Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Reading (there will be a very limited number of socially distanced seats available for the public in the Council Chamber)

Contact: Jenny Hazell - Committee Services  Email: richard.woodford@reading.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

Councillor Ennis declared an interest in item 8 on the grounds that he lived in Grovelands Road.

2.

Minutes of previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 161 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2021.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of 4 March 2021 were confirmed as a correct record.

Further to Minute 44 of the previous meeting, Receipt of a Petition for the Implementation of a 20 mph Zone in the Residential Streets off Oxford Road, Councillor Hacker stated that as this item was not on the agenda for this meeting (as had been confirmed) she requested that it be submitted to the September 2021 meeting.

3.

Questions from Members of the Public and Councillors pdf icon PDF 137 KB

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.

Minutes:

Questions on the following matters were submitted, and answered by the Lead Councillor for Strategic Environment Planning and Transport on behalf of the Chair:

Questioner

Subject

Duncan Godding

Layout and Signals at the Junction of Bath Road and Burghfield Road

Lin Godfrey

Junction of Prospect Street/Peppard/Henley and Westfield Road

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

 

4.

Modification to Public Right Of Way - Footpath 21A Located South of the Former Homebase/Toys R Us Site, Kenavon Drive pdf icon PDF 175 KB

A report seeking approval for Officers to undertake statutory consultation for a Definitive Map Modification Order to Footpath 21A in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report that sought approval for officers to carry out statutory consultation for a Definitive Map Modification Order to Footpath 21A in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings.  The following appendices were attached to the report:

Appendix 1

Approved drawing AL6086-2010 Rev F Illustrative Landscape Masterplan.

Appendix 2

Towpath Public Right of Way Alterations Proposed Plan.

Appendix 3

Existing Public Right of Way.

The report explained that Footpath 21A ran on the north side of a channel of the canalised River Kennet, between Forbury Road to Gas Works Road.  It was a relatively short path, providing views over and across the water and had become available when the former Huntley and Palmers biscuit factory had been redeveloped.  The path was presently at two levels, a higher, inland level, and a lower level, adjacent to the water, which was accessed by steps at each end.  In October 2018 planning permission had been granted for the site adjacent to the river and the approved plans had incorporated a ramp between the lower and upper levels of the path that represented an improvement to the existing arrangement, where step free access to the lowest area of the riverside was not possible.  Non-material amendments to the permission were approved in February 2021 that increased the width of Footpath 21A on the riverside.

The report sought approval to conduct statutory consultation on the landscaping and public realm works that affected the line and width of the Footpath.  The Council would prepare and publish the public path modification order by advertising in the local newspaper, consulting Statutory Consultees and posting notices on the site. Subject to the proposed order being unopposed, or any objection made being subsequently withdrawn, the order would be confirmed. The modifications to the Footpath would be legally changed on the Definitive Map and Statement of public rights of way within the Borough.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake a statutory consultation under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 53A(2) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for a Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order to Footpath 21A for the proposals illustrated in Appendix 2 attached to the report;

(3)     That, subject to no objections being received, or any objections made being subsequently withdrawn, the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to confirm the order as an unopposed order;

(4)     That any objection(s) received following the statutory advertisement be reported to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee;

(5)     That the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport & Regulatory Services (or appropriate Officer), in consultation with the appropriate Lead Councillor, be authorised to make minor changes to the proposals.

5.

Resident Permit Parking: Schemes for statutory consultation (Granville Road and Katesgrove Area) pdf icon PDF 154 KB

A report seeking approval for Officers to undertake statutory consultations for resident permit parking schemes on Granville Road and Katesgrove area.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report that sought approval for officers to carry out statutory consultation for resident permit parking schemes on Granville Road and in the Katesgrove area.  A map showing the proposals for Granville Road was attached to the report at Appendix 1 and a map showing the proposals for the Katesgrove area was attached to the report at Appendix 2.

The report explained that following informal consultation in 2019, there had been no clear support for a resident permit scheme in the Tidmarsh Street area nor on Kentwood Hill. Officers had been liaising with Ward Councillors since collating the results, to reach an agreement on whether to progress with scheme development.  The results of the informal consultation for the Tidmarsh Street area had shown that only 15% of respondents stated that they had felt that a permit parking scheme would improve parking in their area.  Using the same measures, there had been only 49% for the Kentwood Hill proposal.  Due to the negative response, officers did not recommend that these schemes should be developed further. They also recommended that any further requests for permit parking in these areas should be treated as new requests that would go to the back of the waiting list.

Informal consultations had also been carried out for the Granville Road and Katesgrove area schemes in 2019 and following discussions with Ward Councillors, officers had designed schemes, as set out in Appendix 1 and 2. Officers recommended that these schemes be progressed to statutory consultation and sought approval to carry out this process. The report also recommended that the Granville Road proposal should be included in a new permit zone, whilst the Katesgrove area scheme should be part of the existing 10R permit zone.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Challenger, Katesgrove Ward Councillor, addressed the Sub-Committee on the Katesgrove area scheme.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the Tidmarsh Street area and Kentwood Hill area proposals be removed from the resident permit programme and that any renewed request for a permit parking scheme in these areas be treated as a new request, as set out in paragraph 4.1 of the report;

(3)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake statutory consultations for the Granville Road and Katesgrove area schemes, in accordance with the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996;

(4)     That subject to no objections received, the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to make the Traffic Regulation Orders and scheme delivery planning commence;

(5)     That any objection(s) received following the statutory advertisement be reported to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee;

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

6.

Bi-Annual Waiting restriction review - 2021A Proposals for statutory consultation pdf icon PDF 154 KB

A report seeking approval for Officers to undertake statutory consultation for recommended new/alterations to waiting restrictions.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report seeking approval for carrying out statutory consultation on and, subject to no objections being received, implementation of requests for or changes to waiting/parking restrictions.

The following appendices were attached to the report:

Appendix 1 – Bi-Annual waiting restriction review programme list of streets and Officer recommendations.

Appendix 2 – Drawings to accompany the Officer recommendations in Appendix 1.

The report explained that approval had been granted to carry out investigations at various location at the 4 March 2021 meeting (Minute 44 refers), following requests that the Council had received for new or amended waiting restrictions.  Officers had investigated the issues that had been raised and had considered appropriate measures that could be implemented to overcome each issue.  Officers had shared their recommended proposals with Ward Councillors between 14 and 31 May 2021 providing Councillors with an opportunity to consult informally with residents, consider the recommendations and provide any comments.

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 in Appendix 1 and 2 to the report, (subject to (3) below);

(3)     That  the following proposals made under waiting restriction review 2021A, as shown in Appendix 1 be implemented, amended or removed from the programme as follows:

·         Abbey: Jesse Terrace/Castle Hill – Implement as advertised;

·         Abbey: Chatham Place Service Road – Implement as advertised;

·         Caversham: Cromwell Road – Implement as advertised;

·         Caversham: Star Road/Douglas Road – Implement as advertised;

·         Caversham: Hemdean Hill/Hemdean Rise – Remove from the programme;

·         Church: Shinfield Road – Remove from the programme;

·         Katesgrove: Ella Garret Close – Implement as advertised;

·         Kentwood: Oak Tree Road – Remove from the programme;

·         Kentwood: Romany Close – Implement as advertised;

·         Minster: Edenham Crescent – Implement as advertised;

·         Norcot: Longridge Close – Implement as advertised;

·         Park: Crescent Road – Remove from the programme subject to the road becoming a ‘school street’;

·         Park: Bulmershe Road/Hamilton Road – Implement as advertised;

·         Park: Sun Street – Implement as advertised;

·         Redlands: Newcastle Road – Remove from the programme;

·         Redlands: Newcastle Road – Remove from the programme;

·         Redlands: Redlands Road – Remove from the programme;

·         Southcote: Liebenrood Road – Remove from the programme;

·         Southcote: Southcote Lane – Implement as advertised;

·         Thames: Wrenfield Drive – Remove from the programme;

·         Tilehurst: Bevan Close – Implement as advertised;

·         Tilehurst: Fern Close – Implement as advertised;

·         Whitley: Kingsbridge Road – Implement as advertised.

(4)     That subject to no objections received, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to make the Traffic Regulation Order;

(5)     That any objection(s) received following the statutory advertisement be reported to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee;

(6)     That the Head of Transport, in consultation with the appropriate Lead Councillor be authorised to make minor changes to the proposals;

(7)     That no public inquiry be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Reading Station South-East Taxi Ranking: Proposals for statutory consultation pdf icon PDF 155 KB

A report seeking approval for Officers to undertake a statutory consultation that will accommodate taxi ranking elsewhere in the vicinity of the ‘horse shoe’ rank, located to the South-east of Reading Railway Station.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved –    That consideration of this item be deferred to the next meeting so that further consultation can take place with Reading Transport Limited.

8.

Results of statutory consultation: Residents Permit Parking in the Grovelands Road area, Shilling Close area and Cintra Close pdf icon PDF 160 KB

To consider the results of statutory consultation in respect of resident permit parking proposals in the Grovelands Road Area, Shilling Close area and Cintra Close, and to agree to either implement, amend or reject the proposals.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Further to Minute 47 of the previous meeting, the Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report asking the Sub-Committee to consider the results of statutory consultation in respect of resident permit parking proposals in the Grovelands Road area, Shilling Close area and Cintra Close.  The following appendices were attached to the report:

Appendix 1

Grovelands Road area - publicly advertised plans which showed the location and detail of the parking proposals.

Appendix 2

Grovelands Road area - objections and other comments which had been submitted formally during the consultation period.

Appendix 3

Cintra Close - publicly advertised plan which showed the location and detail of the proposals.

Appendix 4

Cintra Close - objections and other comments which had been submitted formally during the consultation period.

Appendix 5

Shilling Close - publicly advertised plan which showed the location and detail of the proposals.

Appendix 6

Shilling Close - objections and other comments which were submitted formally during the consultation period.

Grovelands Road Area

The report explained that the most common objections to the Grovelands Road area scheme included the cost of the permits, including the potential for the cost to increase over time, many residents had multiple cars who might not be entitled to permits and the scheme would not guarantee a parking space.  Roads where ‘permit holders only past this point’ restrictions had been proposed had included requests for free visitor parking, and in other roads there were objections to the two-hour free visitor parking not being sufficient to allow regular visitors to visit/carry out their work without incurring a charge.  In addition, some residents had raised concerns about enforcement of permit schemes in the evenings, where parking became more saturated, and other residents did not believe that the permit scheme would prevent commercial vehicles from parking in the area.

Officers confirmed that commercial vehicles were not eligible for resident parking permits under the current rules. 

Cintra Close

Objectors to the proposals for Cintra Close related to concerns about the charges included in the permit scheme and about the impact on property value due to the fact that the scheme would restrict the number of cars per household.  Some comments were also made in respect of certain properties and their inclusion in the permit zone. 

Shilling Close Area

With regard to Shilling Close, some residents of Tilehurst Road had requested that they be included in the scheme as they had no other parking available.  Some of the objections had raised concerns about how the scheme would impact the nearby hospital and others had objected to the cost of the permits.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Lovelock, Norcot Ward Councillor, addressed the Sub-Committee on the proposals for the Grovelands Road area and Shilling Close area.  Councillor Lovelock informed the Sub-Committee about previous informal consultations and work that had been carried out in respect of both areas and told the Sub-Committee that there was insufficient support from residents for the proposals at the current time.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

The Heights School: Results of statutory consultation pdf icon PDF 138 KB

To consider the results of the statutory consultation for the proposed installation of a new zebra crossing and ‘School Keep Clear’ restrictions to support the Heights School, and decide whether these measures should be implemented.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report providing the results of the statutory consultation for the proposed installation of a new zebra crossing and ‘School Keep Clear’ restrictions to support the Heights School.  The following appendices were attached to the report:

Appendix 1

Drawing to show the proposed School Keep Clear restriction.

Appendix 2

Feedback to the statutory consultation for the proposed School Keep Clear restriction.

Appendix 3

Drawing to show the proposed zebra crossing.

Appendix 4

Feedback to the statutory consultation for the proposed zebra crossing.

The report explained that The Heights School proposal at Mapledurham Playing Fields was currently progressing towards occupation later in 2021 with some Highway alteration works having been delivered already.  As part of that development a zebra crossing on the A4074, Upper Woodcote Road, had been secured through the Section 106 Agreement with the detailed design also providing for ‘school keep clear’ markings to protect the immediate vicinity around the school entrance from potentially obstructive parking.

The implementation of these measures required the Council to carry out statutory consultations in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and it would have been standard practice to request commencement of consultations of this nature at a meeting of the Sub-Committee.  However, due to a number of factors, it was not possible for this to have been achieved in time for the meeting of the Sub-Committee in March 2021. With joint agreement between Ward Councillors, appropriate portfolio holders, the Chair of the Sub-Committee and officers in Legal and Committee Services and Transport, statutory consultations were carried out between 13 May and 4 June 2021. 

Councillor Mitchell read out a statement from Councillor Ballsdon, Mapledurham Ward Councillor, affirming her support for the zebra crossing and detailing some concerns about the new lights from residents in the immediate vicinity.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That having reviewed the consultation feedback as set out in Appendix 4, attached to the report, and the officer recommendations as detailed in the report, the zebra crossing be implemented as advertised;

(3)     That having reviewed the consultation feedback as set out in Appendix 2, attached to the report, and the officer recommendations as detailed in the report, the ‘School Keep Clear’ restriction be implemented as advertised;

(4)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to seal the resultant Traffic Regulation Order for the ‘School Keep Clear’ restriction;

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

10.

Exclusion of Press and Public

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”

Minutes:

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 11 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.

11.

Applications for Discretionary Parking Permits

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

 

Minutes:

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details of the background to the decisions to refuse applications for Discretionary Parking Permits from twelve applicants, who had subsequently appealed against these decisions.

Resolved –

(1)     That with regard to application 1,  a second Discretionary Residents Parking Permit, personal to the applicant, be issued, subject to adequate proof of vehicle ownership;

(2)     That with regard to applications 3, 8 and 12,  a first Discretionary Residents Parking Permit, personal to the applicant, be issued, subject to adequate proofs being provided;

(3)     That with regard to application 5, a first Discretionary Residents Parking Permit, personal to the applicant, be issued, subject to (a) confirmation that no one else in the development where the applicant lives owns a car and (b) adequate proofs being provided;

(4)     That application 6 be refused but that Housing Officers investigate the on-site difficulties and the ownership of the garages in the vicinity to where the applicant lives;

(5)     That application 9 be deferred for Officers to consult with Park Ward Councillors about possible extension of the Residents Permits Scheme Zone and for a report to be brought back to the next Sub-Committee meeting to review the permit data and capacity of the zone;

(6)     That with regard to application 11, the applicant’s request for a reduction of the second permit charge to the first permit charge be refused. However, the applicant to be advised that if the first permit issued to another resident in a different flat in the development becomes available, the applicant be offered it. Until then, the applicant has to pay the second permit charge. 

(7)     That the Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services’ decision to refuse applications 2, 4, 7 and 10 be upheld.

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