See answers to previous information requests

I am writing to make a Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I request copies of the following information relating to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for W11 Wescott Road, Wokingham, specifically the proposal for 'No waiting at any time' restrictions outside Nos. 72-76:

1. Any site assessment reports, photographs, or site visit notes conducted in relation to this specific junction and the proposed restrictions outside Nos. 72-76.
Site assessments were completed at this location however no images were taken. Design plans were however completed as part of the review of the road layout.

2. Any technical drawings, plans, or design calculations showing the junction geometry, sightlines, visibility splays, and the positioning of existing and proposed parking restrictions in relation to the junction with the private road.
See attached site plans. Technical drawings would only show dimensions of restrictions proposed in the area

3. The specific highway design standards or guidelines applied to determine that parking outside No. 72 does not meet safety requirements, including reference to the applicable manual, guideline, or policy document.
The proposed designs adhere to the highway code and established safety standards, which generally require that vehicles not be parked within 10 metres of a junction. This guideline is intended to preserve clear sightlines and ensure the safety of both pedestrians and drivers. While these requirements can be somewhat relaxed on quieter residential roads such as Westcott we have nonetheless maintained a safety buffer near the junction to uphold safety standards. Additionally, the parking bay outside number 70 has been retained, as it was already in place and removing it would have further reduced the number of available spaces for permit holders within the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

4. Any documentation explaining why the existing resident parking bay outside No. 70, which is positioned closer to the junction entrance, is deemed to meet safety standards while the space outside No. 72, which is further from the junction, does not.
While both the spaces outside numbers 70 and 72 are situated close to the junction, the space outside number 72 presents an additional challenge: there is a dropped kerb within five meters of this location. According to established standards, a one-meter clearance must be maintained on either side of a dropped kerb to provide proper access. This requirement would have left an area too small for a vehicle to park, potentially leading drivers to encroach upon the safety lines at the junction. Such behaviour would further compromise road safety by obstructing visibility and access at a critical point.

5. Any correspondence, notes, or records of discussion between officers regarding the design of this specific section of the scheme, including the decision to propose double yellow lines rather than a resident parking bay outside No. 72. (Please redact personal data such as names and contact details of individual officers if necessary, but retain job titles and departmental roles.)
None

6. Details of any complaints, objections, or representations received regarding parking or access issues at this junction prior to the current consultation.
The Council holds no recorded complaints, objections, or formal representations specifically relating to parking or access issues at this junction prior to the current consultation exercise. These changes have been approved for areas in Twyford and Wokingham to provide a consistent and equitable approach to resident permit parking.

7. Records of any elected member (councillor) involvement, consultation, or approval in the design or decision-making process for this specific restriction, including dates and nature of involvement.
Ward Members are informed of proposed traffic management schemes within their area and are given the opportunity to provide comments. The final decision to proceed with the proposal is taken by the Executive Member for Highways following consideration of consultation responses and officer recommendations. The Council does not hold separate records of elected Member involvement specific to this individual restriction beyond the standard consultation and decision-making process described above.

8. Records showing when the decision was made to propose double yellow lines outside No. 72 rather than alternative options (such as a resident permit bay or shortened restriction, or adapting the junction), who made that decision (by job title/role), and the rationale provided.
The proposal to introduce double yellow line restrictions outside No. 72 formed part of the design development process for the wider parking scheme. The restriction was proposed by the consultancy as part of the scheme design process. The rationale was based on established highway design guidance and the principles set out in the Highway Code, which advises that vehicles should not park within junctions or close to them where this may obstruct visibility or impede the safe movement of traffic. The introduction of double yellow lines at this location is intended to maintain a clear junction area and prevent obstructive parking.

9. Any photographic evidence taken by council officers of the current parking arrangements and junction layout at this location.
The Council does not hold any stored photographic evidence relating specifically to this location. Just site observations.

10. Details of any traffic incidents, near-misses, or safety concerns formally reported at this junction in the past 5 years, including the nature of incidents and any follow-up action taken.
The Council holds records of reported personal injury collisions only. The Council does not routinely retain records of crash only incidents. There are no recorded personal injury collisions at this junction within the past five years.

11. A copy of the formal statement of reasons provided for the proposed restriction outside Nos. 72-76, and any documentation explaining why the stated reason ('to protect property access and keep clear at all times') differs from the justification provided in subsequent correspondence (junction visibility and safety standards).
The formal Statement of Reasons accompanying the proposal states that the restriction is intended “to protect property access and keep clear at all times.” This statement reflects the operational effect of the proposed double yellow lines, namely to prevent parking that may obstruct access or cause vehicles to block the junction area. Subsequent correspondence referencing junction visibility and safety standards does not represent a different justification but provides additional explanatory context. The proposal seeks to maintain a clear junction area in accordance with established highway safety principles. Protecting property access and maintaining junction visibility are complementary objectives, both of which are achieved by preventing parking within the junction. There is no separate documentation held indicating a change in rationale. The stated reason and subsequent explanation are consistent in intent and relate to maintaining safe and unobstructed highway operation.