consultation with the appropriate Lead Councillor, be granted authority to make minor changes to the proposals;

(6)        That no public enquiry be held into the proposals.

A report informing the Sub-Committee of requests for Traffic Management Measures that have been raised with officers and are measures that have either been previously reported, or those that would not typically be addressed in other programmes, where funding is yet to be identified.

The Sub-Committee received a report that informed the Sub-Committee 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.

At the invitation of the Chair Andy Whisker and Paul Moore addressed the Sub-Committee in respect of Abbots Walk that was on the principal list of requests, set out in Appendix 3.

Resolved –

(1)       That the report be noted;

(2)       That having considered the officer recommendation for each request as set out in Appendix 1, attached to the report, the entries be retained on the primary list of requests, as set out in Appendix 3, attached to the report, subject to:

·         Northumberland Avenue in Redlands Ward – Clarification that road markings to reduce speeding (indicating the 20mph restriction) were the primary desirable measure;

·         Norcot Road – Concerns about vehicles speeding in the area to be included;

·         Redlands Road/Morgan Road/Alexandra Road – It being noted that full details of all requests for changes were included in the report that was considered by the Sub-Committee in June 2023 (Minute 12 refers);

(3)       That having considered the officer recommendation for amendments to each request as set out in Appendix 2, attached to the report, the entries be retained/removed on the primary list of requests, as set out in Appendix 3, attached to the report, as per the officer recommendations;

(4)       That the items previously submitted to the Sub-Committee, as set out in Appendix 3, attached to the report, be agreed, subject to a separate review of current ‘no through road’ signage for Abbots Walk.

The following motion will be moved by the Chair:

“That, pursuant to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) members of the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following item on the agenda, as it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant Paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of that Act”

Resolved –

That, pursuant to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) members of the press and public be excluded during consideration of item 32 below, as it was likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

To consider appeals against the refusal of applications for the issue of discretionary parking permits.

The Sub-Committee received a report giving details of the background to the decisions to refuse applications for Discretionary Parking Permits from 26 applicants, who had subsequently appealed against these decisions.

Resolved –

(1)       That with regard to application 5, discretionary visitor permit books be issued personal to the applicant and subject to the applicant providing the required proofs of residency;

(2)       That a decision in respect of application 11, for a discretionary teachers permit, be deferred to allow officers to obtain more information;

(3)       That with regard to application 14, a first discretionary resident permit be issued subject to the Planning Department clarifying the position with regard to the planning informative;

(4)       That a decision in respect of applications 15 and 18, for a first discretionary Healthcare Professional permit be deferred and that officers seek advice from Communities and Adult Social Care Services and Brighter Futures for Children on the list of approved professions to be allowed to be issued with Healthcare Professional permits;

(5)       That with regard to application 16, a third discretionary permit be issued personal to the application, subject to the applicant providing the required proofs and charged at the standard rate;

(6)       That with regard to application 24, a first discretionary resident permit be issued subject to the applicant providing the required proofs and officers submit a report to a future meeting on the parking zones in the area;

(7)       That with regard to application 25, for three discretionary charity permits and discretionary charged visitor books, the application be refused, but it be noted that Councillors had a case open on the issue;

(8)       That with regard to application 26, a first discretionary resident permit and discretionary visitor permit books be issued personal to the applicant and subject to the applicant providing the required proofs;

(9)       That the Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services’ decision to refuse applications 1,2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 be upheld.

(Exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2).