The Executive Director of Children’s Services – Education, Early Help and Social Care, Brighter Futures for Children, submitted a report presenting the Committee with the revised Admissions Policy for Holy Brook Primary School.  A copy of the Admissions Policy for Holy Brook School was attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report explained that the Admissions Policy had been updated by the Headteacher of The Holy Brook School and had been approved by the school’s governing body.  The updates had been made by the Headteacher in partnership with the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Team Manager, BFfC.  All pupils at the school had an Education, Health and Care Plan with a primary need of Social, Emotional and Mental Health Needs (SEMH).  The reasons for the updates were to ensure that BFfC SEND Team was fully involved in decision making regarding the identification and prioritisation of pupils admitted to Holy Brook School, in accordance with the SEND Code of Practice.  The proposed revised Admissions Policy would be reviewed jointly, and ratified annually, by the governing body of the school and ACE Committee in line with their responsibility for maintained schools.

Resolved –    That the updated version of the Admissions Policy for implementation at the next review date be approved.

The Executive Director of Children’s Services – Education, Early Help and Social Care, Brighter Futures for Children, submitted a report asking the Committee to determine the amended admission arrangements for Community Primary Schools in the Borough for the school years 2021/22 and 2022/23.  A copy of the admissions arrangements for Community Primary Schools in Reading for the school years 2021/22 and 2022/23 were appended to the report.

The report explained that in the previous year the Government had consulted on changes to the School Admissions Code.  The new Code and associated regulation had been laid before parliament and were subject to parliamentary procedure and would come into force on 1 September 2021. 

Point 1.7 of the new Code required children who appeared, to the admission authority, to have been in state care outside of England and had ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted, to be given equal first priority in admission arrangements, alongside looked after children and children who had been previously looked after by English authorities.  This advice referred to these children as internationally adopted previously looked after children, IAPLAC.  These arrangements complied with the new School Admissions Code 2021.

Resolved –    That the scheme attached to the report at Annex A as the admission arrangements for 2021/22 and the scheme attached to the report at Annex B as the admission arrangements for 2022/23 for community schools in Reading be approved as updated arrangements.

The Executive Director of Social Care and Health submitted a report providing the Committee with the options available to the Council in advance of the Berkshire Community Equipment Service Contract expiring in March 2024 and inviting the Committee to consider the new Turnkey Technology Enabled Care pilot service and its extension.

The report explained that the Berkshire Community Equipment Service (BCES) provided equipment to support people to live independently at home, for example, by providing rails and sensor alarms.  This service was delivered by NRS Healthcare as part of a five year contract that was due to expire on 31 March 2022.  The BCES contract was managed by West Berkshire Council on behalf of all six unitary authorities in Berkshire and the two Berkshire NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups.  There was an option to extend the contract for a further two years, covering an extension period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024.  The monetary value of the extension was £1.4m.

In addition to the core equipment contract the Council had worked with NRS to develop an enhanced Technology Enabled Care (TEC) Turnkey pilot service which had been launched in Reading in November 2020.  Whilst this worked within the framework of the current contract it provided access to additional equipment and support services thus providing an end to end offer for services, for example, assessment through to installation and monitoring.

The report outlined the options available to the Council in advance of the contract expiring in March 2024.

Resolved –

(1)     That the current contract period of the Berkshire Community Equipment Service supply be extended from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024 at an estimated value of £1.4 million including contract management fees;

(2)     That the Turnkey pilot service be continued from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024 at an estimated value of £384,000.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the receipt of a petition requesting the Council that the Resident Permit Parking restrictions on Palmer Park Avenue be changed to Resident Permit Parking only.  This would be in place of the current restrictions that allowed visitor (non-permitted) parking for up to two hours between 8.00 am and 8.00 pm. 

The petition read as follows:

“We the undersigned are concerned about our ability to park near our homes due to the existing residents parking scheme in operation in our road.  As a narrow one-way road parking is only permitted on one side of the road and our problem is that we can return home only to find there is nowhere for us to park.  This can be particularly difficult for families with small children, elderly or infirm residents and others returning home with the weeks shopping.

The existing arrangement which has been in place for several years allows non-residents to park for up to 2 hours which we believe is the cause of our difficulties.  We would like to see the scheme altered to remove this 2 hour option for non-residents, so it becomes a ‘resident only’ scheme.

We would ask that the scheme could be reviewed to help alleviate our situation.”

The report stated that the petition contained 72 signatures and explained that the restrictions in Palmer Park Avenue had been in place for many years and permitted up to two hours of parking, free of charge and without the need to display a permit, between 8.00 am and 8.00 pm daily.  At all other times the vehicle had to have a valid zone 14R parking permit.  Palmer Park sat within the same parking zone as its surrounding streets, which were introduced as part of the East Reading Resident permit parking scheme.  This scheme had been introduced with a combination of restrictions, which included permit parking only in some streets and others enabling daytime limited parking.  This combination had been intended to be a good compromise between maximising capacity, while balancing parking flexibility for visitors.  A restriction that implemented Resident Permit Parking only would require every parked vehicle to have a valid parking permit.  Residents would need to arrange visitor permits for friends and family and tradesperson permits (or similar) in advance should they require any maintenance work on their properties.

At the invitation of the Chair, lead petitioner Amjad Tarar attended the meeting and addressed the Sub-Committee.

Resolved -

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the request be investigated and developed as part of the 2021B Waiting Restriction Review programme;

(3)     That the lead petitioner be informed accordingly.

The Executive Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report informing the Sub-Committee of requests for new traffic management measures that had been raised by members of the public, other organisations/representatives and Councillors.  These were measures that would not typically be addressed in other programmes, where funding was yet to be identified.  The list of new requests, and/or those that had been submitted to the Sub-Committee previously where amendments had been proposed, with initial officer comments and recommendations was attached to the report at Appendix 1 and the principle list of requests, which had been updated following submission of the previous report to the Sub-Committee in March 2021, was attached to the report at Appendix 2.

At the invitation of the Chair, Laura Haleem attended the meeting and addressed the Sub-Committee in respect of speeding on Elmhurst Road.

The Sub-Committee discussed the report and agreed that Marlborough Avenue should be included, and treated in a similar way, with Elmhurst Road.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

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

·         Marlborough Avenue being included with Elmhurst Road;

(3)     That the items previously submitted to the Sub-Committee, as set out in Appendix 2, attached to the report, be agreed.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report that sought approval from the Sub-Committee for officers to carry out necessary statutory consultation/notice processes to progress three scheme designs for zebra crossings on Norcot Road, Church End Lane and Addington Road.  The report also sought agreement to implement lining schemes on Morpeth Close and provided notification of the lining alterations to the roundabout at The Meadows/St Michael’s Road, which did not require statutory consultation.  The following appendices were attached to the report:

The report stated that at Policy Committee on 14 June 2021 (Minute 7 refers) it had been resolved to allocate local CIL funding to enable the development and intended delivery of initiatives across many Council service areas.  Within these allocations were a number of traffic management schemes, the majority of which had originated from the Requests for Traffic Management Measure report that was submitted to the Sub-Committee twice a year.  These schemes were specific and allowed little scope for alternation to the deliverables.  The schemes were as follows:

·         Pedestrian crossing on Norcot Road; close to number 91 - £50k allocated;

·         Pedestrian crossing on Addington Road, between the junctions with Erleigh Road and Easter Avenue - £50k allocated;

·         Pedestrian crossing on Church End Lane, in the vicinity of Moorlands Primary School - £50k allocated;

·         Road marking on Morpeth Close, involving parking bay markings - £5k allocated;

·         Lining alterations on the Meadway at the roundabout with St Michael’s Road - £10k allocated.

Officers had carried out initial investigation works, had obtained indicative quotations and had provided Ward Councillors with recommended concept designs that they felt should be deliverable, within the allocated budgets.  Officers had also considered any feedback that had been received from the sharing of these initial scheme designs.  The report provided information on each of the proposals.

With regard to the pedestrian crossing proposals, it was acknowledged that they would be positioned outside residential properties, which might be a cause for some objection.  Within the limitation of what was possible, equipment would be chosen that would minimise light from beacons being directed toward nearby properties and any additional lighting would also be shielded. 

Officers confirmed that not all of the £10k allocated for lining alterations on the Meadway at the roundabout with St Michael’s Road would be used because, following vehicle trials, it had become clear that there was insufficient space for traffic islands as had been proposed.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake statutory consultation/notification processes for the proposed zebra crossing designs on Norcot Road, Church End Lane and Addington Road in accordance with the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996;

(3)     That the Network & Parking Services Manager, in agreement with the Lead Councillor for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport, be able to make minor alterations to the agreed proposals;

(4)     That subject to no objections being received for a scheme, the scheme(s) be considered as agreed for implementation and scheme delivery planning will commence;

(5)     That should a scheme receive objection(s) during the statutory consultation period, that these be reported to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee for consideration and decision regarding scheme delivery;

(6)     That the proposals for Morpeth Close be agreed for delivery and scheme delivery planning will commence;

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

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report proposing that the central section (town centre) of the Red Route, which was currently in place with an ‘experimental’ Traffic Regulation Order, was made a permanent Order. The experimental Order would end in January 2022.  Plans showing the amendments that had been made to the Red Route during the ‘experimental’ period were attached to the report at Appendix 1 and objections and other feedback to the Red Route experimental Traffic Regulation Order were attached to the report at Appendix 2.

The report stated that within the first six months of implementation, the Council had received feedback primarily from town centre businesses with concerns about loading difficulties.  Officers had met with representative from the town centre businesses and Reading UK CIC to discuss and understand the concerns and to then consider options to overcome some of the challenges that they were facing.  Minor modifications to the experimental scheme were implemented in January 2021 and primarily consisted of additional loading facilities being made available in addition to other elements to ‘tidy’ the restrictions on street and contained within the experimental TRO.  Since implementing the minor modifications the Council had received no further objections.  The further six month minimum period of further consultation had ended in July 2021 and the experimental TRO would expire in January 2022.

The report explained that making the experimental TRO for the central section of the Red Route into a permanent TRO would retain the range of restrictions that were currently in place, which had overcome initial objections and concerns and the benefits that the enhanced enforcement opportunities brought in terms of the local area and to current revenue income.  There was no further opportunity for alteration to the experimental TRO and a deferral to this decision would risk insufficient time being available to carry out the necessary processes to make the TRO permanent, prior to it expiring in January 2022.  Once the experimental order was made permanent, future alterations to this section of the Red Route restrictions might be considered in the Waiting Restriction Review programme, following a six week embargo on any statutory consultations, following the making of the TRO, this would enable any legal challenges to be received.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to carry out the necessary legislative an regulatory processes to make the experimental Red Route Traffic Regulation Order into a permanent Order;

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

Further to Minute 5 of the previous meeting, the Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report asking the Sub-Committee to consider the feedback from the consultations on resident permit parking (RPP) proposals for Granville Road and the Katesgrove area and to conclude the outcome of these proposed schemes.  The report also provided an update on requests that had been received for the introduction of new RPP schemes, including the progress of developing schemes.  A copy of the consultation feedback for the Granville Road RPP proposal and the advertised scheme drawing was attached to the report at Appendix 1, the consultation feedback for the Katesgrove area RPP proposal and advertised scheme drawing was attached at Appendix 2 and the updated list of request for RPP new scheme was attached to the report at Appendix 3.

The report stated that the Granville Road statutory consultation had taken place between 1 and 21 July 2021.  41 responses were received, 34 were objections and six were comments in support.  Supporters of the proposals had raised concerns about emergency vehicle access in the area, due to the high volume of vehicles parked on Granville Road and the objectors had raised a number of concerns, such as financial pressures that would be caused by the cost of permits and possible displacement parking on nearby streets.  Some felt that there was no issue with the parking in the area and others believed the Council should create additional parking spaces as there were not enough spaces for the high volume of properties in the area.

The Katesgrove area statutory consultation had been carried out between 15 July and 4 August 2021.  117 responses had been received, 99 were objections, there had been 17 comments in support and one general comment.  Feedback had been received from the whole area, but, Bourne Avenue, Collis Street/Mount Street, Elgar Road South and Shenstone Road appeared to have generated a high number of objections.  There were also a number of comments that did not make reference to specific roads and others that referred to the area scheme as a whole.  There had also been a number of comments from different residents in Basingstoke Road.  Many residents had objected to the charges that accompanied a permit scheme and the restriction on the number of vehicles, as well as the fact that a number of flats would only be able to apply for discretionary permits which were not guaranteed.  Many residents did not believe that a permit scheme would improve the parking in the area and there was also concern that the restrictions wold reduce the number of on-street parking spaces or push the problem elsewhere.  There had also been a number of comments asking when residents would be consulted and other comments suggested that commercial vehicles, non-residents and properties with multiple flats (and no parking spaces) caused parking issues in these areas but there were also comments from commercial vehicle owners and residents in the flats who felt that they should be allowed permits as it would be detrimental to them not to be able park on-street.

Councillor Ennis, Southcote Ward Councillor, addressed the Sub-Committee on proposed scheme for Granville Road, he stated that the outcome of the consultation and views of the residents should be accepted and suggested that investigations took place for measures at end of Granville Road to stop businesses using it and that officers look at other measures that could help residents.

Councillor Page, on behalf of Katesgrove Ward Councillors, also addressed the Sub-Committee on the result of the Katesgrove area consultation and stated that it was felt that there was not sufficient support to take the proposals forward and that further discussions should take place about alternative options.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That having considered the objections set out in Appendix 1 and 2, attached to the report, the proposed schemes for both Granville Road and the Katesgrove area be rejected;

(3)     That investigations be carried out by officers on alternative options for Granville Road and the Katesgrove area and a report on the outcomes submitted to a future meeting.

(4)     That the respondents to the statutory consultation be informed of the decision of the Sub-Committee accordingly, following publication of the agreed minutes of the meeting;

(5)     That the requests set out in Appendix 3, attached to the report, be retained for future development.

The Executive Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report informing the Sub-Committee of objections that that had been received during statutory consultation for the agreed proposals that formed the 2021A Waiting Restrictions Review Programme.  The report also provided the Sub-Committee with the list of new requests for potential inclusion in the 2021B programme.

The following appendices were attached to the report:

Appendix 1 – Feedback received during statutory consultation for the 2021A programme and the advertised drawings for those proposals.

Appendix 2 – New requests for consideration in the 2021B programme.

At the invitation of the Chair, Derek Murphy and Michael Howse attended the meeting and addressed the Sub-Committee in respect of Knowle Close/Upper Woodcote Road, as set out in Appendix 2.

At the invitation of the Chair, Niki Haywood attended the meeting and addressed the Sub-Committee in respect of The Mount and Sutton Walk, as set out in Appendix 2.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor David Absolom attended the meeting and also addressed the Sub-Committee in respect of The Mount and Sutton Walk, as set out in Appendix 2.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the objections set out in Appendix 1 with the appropriate recommendation to either: implement, amend or reject the proposals be noted;

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

·         Chatham Place – Implement as advertised;

·         Star Road/Douglas Road – Implement as advertised;

·         Ella Garett Close – Implement as advertised;

·         Romany Close – Implement as advertised;

·         Edenham Crescent – Implement as advertised;

·         Longridge Close – Implement as advertised;

(4)     That respondents to the statutory consultation be informed of the decision of the Sub-Committee accordingly, following publication of the agreed minutes of the meeting;

(5)     That having considered the requests made for waiting restriction changes, as set out in Appendix 2 attached to the report, the requests be investigated by officers as part of the 2021B review programme, subject to the following amendments:

·         Great Knollys Street – Reference should be made to the Great Knollys Street ‘area’;

·         Northumberland Avenue – Remove from the programme;

·         Copenhagen Close – Yellow lines to go beyond the entrance to the Community Centre Car Park;

(6)     That the officer recommendations, following investigation of the new requests, be shared with Ward Councillors, providing opportunity for local consultation (informal) and for their comments to be included in the next report to the Sub-Committee;

(7)     That, should funding permit, a further report be submitted to the Sub-Committee requesting approval to conduct the Statutory Consultation on the recommended schemes for the 2021B programme.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report that sought approval for officers to carry out statutory consultation on a proposal that would maintain taxi-ranking at the Reading Station ‘horseshoe’ rank, while considering the needs of the Station Hill development construction and the competition for kerb space and access with the town centre.  A plan showing the proposal for statutory consultation was attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report stated that is had been confirmed that Garrard Street, the taxi feeder route for the horseshoe rank, would remain as adopted public Highway and could remain open following the completion of the Station Hill redevelopment.  The report therefore proposed that in seeking viable taxi feeder options for the rank, that Garrard Street should remain a linking route with the existing enforced ‘gate’ restriction at the Station Road link to remain in place.  It was also proposed that the existing small taxi feeder bay at the eastern end of Garrard Street should be retained as this would enable a small number of taxis to wait and feed the horseshoe rank with line-of-sight, as they currently did.  Due to the long term development works it was proposed that parking restrictions were placed along the remainder of Garrard Street to prevent parking.  This would inevitably become a request of Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders but, the ‘permanent’ implementation would provide a clear and consistent approach.  These parking restrictions would also replace the Pay and Display bat to the east of Merchants Place, which had been proposed initially as the temporary taxi feeder rank facility.  This had generated local noise complaints and was not considered a suitable location for such a facility.  Although this would reduce the feeder ranking capacity on Garrard Street, it would be the case through temporary restrictions that would need to be in place throughout the development works.  Once the development was complete, consideration could be made for on-street restrictions that would accommodate the needs of the area.  This would create a very short route for taxis to travel, compared to other options, and the indicator device for the taxi feed from the south-west interchange would be placed on the short taxi ranking bay that would be retained at the eastern end of Garrard Street.

At the invitation of the Chair, Asif Rashid, Chairman of Reading Taxi Association, was present at the meeting and addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the proposals and suggested that a camera should be placed on Garrard Street so that drivers could see when to move onto the rank, he also asked for a camera to be positioned on the rank for enforcement.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake statutory consultations for the restrictions proposed in Appendix 1, in accordance with the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996;

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

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

(5)     That no public inquiry be held into the proposals;

(6)     That officers investigate the suggestion that cameras be positioned on Garrard Street and the horseshoe rank.

(Councillor Ayub declared an interest in the above item on the grounds that he owned a hackney carriage.  He left the room and took no part in the discussion or decision making)

Further to Minute 44 of the meeting held on 4 March 2021, the Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report proposing that the request for a 20mph zone to be implemented across a number of residential streets off the Oxford Road should be added to the Requests for Traffic Management Measures list.  An overview of traffic calming considerations for 20mph zones was attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report also proposed that the development of the scheme should be considered for implementation as part of the Oxford Road Corridor Study, should there be remaining funding available for this purpose, following delivery of the core scheme elements and that representative speed surveys should be conducted as these would be required prior to development of any new 20mph schemes and could help inform the measures required to improve compliance. 

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Lovelock, Norcot Ward Councillor, attended the meeting remotely and addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the proposals and suggested that local CIL funding could be used to deliver the scheme.

The Sub-Committee discussed the report and Councillor Hacker proposed that traffic calming and speed enforcement measures for a 20mph zone should be noted as an estimated £100k bid for future local CIL funding.

Councillor Page reported the CIL funding had been used for Traffic Management Measures around the hospital and that in this case although the measures that would be proposed were not known at this stage, £100k was an appropriate bid.  Any final decision would be made collectively by Councillors and further reports would be produced by officers.

Resolved -

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the request for a 20mph zone, as outlined in the petition received at the previous meeting, be added to the Requests for Traffic Management Measures list;

(3)     That officers conduct representative speed surveys within the proposed 20mph zone area and share the results with Ward Councillors and the Lead Councillor for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport;

(4)     That the lead petitioner be informed accordingly, following publication of the agreed minutes;

(5)     That traffic calming and speed enforcement measures for a 20mph zone across a number of residential streets off the Oxford Road be noted as an estimated £100k bid for future local CIL funding.