Agenda and minutes

Your Panel received the report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transportation which considered the provision of business permits, special care and school parking permits with Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ), and considered charges for environmentally friendly cars.

Prior to discussing the report, the Panel received a deputation from a representative of a Wealdstone business.  The deputee informed the meeting that his business had been located in Wealdstone for nearly five years.  The business employed five other staff, including one member of staff from outside the borough, and good parking was essential for successful running of the business.  He stated that he expected parking facilities for businesses to be provided in the area, especially as residents parking bays were often empty during the day.  He added that he would be interested in obtaining a business permit, but the proposed level of cost was prohibitive.

In response to a question from a Member, the deputee informed the meeting that his business required convenient parking for both staff and visiting clients.  He added that the business permits for the local car parks were also too expensive.  In response to further questions, he suggested that £100 was a reasonable amount to pay for a permit, considering residents only paid £40 a year.

Officers informed the meeting that this report considered permits for businesses, schools and carers.  He clarified that business permits were designed for operational use, not all day parking by staff.  This was a reflection of local and regional policies and was in line with the policies of other boroughs.  As the introduction of business permits was a new policy across many boroughs, there was not yet a consistent method of best practice.  The results of the policy would be revisited as part of the annual CPZ review, and adaptations made if necessary.

An Officer reminded the meeting that CPZs were only introduced following extensive consultation with both residents and businesses.  Policy within CPZs was to make short stay parking easier and restrict long stay parking, such as commuters.

In response to a question from a Member, Officers informed the meeting that a business permit for the multi-storey car park in Wealdstone was £400 per year.  He added that it was good practice to charge more for on street parking than off street parking.  Following further questions, it was confirmed that the proposal was to charge £500 for an annual business permit to park on the street.

During discussion of the limit of two permits per business, Officers reminded the meeting that the aim of CPZs was to manage parking and prioritise residents.  The issuing of more that two permits per business could create problems the parking schemes were designed to solve. 

In response to comments from a Member, Officers confirmed that business permits only allowed parking for up to three hours at any one time, unlike permits for the proposed off street car parking.  Officers reiterated that this was because there was still too much parking on the street and they  ...  view the full minutes text for item

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transportation which considered formal objections to the advertised traffic order to introduce a CPZ in the roads near Sudbury Hill Underground and Overground Stations.  Introducing the report, the Chair reminded the meeting that the Panel had agreed to the implementation of the scheme at its last meeting, subject to the consideration of formal objections to the traffic order.

Prior to discussing the report, the Panel received a deputation from residents of Greenford Road.  The deputee apologised for the late notice of the deputation and stated there had been some difficulties with communication.  He stated that it was inappropriate for consultation to be carried out during August and suggested that there could have been several further objections if the traffic orders had been published during September.  He requested that implementation of the scheme be delayed for reconsultation with residents.  There was support for residents’ parking bays, but the scheme would lead to the loss of 16 parking spaces.  The need for enough space for lorries to turn was recognised, but the needs of residents should take priority.

The original plans had the existing pedestrian refuge outside 63 Greenford Road positioned further south on Greenford Road, allowing increased residents’ parking in this area of the road.  Due to an objection from a builder’s merchants, the island had returned to its original location with no consultation with residents.  This has resulted in insufficient parking for residents of 62-76 Greenford Road.  He added that the proposed yellow lines outside 73 Greenford Road would leave the resident with no alternative parking and that residents of Greenford Road were being unfairly punished.  He also suggested that the road was too busy for a cycle lane to be effective and that bus stops had lead to the removal of a further six parking spaces on Greenford Road.  He appreciated that the scheme was an attempt to stop commuter parking, but stated that the revised scheme would ruin the area.

A second member of the deputation informed the Panel that, with the revised scheme she would not be able to park outside her house because of double yellow lines.  This was particularly important as she had a young child.  She asked the Panel to consider the situation of local residents and ensure all had a place to park.

Officers informed the meeting that the main consultation with residents had taken place prior to the Panel’s June meeting.  The Panel was now considering objections to traffic orders, which had been advertised on 7 August 2003.  He stated that there was urgency in the introduction of this scheme as Brent intended to introduce a CPZ on neighboring roads in the immediate future, and this scheme was required to deal with the displaced parking.

Objections received have related to details of the design, not the principle of the scheme.  The aim of the scheme has been to provide as much residents’ parking as possible, while taking safety into account.  ...  view the full minutes text for item

Your Panel received the report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transportation which detailed objections to the statutory advertisement of upgraded waiting restrictions in Harrow Town Centre and recommended a modified scheme be implemented.

Officers informed the meeting that these changes had been proposed to tackle displaced parking from the introduction of Sunday car parking charges.

Resolved to RECOMMEND  (To the Executive)

That (1) the objections be set aside for reasons given in appendix B of the report, and that the objectors be advised accordingly;

(2) the proposed no waiting at any time restriction not be implemented between the boundaries of 87/89 and 119/121 on the south-eastern side of Headstone Road, as shown at Appendix C of the report;

(3)  officers take all necessary steps under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to implement the proposals previously advertised subject to the amendment as stated at (2) above and as shown at Appendix C.

(4)  the request to convert the resident bay in Headstone Road immediately north of Oakley Road be considered again at the next controlled parking zone review for this area.

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transportation which appended previous policy decisions relating to the determination of applications for vehicle crossovers and made appropriate recommendations.

Officers informed the meeting that they had reviewed the policy and attempted to improve it.  In response to comments from a Member, Officers confirmed that pedestrian dropped kerbs would be moved if possible, although pedestrian safety and disabled access would remain the priority.

Members commented that the Council’s 10% rejection rate for crossover applications was very good.  A Member referred to the current appeal process and suggested that applicants be advised of the process.

Resolved to RECOMMEND  (To the executive)

That (1) existing policies for vehicle crossings be re-affirmed, but

(2)  that having reviewed the safety criteria to be applied for new vehicle crossings to corner properties, they should be formally adopted as:

(i)                   access should only be taken from the less busy road (defined as the road of lower status according to the Harrow Unitary Development Plan)

(ii)                 Where access is required to the side of the front garden it should preferably be located as far from the junction corner as possible, but in any event the tapered kerb must not start less than 6 metres from the channel of a main road, or 1.8 metres from an existing dropped kerb for pedestrians.

(iii)                The existing policy and practice of charging the costs of re-siting street furniture (to allow the construction of a vehicle crossing) to the applicant, be extended to include costs of relocating such pedestrian dropped kerbs.

(3)  the likely provisions of the new London Local Authority & Transport for London Bill be noted.

[REASON:  To enable consistency in the determination of applications for vehicle crossings]

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transportation which outlined proposed local improvements around Pinner Wood First and Middle Schools.

A Ward Member for Pinner, present to speak on this item, welcomed the proposals and noted that they tackled the problems suffered by both the school and residents.  He added that residents of Blythwood Road were in favour of a limited scheme in their road, which they felt was most suited to their area.

Resolved to RECOMMEND  (To the Executive)

That (1) in principle, the Safe Routes to Schools proposals for Pinner Wood Schools, as shown on drawing numbers CD75479/SS/GA/01 and CD75479/RM/01 in the consultants report be agreed;

(2)  subject to statutory consultation and consideration of any formal objections to the following:

(i)             Latimer Gardens to be made one-way working from Pinner Hill Road to a point just South of the vehicle entrance to Pinner Wood School near the junction of Latimer Close under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

(ii)           A puffin crossing to be provided on Pinner Hill Road just south of Latimer Gardens under section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

(iii)          Traffic calming be provided along Latimer Gardens, and Blythwood Road under The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999.

(iv)          Proposed waiting restrictions, school safety zones in Latimer Gardens, Latimer Close, Pinner Hill Road and Albury Drive be provided under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

(v)            Bus stop clearways be provided in Pinner Hill Road at the southbound stop opposite Lyndhurst Avenue and the northbound stop by Crossway.

(3)  details of order making for 2(i) to 2 (iv) be delegated to officers;

(4) to note that the traffic calming measures as shown on drawing number CD75479/SS/GA/02 for Blythwood Road is subject to consultation.

[REASON:  To improve safety, reduce congestion and encourage walking to school]

Your Panel received the report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transportation which responded to a petition received requesting the installation of bollards on the footway of West Street.

A Member of the Panel, who was also a Ward Member for Harrow on the Hill, informed the meeting that residents were unhappy with traffic speed and parking on West Street.  In response to a Member’s suggestion of raising the kerb, officers referred the Panel to the report where this was dealt with and reminded them that this it would cause problems with drainage.

Resolved to RECOMMEND  (To the Executive)

That the Head petitioner be advised that the installation of bollards in West Street and other options considered would not be practicable nor desirable for reasons given in the report, but that the Police have been asked to carry out enforcement.

[REASON:  To address the petitioners request]

Councillors Arnold, Harriss Mrs Kinnear and John Nickolay wish to be recorded as voting against the above resolution)

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transportation which outlined consultation results for the possible extension of the Harrow Town Centre CPZ to the Manor and Francis Road Area.

Officers recommended that those roads that had a clear majority in favour of joining should be included in the scheme.  He suggested that roads on which the consultation results were close should be reconsulted and given the opportunity to join the scheme again as shown in the amended table and plan contained in the first supplemental agenda.

Resolved to RECOMMEND  (To the Executive)

That (1) Harrow Town Centre Controlled Parking Zone and Residents Parking Scheme be extended to cover the area as shown in the amended Appendix C of the first supplemental agenda, the operational hours to be Mondays to Fridays 11.00 am to 12 noon; Subject to (2) and (3) below;

(2)  the northern end of Francis Road as shown in Appendix C be included in Zone F; which operates Mondays to Saturdays 8.30am to 6.30pm;

(3)  Crofts Road, Grange Road, Hill Road and Hill Crescent be reconsulted and if majority support, be included in the traffic orders to be advertised;

(4)  officers be instructed to advertise the necessary traffic orders under sections 6 and 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subject to the consideration of any formal objections that may be raised take all necessary action to implement the proposals.

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

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:

To receive declarations of interest (if any) from Members of the Committee arising from business to be transacted at this meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note the following declaration of interests:

(1)         Councillor Whitehead declared a pecuniary interest in part of item 9(c) as a carer of a resident within a controlled parking zone.  She took no part in the debate and did not vote on part of the item.

(2)         Councillor Kinnear declared a personal interest in item 9(a) as she was a resident in the Harrow Town Centre controlled parking zone.

(3)         Councillor Harriss declared a personal interest in item 9(g) as he owned a premise in the West Street area with no off street parking.

To consider whether any of the items listed on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded on the grounds that it is thought likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that there would be disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence or of exempt information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

RESOLVED:  (1)  That all items be considered with the press and public present;

(2)  that St Anselm’s School – Petition for Pedestrian Crossings at the “Timber Carriage” Traffic Lights be moved from the Information Circular to the Agenda.

That the appointment of Mrs R Carratt as representative of Harrow Association of Disabled People for the 2002/03 Municipal Year be noted.

RESOLVED:  That the appointment of Mrs Carratt as representative of Harrow Association of Disabled People for the 2003/2004 Municipal Year be noted.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2003, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2003, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a true and correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no public questions

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no petitions received.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note the receipt of the following deputations:

(1)                 Re – Controlled Parking Zones – Review of Permits:  From a representative of a Wealdstone business

(See Recommendation 1)

(2)                 Re – Sudbury Hill Stations Area Controlled Parking Zones – Formal Objections to the Traffic Order:  From representatives of local residents

(See Recommendation 2)

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4B of the Constitution), it was

RESOLVED:  At (1) 10.00 pm to continue until 10.30 pm;

(2) 10.30 pm to continue until 11.00 pm.

The following item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Councillor John Nickolay and under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 8 (I) (Part 4B of the Constitution)

A Member informed the Panel that traffic was tailing back across this junction from North Harrow and requested that a report on the possibility of a box junction be submitted to the Panel by way of an information item following consultation with Ward Councillors.  Members also commented that there had been similar problems at the junction of The Ridgeway and Imperial Drive and requested a similar report.

A Member, present to speak on this item, informed the Panel that the issue of access difficulties was borough-wide.  She highlighted that certain roads in her Ward had suffer particular difficulties.  The access difficulties had led to some residents’ bins not being emptied on certain weeks.

The Member commented that the cause of the problems was obstructive parking blocking access for refuse collection vehicles.  She suggested operating parking restrictions on rubbish collection days could solve some of the problems.

The Harrow Public Transport Users’ Assocation Advisor commented that if the rubbish collection vehicles were being obstructed, then so were emergency vehicles.  He proposed that, with the co-ordination of neighbourhood watch, all streets should agree to park down one side of the street.  The possibility of an awareness campaign to seek voluntary compliance to non-obstructive parking was also discussed.

Members agreed that this was a difficult problem to tackle and suggested that departments within the Council should work together to tackle areas that suffered repeat problems.

RESOLVED:  That Officers report back to a future meeting on options to address the increasing problem of access difficulties for refuse collection

A Member of the Panel, also a local Ward Member, commented that a large number of children were unable to cross the road safely to reach St Anselm’s School.  Officers advised that a review of the signals at this junction had slowed because of an internal restructuring within Transport for London (TfL), meaning a new team was now responsible for the scheme.  Officers agreed to seek a further site meeting with TfL and the Ward Member to consider the matter.

Submitted by