Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from all Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that no declaration of interests were made at the meeting.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

[Furthermore, as part of the minutes, it was noted that the Cycling Advisor had received a reply to some of her questions from the meeting of 13 November 2024 on 27 February 2025.  Additionally, one of those questions was asked at the meeting.  The question was: “We advise that in all cases, cycling schemes address the most important areas with the strongest desire lines, have targets for increased cycling and decreased driving, have ‘before and after’ measures, and are evaluated for their safety and effectiveness. Does the Panel agree with these principles?”  The Panel responded in the affirmative.]

To receive any public questions received.

Questions will be asked in the order in which they were received.  There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for the asking and answering of public questions.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, 28 February 2025.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that three public questions had been received and responded to.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were none.

To receive deputations (if any).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were none.

Report of the Strategic Director of Culture, Environment and Economy.

The Panel received the Petitions Report, which set out details of the petitions that had been received since the last Panel meeting on 13 November 2024.  The report provided details of the Council’s investigations and findings where these had been undertaken.

In accordance with Rule 4.1.1 of the Constitution, the Panel agreed that Councillor Nitin Parekh speaks on this item.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Strategic Director of Culture, Environment and Economy.

The Panel received the Annual Parking Programme Review, which provided an update on the work the Service had undertaken in relation to parking controls. These included the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) programme, Localised Safety Parking programme and Disabled Person’s Parking Spaces.

Councillor Jerry Miles was concerned that the consultation results did not take into account the views of respondents in Roxeth Ward, who were against the extension of the M3, and the extended hours for CPZ parking.  He asserted that officers seemed to be going ahead with the schemes despite opposition from residents, and cited Appendix C of the report.

However, officers advised that the final report was yet to be finalised before implementation, and would be presented to the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Highways for a final decision.  The views of residents in Roxeth Ward would be taken into account.

The Motoring Adviser was concerned that extended hours for CPZ parking were ruining community and family cohesion and had been implemented with minority support from residents.  He urged officers to take that into account when extending CPZ parking hours.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Strategic Director of Culture, Environment and Economy.

The Panel received the 2024/25 Traffic Programme Update, which informed Members on the progress of the 2024/25 traffic schemes programme of works.

The Public Transport Adviser asked why the bus lane on Sheepcote Road (citing page 72 of the agenda pack) did not extend to the traffic lights. Traffic (other than buses and cycles) could only go ahead, which they could from lane 2.  However, by stopping the bus lane as proposed, vehicles in lane 2 may cut across to lane 1. This was a potential collision risk, and would delay buses.

The Public Transport Adviser also queried why the bus lanes finished operation after parking restrictions ended, and cited Sheepcote Road (page 73 of the agenda pack).  The bus lane started operation at 7am and ended at 7pm, but the waiting and loading restrictions begun and 8am and ended at 6:30pm.  

The Public Transport Adviser proposed that having bus lanes operate on a 24-hour basis would be more prudent. If it was perceived that bus lane restrictions were not required at certain times, it would mean that traffic levels were not so high as to impact on other traffic.  On the other hand, if the operation of the bus lane impacted on other traffic, it meant that they were needed. Part-time bus lanes caused confusion as some drivers loathed to use them in non-operational hours, but then cut in when the bus lane ended.

Officers advised that the comments would be considered, as the final design was being implemented.

The Cycling Adviser was concerned that the Bus Priority Scheme, Sheepcote Road, was dangerous for cycling.  Bus and taxi drivers, while mostly competent, often made close passes around cyclists.  A bus driver had recently seriously injured a competent cyclist in a collision.  Even competent cyclists were frightened around buses, and it would be more challenging for new cyclists in those conditions.  She requested that cyclists be given 24-hour protected lanes to ensure connectivity with key destinations.

The Cycling Advisor also advised that the key concern with the Cycle Network was safety, not navigation.  The Network should conform to Local Transport Note 1/20 by being Direct, Safe, Coherent, Comfortable and Attractive.  Most residents did not perceive conditions in Harrow to be safe for cycling.

The Cycling Advisor further advised that the Harrow to Harrow and Wealdstone route was neither recommended nor useful.  Money would be better spent making Hindes Road safer, and dealing with excess traffic (which was measured at 6 272 movements per day).  This could be achieved through modal filters, and severance issues at Harrow View and Station Road, particularly key destinations, the three schools, and Harrow Recreation Ground.

Moreover, the Cycling Advisor advised that the Equality Impact Assessment had omitted disabled people, in error, from being able to benefit from cycling. Cycling could be beneficial to disabled people if road conditions were safe.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Strategic Director of Culture, Environment and Economy.

The Panel received the Active Travel and Road Safety Report, which provided an update on the work the Service had undertaken to encourage residents to consider using sustainable modes of transport, promotion of and enabling active travel, and road safety education activities.

In accordance with Rule 4.1.1 of the Constitution, the Panel agreed that Councillor Nitin Parekh speaks on this item.

The Cycling Adviser queried why there was no initiative on e-bike charging, for example, at places of work, including at the Harrow Council Hub.

Officers advised that this could be taken into account, and that the new cycle storage unit at Harrow on the Hill Station would have e-bike charging. 

The Cycling Adviser further asked why Car Club bays were not being introduced in residential streets, convenient to residents, as was the case in other boroughs.

Officers advised that that was an ongoing programme, which would have the bays in as many sites as possible.

The Cycling Adviser questioned if there had been any follow up on cycle training to determine whether trainees continued to cycle in Harrow, and what was being done to enable them to do so. There was a perception that cycling was unsafe in Harrow.

Officers acknowledged that follow-up on cycle training was yet to be undertaken to address the concerns raised.

The Public Transport Adviser asked what measures would be taken to reduce the risk of collisions of intending bus passengers, especially partially sighted or hearing-impaired ones, as they crossed cycle lanes.  There was marked support for the introduction of cycle lanes.  Therefore, it was important that nothing was impeding pedestrians planning to board buses, and that intending passengers were not discouraged from using them.

Officers advised that all concerns would be considered before the scheme was finalised and implemented.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.