Cabinet Member; Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2009/200

Contact: Owen South, Senior Transport Planner (01865 815735) Ref:

Report by: Head of Transport

The report (CA8) updates Cabinet on developments in the Reading Area Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid since Cabinet last considered this matter in January 2009 and agreed to participate in ongoing work with Reading Borough Council and other neighbouring local authorities.

It describes proposals for a Low Emission Zone in Reading, which includes an element of charging.  It also describes proposed partnership arrangements.

It seeks a decision on whether or not Oxfordshire County Council should enter in to a Partnership Agreement with Reading Borough Council, other neighbouring authorities and the Department for Transport.  If so, a further decision is required on which of three levels of partnership status is appropriate.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED:

(a)               to agree in principle that Oxfordshire County Council can participate in the Reading Area Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) scheme as a Level 2 Programme Partner;

(b)              to make clear to the other local authorities and the Department for Transport that this is conditional on their agreement that the various elements of the programme, and the bridge specifically, can only go ahead with the agreement of the local authorities in whose areas these are located; and

(c)               to authorise the Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure to sign the partnership agreement subject to the agreement in (ii) above and to legal and financial advice.

Cabinet considered a report(CA8) updating them on developments in the Reading Area Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid, describing proposals for a Low Emission Zone in Reading, which included an element of charging and seeking a  decision on whether or not Oxfordshire County Council should enter in to a Partnership Agreement with Reading Borough Council, other neighbouring authorities and the Department for Transport. 

It was noted that there was a changed recommendation a0 and an additional recommendation set out in the addenda.

Councillor Dr Peter Skolar, speaking as a local member representing two parishes affected by the proposals, stated that he had had several meetings with Reading Borough Council, the local MP and local parish representatives. There was suspicion over the plans and concern at the impact on roads and traffic congestion. There was concern over the role of Oxfordshire County Council and worry that active participation meant approval of all parts of the bid, he was pleased to see the changed and additional recommendation.

Councillor Carol Viney expressed concern that level 2 participation made the County Council a very junior partner with no right of veto. She referred to concerns over the proposals including a lack of modelling and a lack of local consultation. She felt that the proposed third crossing would result in a challenge to the County’s boundaries. The Council should use its land holding to ensure greater influence. Responding to a question she confirmed that she would like Cabinet to defer a decision on participation on the basis that it could participate at a later date.

Mr David Woodward, explained that SOTIG represented 7 parishes likely to be affected . He expressed concern that the third crossing would end on residential roads and feared that there would be pressure for a new major road. He outlined 3 major concerns; there had been little consultation; there had been no adequate traffic modelling and the report to Reading Borough Council Cabinet suggested that there was no right of veto. Responding to questions from Cabinet Members he appreciated the amendment and additional recommendation but felt that it did not address concerns over consultation and traffic modelling. The response rate to the SOTIG questionnaire, a copy of which was appended to the addenda, had been 30%.

The Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure welcomed the contributions and stressed that he was very aware of the concerns from the many meetings he had attended. The recommendations were to clarify the Council’s position. He confirmed that the Council could opt out at any time if necessary and that he would continue to negotiate hard to realise the available opportunities.

Responding to questions Steve Howell clarified how the  maintenance of  bridges was arranged and indicated that the costs were shared.

RESOLVED:            to:                            

 (a)      agree in principle that OCC supports Reading BC in its promotion of the Reading Area Transport Innovation Fund by participating as a Level 2 Programme Partner on the understanding that OCC is opposed to congestion charging and to any third bridge unless it is for public transport only.

(b)       to make clear to the other local authorities and the Department for Transport that this is conditional on their agreement that the various elements of the programme, and the bridge specifically, can only go ahead with the agreement of the local authorities in whose areas these are located;

(c)        to authorise the Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure to sign the partnership agreement subject to the agreement in (ii) above and to legal and financial advice; and

(d)       this does not mean that OCC gives unconditional support to all aspects of the Reading TIF bid.