The Director of Resources submitted a report setting out three proposed amendments to the local Council Tax Support Scheme for the 2020/21 financial year. An equality impact assessment for the proposals was attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report summarised the current scheme and the proposed options for changes.  The first proposal was to change the current arrangements where Tax Support was cancelled when customers transitioned to Universal Credit, with customers invited to make a new claim.  In the light of experience it was now proposed to leave the Tax Support claim open and use the existing information to calculate the amount of support.  The second proposal was to clarify how excess Tax Support was dealt with, following a Local Government Ombudsman request to all Local Authorities.  It was proposed to reduce Tax Support where a mistake or error by either the Local Authority or Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had occurred, and increase the Council Tax liability by an equivalent amount.  The reductions would be deemed ‘official error reductions’ and the increased liability considered recoverable, unless the customer could not reasonably have known they were being overpaid, in which case Discretionary Tax Support would be awarded to offset the loss, without the need for a further written application.  The third proposed change was for Severe Disability Premium transitional payments from DWP for people who were receiving Universal Credit to be fully disregarded from both the income and applicable amount used to calculate Council Tax Support.

The report explained that the options outlined would reduce administrative processes for both customers and staff and provide clarity about the treatment of excess Council Tax Support.  A statutory consultation was required, and it was proposed to consult for a period of six weeks, and then implement the amended scheme for the next two financial years, unless there were significant changes in the housing benefit scheme during that time.

Resolved -

(1)      That the following proposals be approved for consultation, with a view to implementation from 1 April 2020:

·         To remove the requirement to re-apply for Council Tax Support following the migration to Universal Credit;

·         To disregard Severe Disability Transitional payments in the calculation; and

·         To provide greater clarity on the treatment of excess Council Tax Support;

(2)      That, subject to the above amendments, the Council Tax Support Scheme for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years be agreed, unless there were significant changes in the Housing Benefit Scheme that would warrant the same changes needing to be reflected in the Council Tax Support Scheme or other unexpected financial implications arose.

The Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report summarising the Community Safety Plan for Reading, 2019-22 as agreed by the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) on the 25th April 2019.  The Community Safety Plan 2019-22 was attached to the report at Appendix 1 and an Equality Impact Assessment was attached at Appendix 2.

The report noted that the CSP was required to carry out a strategic assessment of crime for its area, and that this had been carried out towards the end of 2018.  Priorities had been identified by an assessment against Threat, Harm and Risk to individuals and to Reading as whole.  The assessment had identified the following priorities, which had been agreed by the CSP at their meeting in April 2019:

·         Exploitation - incorporating both Adult Exploitation and Modern Slavery;

·         Violent Crime and Serious Anti-Social Behaviour - incorporating increasing violence against the person, knife possession and high level anti-social behaviour that had a significant impact on communities;

·         Class A Drugs - incorporating drug visibility, drug dealing activity from within and outside Reading, and drug related anti-social behaviour.

The Community Safety Plan attached to the report set out an analysis of these three priorities as well as a summary of the CSP structure, funding and other areas of work.

Resolved –

          That the Community Safety Plan 2019 – 2022, as attached to the report at Appendix 1, be agreed.

The Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report asking the Committee, acting as shareholder of Homes for Reading (HfR) to approve amendments to HfR’s Articles of Association, to reflect the new and reduced composition of the company’s Board of Directors.  The proposed Articles of Association were attached to the report at Appendix A with changes marked.  The proposed changes were to reduce the quorum for a Board meeting from five to three directors, including an officer director.

Attached to the report at Appendix B was the wording of the Special Resolution to be passed by the Committee and signed by the Chair for filing at Companies House.

Resolved –

          That a Special Resolution be passed by the Committee, acting as the sole member of Homes for Reading, in order to approve the amended Articles of Association as attached to the report at Appendix A.

(Councillor Ennis declared an interest in this item, left the meeting and took no part in the debate or decision.  Nature of interest: Councillor Ennis was a Director of Homes for Reading Limited.)

The Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report seeking approval to enter into new contracts for fuel supplies.

The report noted that the Council currently spent in the region of £510k per year on liquid fuel supplies to support the corporate fleet for the provision of services.  The majority of fuel was procured through a framework agreement managed by Crown Commercial Services (CCS) reducing risk and ensuring lowest price, through aggregating purchasing with other CCS customers. The report sought permission to enter into a new framework agreement with CCS in November 2019 to ensure best possible cost and supply was retained. 

The report explained that the proposed arrangements were for a flexible contract which enabled the Council to reduce the amount of fuel procured, as it began a programme to replace fuel powered vehicles with electric vehicles and to cease the use of oil to fuel heating in buildings. The contract would not commit the Council to purchasing a minimum amount of fuel.

Resolved –

(1)     That the Executive Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Assistant Director of Procurement & Contracts, be authorised to enter into the recommended fuel supply contracts for diesel petrol and gas oil for the period November 2019 to 31 March 2022, through the Crown Commercial Services framework R3081 Liquid Fuels;

(2)     That the development of targets and policies to reduce the use of fossil fuels for powering vehicles and buildings in the Council’s operations be endorsed.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the receipt of a petition from residents, asking the Council to introduce a zebra crossing, near St Josephs College, on Upper Redlands Road.

The petition read as follows:

‘We, the undersigned, petition Reading Borough Council to install a zebra crossing near St Joseph's College on Upper Redlands Road.

The report explained that the request for this measure had been captured on the Requests for Traffic Management Measure Report that was a regular item on the agenda and the report submitted to the previous meeting (Minute 18 refers) referred to this request as follows:

‘A modest private contribution has been raised toward the development of the requested zebra crossing on Upper Redlands Road.  Officers have arranged to meeting with the lead fundraisers to discuss expectations and can conduct some high-level design work as a result.’

The scheme was also included in the Traffic Management Measures – CIL Funded Schemes, see Minute 31 below.  At this time the scheme remained unfunded.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the lead petitioner be provided with a copy of the report.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the receipt of a petition asking the Council not to introduce parking permits on the Hexham Road Estate.

The petition read as follows:

‘We, the residents on the Hexham Road Estate, do not support parking permits being introduced to this Estate’.

At the invitation of the Chair the petition organiser, Sylvia Hamilton, addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the petitioners.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the petition be considered with the feedback for the informal consultation for resident permits in this area;

(3)     That the lead petitioner be informed accordingly.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on a review of the traffic management measures associated with proposed new accesses on Christchurch Road and Vicarage Road relating to the development works to The Abbey School.  The Christchurch Road/Vicarage Road location and restriction plan was attached to the report at Appendix 1 and photographs of the existing access arrangements were attached to the report at Appendix 2.

The report explained that planning permission had been granted for the erection of single and two storey extension to the existing building and the creation of new access and alterations and adaptations to existing access points at The Abbey School.  The access alterations included the provision of upgrading the existing dropped kerb access on Christchurch Road to a Bellmouth access in order to aid access for coaches and deliveries.  The proposals also included the removal of the existing dropped kerb located on the corner of Christchurch Road and Vicarage Road and the creation of a new Bellmouth access onto Vicarage Road located 15.8 metres from the Christchurch Road/Vicarage Road junction.  The existing access onto the Christchurch Road/Vicarage Road junction would be replaced with a pedestrian only entrance with a further pedestrian entrance which would be located south of the new vehicular access onto Vicarage Road.  The design had been agreed at the planning application stage and work was currently underway to implement the building works associated with development.

The Christchurch Road school frontage was currently controlled through a ‘No Waiting Mon – Sat 8.00am to 6.30pm’ restriction, which extended across the existing dropped kerb.  The proposal sought to alter the existing ‘No Waiting Mon – Sat 8.00am to 6.30pm’ restriction to the west of the proposed access.  The restriction commenced at the Christchurch Road/Vicarage Road junction, which would continue, and would extend to the east for a distance of 36 metres following the kerb radii for the proposed junction and cease at the back of the footway.  To the east of the proposed access the ‘No Waiting Mon – Sat 8.00am to 6.30pm’ restriction would commence at the back of the footway and follow the radii to the east of the proposed junction for eight metres.

The Vicarage Road school frontage was currently controlled through a ‘No Waiting at Anytime’ restriction, which extended from the Christchurch Road/Vicarage Road junction across the existing dropped kerb for a distance of 18 metres commencing at the end of the existing footway build out.  The proposal sought to extend the existing ‘No Waiting at Anytime’ restriction to the south for a distance of five metres following the junction radii concluding at the back of the footway.  To the south of the junction the proposal sought to introduce a ‘No Waiting at Anytime’ restriction, this was to commence at the back of the footway and extend for a distance of 12 metres until it met the existing School Keep Clear restriction.

All the above alterations were to ensure that parents did not drop off and/or pick up their children from Christchurch Road and/or Vicarage Road within close proximity to the proposed access, which would have detrimental implications for visibility and movement at either of the proposed accesses and for traffic movements close to the Christchurch Road/Vicarage Road junction.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake a statutory consultation for the proposed restrictions on Christchurch Road and Vicarage Road, as set out in paragraphs 4.6, 4.7, 4.9 and 4.10 of 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;

(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 authorised to make minor changes to the proposals;

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

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report providing the Sub-Committee with concept designs for requested traffic management schemes that had received funding from local Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions.  The concept scheme designs were attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report explained that the Council had allocated CIL funding to enable the delivery of a number of traffic management schemes, the majority of which had originated from the ‘Requests for Traffic Management Measures’ report that was submitted to the meeting bi-annually.  Officers had conducted 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 and Ward Councillors had been provided with an opportunity to comment on the concept schemes.  Officers intended to progress these schemes to a detailed feasibility and design stage which for most would necessitate external road safety audits, speed surveys and possible ground investigation works to be conducted.  These processes would necessitate the use of the CIL contributions.

Many of the schemes would require statutory consultation or notification to be conducted and approvals were sought from the Sub-Committee to enable officer to progress with the necessary processes that could lead to the delivery of the schemes.  This did not guarantee the implementation of the schemes and should any significant alterations be necessary, or objections to the consultation be received, officers would submit further reports to future meetings.  If this was not the case then it was intended that officers would progress the schemes to delivery.  A table setting out the decisions that officers were seeking was included in the report.

The report explained that officers had developed concept proposals for the privately funded request for a controlled pedestrian crossing in Pepper Lane and a concept had also been developed for a controlled pedestrian crossing on Upper Redlands Road, for which a modest private contribution had also been raised.  Officers would be sharing these proposals with the funding contributors and would report the proposals to a future meeting with any necessary alterations.

In relation to the enforcement of 20mph areas scheme, the Sub-Committee only agreed to a single calibrated ANPR camera being installed.  The device would enable the Police to use the data captured by the camera to contact owners of speeding vehicles to issue warnings in the first instance.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake the statutory advertisement processes for each scheme, as set out in paragraph 4.4 of the report, whilst noting that only one calibrated ANPR camera should be included in Scheme (i) ‘enforcement of 20mph areas’;

(3)     That subject to no objections being received, the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to seal any resultant Traffic Regulation Orders;

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

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

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

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report providing the Sub-Committee with an opportunity to consider the implementation of ‘Area 2’ of the East Reading area Resident Permit Parking Scheme.  The objections that had been received to the statutory consultation on the Area 2 scheme were attached to the report at Appendix 1, drawings for the Area 2 scheme were attached at Appendix 2 and the proposals that had been recommended for Wokingham Road were attached to the report at Appendix 3.

East Reading Area Permit Parking – Area 2

Further to Minute 39 of the meeting held on 10 January 2019, the report explained that Area 1 had been implemented over the summer school holiday period 2019 and was ‘live’ (enforced) from 16 September 2109.  The decision to implement Area 2 had been deferred by the Sub-Committee pending the implementation of Area 1.

Wokingham Road

Further to Minute 54 of the meeting held on 7 March 2019, the report stated that it was recommended that the original proposal for the unrestricted bays on Wokingham Road, as set out in Appendix 3, should be progressed to statutory consultation and the Pay and Display tariff be advertised as follows:

·           Free of charge – 2 hours

·           3 hours – 50p

·           4 hours - £1

·           Each additional hour (or part, thereof) - +50p

It should be noted that parking during the ‘free’ period would still require purchase of a Pay and Display ticket, although the charge would be £0.

The report explained that while it was uncommon for free periods of on-street charging to apply in the Borough, it was considered that the parking bays represented a reasonably unique situation of being in a residential area, not directly within a shopping area, and the free period of charging reflected the typical two hour period of shared use parking applied within Resident Permit Parking restrictions elsewhere.

At the invitation of the Chair, Ricky Chana, local resident, and Bernadette Cowling of Earley Christian Fellowship addressed the Sub-Committee.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the objections and other feedback noted in Appendix 1, attached to the report, be noted and that the proposals for Area 2 of the East Reading Residents’ Permit Parking scheme be agreed for implementation as advertised;

(3)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to seal the resultant Traffic Regulation Order and no public inquiry be held into the proposals;

(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 the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to undertake a statutory consultation for the proposed restrictions on Wokingham Road, as set out in paragraph 4.7 of the report;

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

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

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

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

Further to Minute 17 of the previous meeting, the Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report providing the Sub-Committee with the results of the statutory consultation that had been undertaken, which proposed management of the car park (including charges) by Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) at Palmer Park.  A plan showing the area covered by the advertised TRO was attached to the report at Appendix 1 and the responses that had been received to the statutory consultation were attached to the report at Appendix 2.

The report explained that the statutory consultation had finished on 5 September 2019 and that the area covered by the proposal was currently paved/hard-standing areas on the park.  Officers were reviewing enforcement/management options for some grassed areas of the park, which were occasionally opened for overflow parking.  These areas were Public Open Space and were likely to require additional legislative and consultation processes for the same restriction to be applied.  Officers were developing a parking permit facility that could be applied to certain established activities that took place at the Palmer Park facilities.  The results of discussions that had taken place with established clubs and users of the facilities, in addition to the consultation responses that had been received, had indicated a high level of demand for an increase to the ‘free’ period of parking and it had been proposed that the restrictions should be implemented with an adjusted tariff, which would allow three hours free parking as follows:

·           Free of charge – 3 hours

·           4 hours – 50p

·           5 hours - £1

·           Each additional hour (or part, thereof) - +50p

·           Night time - £2

It should be noted that parking during the ‘free’ period would still require a Pay and Display ticket to be obtained, although the charge would be £0. 

At the previous meeting officers had been asked to investigate claims by the Park United Reformed Church that it leased the area of parking at the junction with Palmer Park Avenue and Wokingham Road and that this should be included in the TRO and, as a result, officers from the Leisure and Recreation Department had met with representatives of the Church.  A draft lease and Heads of Terms had been drafted many years previously, but had not been completed.  However, it was acknowledged that the Church had been using the car park in line with the principles that had been identified in the Heads of Terms and that the Council had agreed in principle to its use by the Church.  The report therefore recommended that the car parking area should be excluded from the resultant TRO and that officers would work with the Church to formalise an agreement for its ongoing use and maintenance. 

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That the objections set out in Appendix 2, attached to the report to either implement or reject the proposals be noted;

(3)     That, considering tariff-related objections received, the tariff be adjusted in the resultant order to extend the free parking period from 2 hours to 3 hours and the remainder of the tariff would have the timings adjusted, to resume from hour 4 onward, as set out above and in paragraph 4.9 of the report;

(4)     That the area of parking at the junction of Palmer Park Avenue and Wokingham Road be excluded from the resultant Traffic Regulation Order, as set out in paragraph 4.10 of the report;

(5)     That the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to seal the resultant Traffic Regulation Order and no public inquiry be held into the proposals;

(6)     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.

Further to Minute 16 of the previous meeting, the Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report asking the Sub-Committee to review the comments that had been received in respect of the Portway Close proposal, part of the 2019A programme, that had been deferred from the previous meeting.  Objections, support and other comments received during statutory consultation for the Portway Close scheme were attached to the report at Appendix 1.

Resolved –

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That having considered the objections noted in Appendix 1, attached to the report, the proposed Traffic Regulation Order, Portway Close, for the 2019A Waiting Restriction Review programme be rejected;

(3)     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.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report informing the Sub-Committee of comments and objections that had been received to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order, which proposed the reversal of the one-way system on Silchester Road and Faircross Road.  The objections, supportive statements and comments that had been received during the consultation period were attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report explained that to avoid peak-time traffic on a section of the A4 Bath Road, and the eastbound bus gate on Southcote Lane, a significant number of motorists were using Silchester Road and Faircross Road to access Southcote Lane.  They were turning left onto the road and making a U-turn in the junction with Fawley Road, so that they could re-join the A4 Bath Road further to the east.  It had therefore been proposed that to stop this ‘rat-running’ and turning movements was to reverse the one-way directions of Silchester Road and Faircross Road.  The ‘left-turn only’ restriction from Faircross Road onto Southcote Lane and ‘no-entry’ from Southcote Lane onto Faircross Road would be revoked, with a ‘no-entry’ from Circuit Lane onto Silchester Road and from Silchester Road onto Faircross Road also being proposed.

Reversing the one-way direction of Silchester Road and Faircross Road would remove the ability for traffic to bypass the Southcote Lane bus gate and proceed towards the town centre.  It had been acknowledged that changing the one-way directions would require those wishing to access Southcote Lane in the morning by private motor vehicle, to do so via its eastern end, at the roundabout with the A4 Bath Road.  Residents of Silchester Road and Faircross Road wishing to travel eastbound would also be required to join the A4 Bath Road via Circuit Lane during the times at which the Southcote Lane bus gate was operational.

Resolved -

(1)     That the report be noted;

(2)     That having considered the comments and objections noted in Appendix 1, attached to the report, the Traffic Regulation Order proposing reversal of the one-way system on Silchester Road and Faircross Road be rejected;

(3)     That transport officers be asked to arrange a meeting with representatives of Southcote Primary School to consider alternative measures to deal with congestion around the school and inconsiderate parking during pick-up and drop-off times;

(4)     That the objectors be informed of the decision of the Sub-Committee, following publication of the meeting minutes.