Agenda and minutes

Venue: David Hicks 1 - Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1BN

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

12.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Pauline Jorgensen, Norman Jorgensen, and Chris Johnson.

 

Councillors Abdul Loyes, Chris Bowring and Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey attended the meeting as substitutes.

13.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 420 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2022.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 May 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

It was queried why the bus strategy was not on the agenda for this meeting, as had been requested. Andy Glencross, Assistant Director for Highways and Transport, stated that the bus service improvement plan and the enhanced partnership were scheduled to come to Overview and Scrutiny in September prior to being signed off by the Executive. It was requested that any changes to the forward plan be specifically raised with the Chair to ensure that the Committee was aware of any changes, especially when items were of great importance to residents. It was agreed that officers would go away and confirm that the September meeting was still the most suitable time for items related to buses to be considered.

 

Andy Glencross stated that he would ascertain how much revenue support was available for bus services.

 

It was requested that any papers related to buses be sent to this Committee prior to being considered at Executive Briefing.

 

It was noted that an urgent Individual Executive Member Decision was scheduled on 13 July to modify the contract term for Wokingham Town bus services.

 

It was queried why members were not specifically named within the minutes. Callum Wernham, Democratic and Electoral Services specialist, clarified that it had been agreed at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to not name members within the minutes of any of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

 

 

14.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

15.

Public Question Time

To answer any public questions. A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice. The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of this Committee.

 

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Committee or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting. 

 

For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

Minutes:

There were no public questions.

16.

Member Question Time

To answer any Member questions.

Minutes:

There were no Member questions.

17.

Community Safety Partnership Update pdf icon PDF 756 KB

To consider the annual update report from the Community Safety Partnership.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 19 to 34, which gave an update on the work of the Community Safety Partnership.

 

The report outlined the strategic priorities of the partnership, including listening to the needs and concerns of local residents, and intervening early and preventing issues from escalating. The Wokingham Domestic Abuse policy had been adopted, which was in line with the new duties under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Despite an overall increase of 10.9 percent of total reported crime, Wokingham Borough still had one of the lowest levels of recorded crime in Thames Valley and the Southeast, whilst 2020-2021 had seen some of the lowest reported levels of crime both locally and nationally due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

Narinder Brar, Community Safety Manager, attended the meeting to answer member queries.

 

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

 

·         Was funding for the ‘Here4You’ team still in place? Officer response – The ‘Here4You’ service was the young people’s specific service which sat within the youth offending service. The service had supported around 91 new young people this year alone, and was fully funded and looking to enhance its offering. The service was promoted directly via the youth offending team, at schools, via social media and via referrals from other health related services. Information was also made available to parents.

 

·         Was liaison underway with housing associations to help combat antisocial behaviour within social housing? Officer response – There was a very good and well-established relationship with housing associations, however the main issue was the turnover of staff and understanding who was in charge of each property. The service being delivered had improved, hence the light-touch of this issue within the report.

 

·         Was the increase in hate crime a result of people feeling more confident to report these incidents? Officer response – People were being encouraged to report hate crime via police colleagues and voluntary sector colleagues and third-party recording mechanisms. It was crucially important to get a community feel on these issues, and there was a way to go to get more third-party reporting at buildings including community hubs and the Council offices. In general, there had been a 5-to-6-year Borough wide trend of increasing hate crime including racial, religious, and disability related crime.

 

·         Were there any measures with regards to the success of the prevent program, or was this confidential? Officer response – This was quite confidential, as the Home Office was very careful with the information that was recorded and circulated in terms of the numbers of people coming into the prevent program. Case updated were provided to the prevent board, which outlined the types of risk being faced and the types of risks being de-escalated. The programme had expanded and influences including right wing terrorism, cyber-crime, and influences through gaming were now being investigated and dealt with.

 

·         What training was being provided with regards to the prevent program? Officer response – There was a clear recognition that the word ‘prevent’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

Civil Parking Enforcement Update pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider an update on the operation of the Council’s Civil Parking Enforcement service.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 35 to 50, which gave an update on civil parking enforcement (CPE) within the Borough.

 

The report set out that the operation of CPE, as administered by the Council’s contractor NSL, had met the objectives set out for the scheme adopted by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) specifically by improving the flow of traffic by challenging drivers’ previous parking behaviours. The introduction of the service had been cost neutral as intended, with income from parking fees and penalty charge notices continuing to cover service costs. The service had grown from 4 CPE officers in 2017 to 8 CPE officers in 2020 and now 12 CPE officers in 2022. Additional CPE officers had enabled the service to respond more regularly to parking concerns raised by residents and members.

 

Paul Fishwick (Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways), Martin Heath (Traffic Management, Parking and Road Safety Team Manager), and Andy Glencross (Assistant Director for Highways and Transport) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

 

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

 

·         Were there any specific TROs in place across the Borough in terms of pavement or verge parking? Executive Member response – If there were double yellow lines on the adjacent carriageway, then enforcement could be taken on the verge or footway. If there was obstruction of the footway itself, then this was a police matter.

 

·         How often was the strategy for the location of patrols reviewed by WBC? Executive Member and Assistant Director response – This was reviewed constantly to target the areas where enforcement was needed the most. Every school was targeted every month with many receiving visits every week, and if a particular issue was raised by residents or members then this was passed to the contractor to tackle until the compliance rate was increased substantially.

 

·         Why were there no figures or targets in relation to the KPIs for the contractor? Assistant Director response – These were operational KPIs in relation to the contractor.

 

·         Had a policy decision been made with regards to moving traffic enforcement? Executive Member response – This was being actively looked at whilst a business case was being evaluated, with the deadline for submission to the DFT (if desired) in January 2023.

 

·         Why were enforcement penalty notices more expensive in Reading compared to Reading? Executive Member and Assistant Director response – This figure was set by the regulator on a national scale, and WBC’s were already at the higher level.

 

·         Was the CCTV trial at schools going to be rolled out to other schools, and would Beechwood be included in this? Executive Member response – There were 3 cameras available for use, and the trial would go live in September 2022 at two particular schools. The trial would be undertaken to ensure that this was working, and the cameras could be moved to other schools to address specific issues. A growth bid could be placed in future if the scheme was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

19.

Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan pdf icon PDF 65 KB

To consider an update and Project Schedule for the emerging Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a timetable, set out in agenda pages 51 to 52, which set out the timescales for the development of the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).

 

Paul Fishwick (Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways), and Andy Glencross (Assistant Director for Highways and Transport) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

 

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

 

·         It was noted that it would be helpful for the Committee to receive a further update in November 2022.

 

·         Could dates and metrics be included within the project plan with regards to actual delivery of infrastructure, and could some projects such as safe railway crossings which would be required regardless of the final shape of the plan be noted within the plan with dates for delivery. Executive Member response – This was a very high priority, and active travel England required an LCWIP, with a report to be produced in October 2022. The Borough had been awarded funding for the Woodley to Reading route, which would be consulted on in July after the previous proposal gathered significant objections. This year would see the start of a compliant LTN 1/20 between Woodley and Reading.

 

·         Adrian Betteridge, Wokingham Active Travel, provided a number of comments to the Committee. Community views had been listened to and taken on board, both in terms of help with local knowledge of routes and how this was to be positioned with the local public. It was crucially important to sell this to the public as they might otherwise only see the large costs, road vehicle space being given up to cyclists, and temporary disruption. The major benefits of the LCWIP included tackling climate change, air quality, health and wellbeing and congestion. If these priorities were not focussed on, people would likely only focus on the disruptions caused and not the benefits. The target of five-times the number of cyclists in the Borough by 2030, as set out in the climate emergency action plan, would not be met unless the LCWIP was progressed from a funding and delivery point of view.

 

·         When will the proposed consultation and wording be shared with the Woodley Borough and Town councillors? Executive Member response – This would be shared very shortly, hopefully by the coming weekend.

 

·         Had any further investigations been made with regards to the proposed removal of a number of car parking spaces within Woodley, which were used by low income and elderly residents? Executive Member response – A plan would be finalised and communicated prior to this coming weekend.

 

·         Would a more detailed plan and report be presented to the Committee in November? Executive Member response – The original first draft plan was sent out for consultation last year, and responses were being evaluated to inform on a second stage of consultation later this month. More detail would be provided at future meetings.

 

·         Was the consultation regarding a cycle route from Loddon Park to Twyford station part of the LCWIP? Executive Member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

20.

Work Programme pdf icon PDF 133 KB

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

Minutes:

The Committee considered their work programme, set out in agenda pages 53 to 56.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)      Callum Wernham and Neil Carr be thanked for attending the meeting;

 

2)      The Committee work programme be noted;

 

3)      An update be sought from officers with regards to bus services, specifically detailing options for funding routes and services as DFT funding was coming to an end;

 

4)      An update on tackling fraud within the Borough be considered during September 2022;

 

5)      An additional meeting be organised in November 2022 to consider the LCWIP Update and the Arts and Culture Strategy Update;

 

6)      It was noted that a budget scrutiny training session was being organised;

 

7)      It was noted that Committee members were invited to attend pre-meeting sessions 30-minutes prior to the beginning of each meeting.