Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

All Agenda Items

Councillor  Jeff Anderson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Rayners Lane Ward Councillor.  He would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 7 – Information Report: Petitions

Councillor  Marilyn Ashton declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a Stanmore Park Ward Councillor and a Governor at Stanmore College.  She would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

All Agenda Items

Councillor John Hinkley declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Hatch End Ward Councillor.  He would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

All Agenda Items

CouncillorAmeet Jogia declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Canons Ward Councillor.  He would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2018 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2018 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

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 if 3.00 pm, Friday 26 October 2018.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk

No person may submit more than one question].

To note that one public question had been received and responded to and in line with the statement made by the Chairman, the recording had been placed on the website and the written response would be sent to the questioner.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 47 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note the receipt of the following petitions which were referred to the Corporate Director of Community for consideration:

1.            A Petition presented by a resident on behalf of residents in Grimsdyke and Hillview Roads and Hallam Gardens, containing 94 signatures, with the following terms of reference:

‘Every day there are severe parking issues in these roads mainly due to non resident parking and the school traffic to Grimsdyke School

Non resident are parking their cars and walking to Hatch End Station Local business workers are parking there rather than using the local car park.

These roads are the only access point for hundreds of other residents in Colborn, Sylvia, Derwent and Lyndon Ave, hence the major congestion which residents endure every day.  Grimsdyke school have increased their pupil intake and this has caused further congestion.

Residents are really worried about the Health and Safety issues as emergency vehicles are having great difficulty in accessing these roads due to the indiscriminate parking.

The residents look forward to the council acting on their concerns.’

2.            A Petition presented by Councillor Nitin Parekh on behalf of residents in Methuen road, Chandos Crescent, Milford Close, Edgware, HA8, and containing 79 signatures, with the following terms of reference:

‘We the undersigned, are concerned about the impact of new parking restrictions imposed by Harrow Council on our roads.  We strongly object to the timing and days of operation of the parking restrictions of 8.30 am to 8.30 pm Monday to Saturday.  This is causing serious problems to residents, guests, carers and other service providers to the residents of these roads.  We request Harrow Council to urgently review the timing and days of operation of the parking restrictions on our roads.’

3.            A Petition presented by Councillor Nitin Parekh on behalf of residents In Penylan Place, and containing 13 signatures, with the following terms of reference:

‘This petition has been set up to ask Harrow Council to include our road, Penylan Place, in the nearby residents parking zone, or to set up restricted parking hour windows during the working day (Monday-Friday).’

4.            A Petition presented by Councillor Sarah Butterworth, on behalf of residents of Weighton Road, containing 35 Signatures, with the following terms of reference:

‘We, the undersigned, being residents of Weighton Road, ask that the Council remove the ‘no Right Turn’ into the High Road.

Along with the NRT out of Waitrose, this has caused a great deal of inconvenience and has put extra pressure on the mini roundabout at Long Elmes.

We would also request better enforcement of the no parking on the double yellow lines as there are often up to 5 or 6 cars parked on them.  This is very dangerous as cars turning left from the High Road have to go on the wrong side of the road and are not able to see if someone is coming down the road.  If so, they can be left sticking out into the High Road until that vehicles reverses to let them  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 48 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution), the following two deputations be received:

1.            To oppose the proposed Controlled Parking schemes (CPZ) in the area of Whitchurch Gardens. Queries related to the need for a CPZ; Issues with social isolation of residents who are home during the CPZ hours; Concerns with wording and information contained in the consultation documents.

The deputee made the following points:

·           the deputation was backed by a petition signed by over 140 residents.  Some of the petitioners had initially been in favour of a CPZ but had subsequently changed their minds.  The petition and the deputation called on the Council to review how traffic and parking could be controlled in the area without the imposition of an unacceptable CPZ scheme;

·           residents were dissatisfied with the scheme proposals, the consultation process and furthermore had not been made aware of the stakeholder meeting regarding the issue;

·           on the whole, residents in Whitchurch Gardens parked on their own drives and their visitors usually found parking spaces reasonably close by. It should be noted that there was significant overnight and weekend parking from non-commuters;

·           small businesses in the area and emergency services were also affected and these stakeholders had not been consulted;

·           Whitchurch Gardens was a wide road with no through traffic and any parking there did not create congestion.  There were double yellow lines on corners to promote safe parking;

·           the phrasing of the questions in the stage 2 consultation document were biased in favour of promoting a yes response to the CPZ. Furthermore, the information sheet included with the questionnaire provided misleading information about the availability of visitor parking permits;

·           single yellow lines on dropped kerbs would affect the large number of residents who regularly dropped off or picked up passengers;

·           the limited availability of visitor permits was inadequate to meet the level of need in the street.  These factors would

-        lead to social isolation as visiting family, friends, healthcare professionals would have difficulty parking;

-        inhibit the large number of community and religious activities that took place and would have a negative impact on community vibrancy;

-        there was also a trend locally to pave over front gardens for parking spaces, which led to a loss of biodiversity and drainage;

·           in conclusion, on-street parking spaces were generally available on Whitchurch Gardens, most residents parked in their own drives, there were no parking congestion issues and therefore a CPZ was not required or desired by local residents.

A Member stated that the deputee had put forward a strong case on behalf of the  residents of Whitchurch Gardens, the majority of whom were not in favour of the CPZ.  He urged the Panel not to include Whitchurch Gardens in the CPZ.  He noted that a small group of residents had successfully campaigned for a number of years for a CPZ in the area.  He added that the consultation results indicated that the vast majority of residents on St. Lawrence Close and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director, Community, which set out details of the petitions that had been received since the last Panel meeting and provided details of the Council’s investigations and findings where these had been undertaken.

A Member back benching made the following points:

Petition 8 (Eaton Close & Hall Farm Close) - the matter should be expedited due to safety concerns raised by residents in the area.  She had received assurances from the Divisional Director Commissioning Services that this would be done.

Petition 10 (September Way) – this matter should also be looked as a matter of urgency because the anti-social behaviour of some of the students who attended  Stanmore College in the vicinity of the college’s rear entrance was causing a nuisance to local residents.

An officer advised that the Divisional Director, Commissioning Services had requested traffic officers to undertake an assessment of Eaton Close & Hall Farm Close in line with criteria previously agreed by TARSAP.  He added that all requests for traffic and parking schemes and works received would be ranked in order of priority and be presented in the annual Parking Management Programme report which would be submitted at the February 2019 meeting of the Panel for consideration.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director, Community which set out the background to the development of the draft third Transport Local Implementation Plan (LIP3) which would supersede the previous versions of the plan (LIP2 and LIP1).

An advisor to the Panel noted that although TfL had implemented some improvements to bus routes in Harrow, the Mayor of London had reduced bus services in Harrow as part of overall budget cuts to TfL services.

An adviser to the Panel made the point that the most effective way to instigate behaviour change and modal shift would be to make changes to the local infrastructure.  He added that significant investment and works would be required to make Harrow more attractive to cyclists and pedestrians.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

The Panel received a report and a presentation of the Corporate Director, Community, which provided an update on cycling in Harrow, current cycle initiatives and the recent visit by Members and officers to the mini Holland scheme in Waltham Forest.

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     with regard to the visit to Waltham Forest it was noted that the rate of take up of an on street cycle parking scheme had been positive, and that this scheme had been successful in improving the uptake in cycling but had required a very large level of investment to be successful;

·                     a number of different dockless cycle hire schemes were being trialled in neighbouring London Boroughs, many of these schemes were still under review and Harrow was waiting to see the outcomes before committing to an initiative.

An advisor to the Panel explained that an increase in walking and cycling among the general population would lead to a reduction in air pollution, a number of health benefits including increased life expectancy.  He added that the introduction of low traffic neighbourhoods in Waltham Forest had proved popular among local residents who had noticed a number of benefits, including improved quality of life, quieter neighbourhoods, neighbours becoming more sociable and better air quality.  These low traffic zones were relatively easy to introduce and had been implemented as temporary traffic orders in the first instance. He added that the potential success of any such scheme in Harrow would require broad cross party support.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

The Panel considered a report of the Corporate Director, Community which set out progress being made with developing a Liveable Neighbourhood Bid for Wealdstone.

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     TfL’s Liveable Neighbourhood programme, which provided funding for projects that delivered healthy streets locally was open to London Boroughs annually and bids of up to £10 million could be submitted under the programme.  Harrow was in the process of submitting a bid for improvements to the Wealdstone Town Centre area;

·                     In respect of the proposed scheme and community engagement, the membership of the sub-neighbourhood and local working groups had yet to be identified.  However, the groups would most likely be composed of Ward Councillors, key local stakeholders, community representatives and other interested parties.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

The Panel considered a report of the Corporate Director, Community which provided an update on progress with the Neighbourhood of the Future scheme in Harrow Town Centre.

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     the electric car charging points introduced in the town centre would be compatible with all types of electric vehicles. Electric vehicles would be permitted a maximum three hour stay, whilst actively recharging with no return permitted within one hour operating between 7am to 7pm, Monday to Sunday in the dedicated electric parking bays within the town centre;

·                     a recent survey had indicated that electric car ownership and use was increasing in Harrow and officers were monitoring the level of interest among residents;

·                     TfL provided grants for the implementation of electric charging points and Harrow was considering putting forward a bid to provide more of them in the borough;

·                     officers were also looking into the provision of residential charging points using street lights;

·                     the bus stop on Greenhill Way would be relocated further along Greenhill Way at the end of November 2018 to accommodate a new dedicated electric charging parking bay;

·                     the siting of the electric charging points had been based on site assessments.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

The Panel considered a report of the Corporate Director, Community which Provided an update on progress with the 2018 /19 traffic and parking management programme.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.