Agenda item

Oaklands Residents Parking

To report to the Sub-Committee the receipt of a petition requesting the Council that ‘Oaklands’ properties be fully included in the surrounding resident permit parking scheme.


(a)     Petition for Oaklands Properties to be fully included in the surrounding Residents Parking Permit Scheme

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the receipt of a petition requesting that the Council fully include Oaklands properties in the surrounding resident permit parking scheme.  Supporting documentation that had been provided by the lead petitioner was attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report explained that the petition, which had contained 91 signatures, had been submitted to the Council on 20 March 2020 and read as follows:

Oaklands homes have been unfairly excluded from the local Residents’ Parking Scheme (14R).  There are enough parking spaces on Hamilton and Bulmershe Road for Oaklands residents to be allowed to park in the roads close to where they live.


We the undersigned, would like those who live in Oaklands to be treated the same as other properties in the area and be fully included in the scheme.

The report stated that an alteration to the permit entitlement list would require a change to the Traffic Regulation Order for the scheme and that this would require statutory consultation and associated resources.

The report explained that Oaklands was one of a number of developments/properties that had not been included in the resident permit parking eligibility and that while the first part of the area scheme had included some additional parking restrictions and property inclusions for parking Zones 13R and 15R, the majority of this new area was Zone 14R.  Within this scheme area, officers had calculated that there were 278 addresses that were currently not included in the permit entitlement and of this number there was a concentration of addresses in the vicinity of Oaklands, which included 30 addresses on Bulmershe Road and 116 addresses on Hamilton Road, including 50 at Oaklands.  The parking Zone 14R had a saturation level of 75%, with a theoretical availability of 325 further permits being available.  These calculations had been based on permit uptake across the entire zone and had assumed that each permit issued would result in 5m of parking bay being occupied.  They did not consider visitor permit parking, either visitor permit or during shared use limited waiting periods. 

Officers had been requested to deliver the East Reading scheme in two parts, for which the second part (north-east of Wokingham Road) was due to be implemented in summer 2020, and had been made aware of a level of parking displacement that had taken place in the unprotected part two area, since implementing the first area.  Some of this displacement was likely to be from residents within the part one area seeking unrestricted parking elsewhere, but it was not possible to calculate possible volumes.  Once the resident permit parking restrictions had been implemented in the second area, it was expected that the parking permit uptake and saturation levels would increase across the zone, as more streets joined the scheme and the displacement of residents became less.

The report stated that it was the view of officers that it would not be reasonable to consider Oaklands in isolation of other properties that were in the same position and to include all properties in the scheme risked opening the scheme up to a flood of permit applications, particularly the excellent value first permit, and a significant increase in on-street parking even where off-street alternatives might be available.  The risk would be increased further when the second part of the area scheme was introduced and would remove some of the parking displacement that was likely to have been occurring in the area; forthcoming parking restrictions in Palmer Park car park would similarly affect this.

Although resident permit parking schemes were introduced in areas that provided zone-wide parking flexibility, residents understandably wished to park near to their properties.  The increase and potential over saturation of parking, particularly in the context of the concentration of properties could make this increasingly difficult and frustrating.

The report recommended that the permit entitlement was not changed but it acknowledged that residents with discretionary parking permits were concerned about the longer-term certainty of having this facility, as they currently expired and required re-application annually.  To provide certainty and clarity for those residents that had already received permits, the permits would be renewed by officers when they re-applied annually.  This would be on the basis that the permit was personal to the applicant and any new resident would have to restart the process.  This would also apply to visitor permits that had already been granted and new applications would be viewed by officers on the basis of the guidance.  This would also apply to other housing in the area that was not within the normal scheme entitlement.  The proposal was that this method would provide residents with the assurance of having a parking permit, but also enabled a level of monitoring and management over the parking zone saturation levels which was a standard consideration of new discretionary parking permit applications.

The Sub-Committee discussed the report and agreed that a further review be carried out in early 2021 a report submitted to the meeting in March 2021.

At the invitation of the Chair Leila Cousins, addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Oaklands Management Association.

Resolved –

(1)         That the report be noted;

(2)         That the current address eligibility for resident parking permits remain unchanged and discretionary permit be issued by officers, as outlined in paragraph 4.14 of the report, to provide greater certainty for residents;

(3)         That a further review be carried out in early 2021 and a report submitted to the meeting in March 2021;

(4)     That the lead petitioners be informed accordingly.



Supporting documents: