Agenda and minutes

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transport which detailed measures to improve the environment and traffic conditions in North Harrow, in light of the New Harrow Project and the receipt of some petitions.

It was advised that funding from Transport for London (TfL) had been secured to install lay-bys in Station Road and plans were in place for the re-development of the Safeways site, which it was hoped would contribute to the regeneration of the area.

The Panel was informed of a petition that had requested a right-turn filter light at the junction of Station Road and Pinner Road, but were advised that this would only be possible if motorists were willing to accept additional queues. However, it was noted that conditions could be enhanced by improving the markings in the junction and improving pedestrian crossing facilities on the south-east arm.

In the discussion that followed, Members sought clarification on a number of issues. In response to a query regarding the dangers posed to pedestrians by installing lay-bys, it was advised that there were already three crossing points in Station Road: at the signals at the Pinner Road/Station Road junction; the signalled crossing outside the station; and a pedestrian refuge in-between.  Additionally, a car park was located close by behind the shops on the other side of the road which provided the first hour of parking free.

A Member having queried why the traffic lights outside North Harrow Station were not working, an officer stated that these were in the process of being upgraded and agreed to investigate the situation.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (To the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Transport)

That (1) officers be instructed to implement parking lay-bys in Station Road on the south east side between Pinner Road and Churchill Court as illustrated on the plan at Appendix A of the officer report, the lay-bys be implemented as early as practicable when funding is available, and officers investigate with Transport for London the possibility of bringing funding and implementation forward;

(2) the parking spaces in the proposed new lay-bys be subject to control by pay and display at the same tariff as the Pinner Road on-street pay and display spaces in the shopping area, and officers carry out a review of loading facilities and parking restrictions in the immediate area to determine if any improvements are required and if part of the proposed new lay-bys should be used for servicing;

(3) the bus stops near the station remain in their existing positions for the reasons explained in the officer report;

(4) the improvements to car park signing, and the introduction of free parking for the first hour in the car parks and on street pay and display bays, be noted;

(5) officers be instructed to review and improve road markings within the signal junction to assist right turners from Station Road into Pinner Road, and it be noted that the introduction of a further right turn filter at the signal  ...  view the full minutes text for item

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transport which provided details of existing and proposed Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs)/Resident Parking Schemes in the London Borough of Harrow.

The Panel was referred to Appendix D of the officer report and advised of several changes to the timescale for the completion of CPZ schemes in the financial year 2005/2006.

In the discussion that followed, the Panel expressed concern over a number of roads that had experienced traffic problems caused by parked cars. With regard to the Highlands, Edgware, a Member raised the problem of obstructive parking and related congestion in the area from Stag Lane to Bacon Lane.  It was noted that although these areas were not included in any programmed CPZ review, measures were required to ease the traffic problems experienced by businesses and residents in the area.  In response, an officer stated that the rationale for the priority list was not solely based on the severity of the problem(s) but also on demand from the local community.  It was advised that the priority list and programme could be altered and an offer was made to liaise with Barnet Council and Brent Council on the problems experienced by residents in the aforementioned area (see also Minute 100).

With regard to parking problems, a Member suggested that it would be useful if TfL could advise on their policy for setting parking charges at station car parks. The Member considered that these charges should be designed to maximise usage, not income. An officer agreed to investigate this suggestion.

A Member expressed concern at the traffic problems experienced in Honeypot Lane which had arisen as a result of the parking controls around Canons Park station. The Panel was informed that a development brief for a major development off Honeypot Lane would be considered by the Strategic Planning Advisory Panel on 16 March 2005, and a suggestion was made that traffic officers liaise with the planning department regarding the possibility of securing funds for parking controls as part of the development scheme.

Members referred to the current parking problems experienced in Village Way and Eastcote Lane and noted that the CPZ Review for this area was not programmed for completion until 2007. It was suggested that parking should be restricted to one side of the road only in order to improve traffic flow and safety. In response, an officer advised that the introduction of a yellow line scheme could occur in advance of a CPZ and, accordingly, an addition to the recommendations in the officer report was tabled.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (To the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Transport)

That (1) the above comments be noted;

(2)  subject to funding, the priority list as shown at Appendix D of the officer report be adopted as the Controlled Parking Zone Programme, for inclusion in the Local Implementation Plan and the Borough Spending Plan submission to Transport for London, and the Wealdstone Regeneration Advisory Panel and head petitioners be informed accordingly; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item

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

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             after notifying the Chair at the start of the meeting.

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

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

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members in relation to the business transacted at this meeting.

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

(2)  a petition requesting the removal of parking restrictions on the east side of Pinner Road, which stood referred to the Panel from the Council meeting held on 24 February 2005, be considered by the Panel as a matter of urgency; and

(3)  two items now identified by the Chair be added to the agenda for this meeting (see Minutes 100 and 101 below).

That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2004, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2004, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record subject to the following addition to Recommendation 2:-

“At the request of the Conservative Nominated Member, the Officers explained that negotiations with TfL and Network Rail requested at the meeting on 4^th December 2002 had been unsuccessful, and that the Panel’s preferred option of further road widening by bridge replacement was not an option. It was reported that Network Rail did not feel that the near 100 year old bridge would need replacing for several years.”

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were received at this meeting under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 13 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  (1) To note the receipt at the meeting of the following petition, which was referred to officers for consideration:

·         Petition requesting an extension of the Stanmore CPZ into West Avenue

Presented by Councillor Arnold and signed by residents of West Avenue.

(2)  to note that the following petitions stood referred to this Panel from the Council meeting held on 24 February 2005, and that officers would report on these petitions at the next meeting:

·         Petition requesting road safety measures in Kenton Park Parade, Kenton

Presented at the Council meeting by Councillor Vina Mithani and signed by approximately 137 traders on the Kenton Road parade.

·         Petition requesting dangerous traffic problems to be addressed in Albury Drive and Evelyn Drive

Presented at the Council meeting by Councillor Knowles and signed by approximately 55 residents of the Pinnerwood Park Conservation Area.

Further to it having been agreed to consider this item as a matter of urgency, Members noted that a petition requesting the removal of parking restrictions on the east side of Pinner Road between Pinner View and Devonshire Road, stood referred to the Panel from the Council meeting held on 24 February 2005.  The petition had been presented to the Council meeting by Councillor Stephenson, and signed by approximately 900 residents of the Borough.

The Chair informed the Panel that Pinner Road would be considered as part of the Harrow Town Centre Review and a meeting with stakeholders was planned for the latter half of March 2005.

A Member stated that parking in Pinner Road was an outstanding problem and the lack of parking restrictions and a pelican crossing posed a significant danger to pedestrians. 

In response, it was agreed that this section of Pinner Road should be included in the Harrow Town Centre Review consultation process and the removal of the parking restrictions on the east side of the road be raised at the stakeholders meeting later in the month.

RESOLVED:  That Pinner Road between Pinner View and Devonshire Road be included in the Harrow Town Centre Review consultation process, and the removal of the parking restrictions on the east side of the road be raised at the stakeholders meeting later in the month.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

The Panel received a deputation from a resident of Merryfield Gardens, Stanmore, which detailed the danger posed by parked cars in the area and requested the inclusion of Merryfield Gardens in the Stanmore Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

Members were informed that many of the residents in Merryfield Gardens were elderly and either had not received the initial CPZ consultation document or had not understood the questions.  It was advised that over the last year the problem of parked cars in the road had significantly increased and, as a result, visibility at the junction of Marsh Lane had been greatly reduced.  It was noted that this not only posed a danger to motorists but also impeded the work of the emergency services.

In the discussion that followed, Members sought clarification on a number of issues.  In response to a query regarding the effects of a CPZ, the deputee informed the Panel that she was fully aware of these as were the other residents.  Consequently, it was agreed that Merryfield Gardens and Merryfield Court should be re-consulted on inclusion in the Stanmore CPZ.  In response to a concern raised by a Member, it was agreed by the Panel that responses from the residents of Malcolm Court and other nearby roads should be re-checked and, if proved to be borderline in agreeing to the scheme, those residents should also be re-consulted.

RESOLVED:  That (1) officers re-check the responses from Malcolm Court and other nearby roads and if proved to be inconclusive, residents be re-consulted on inclusion in the Stanmore CPZ; and

(2)  Merryfield Gardens and Merryfield Court be re-consulted on inclusion in the Stanmore CPZ.

That a representative of the North West London Chamber of Commerce be appointed to the Panel for the remainder of the 2004/2005 Municipal Year.

RESOLVED: That a representative of the North West London Chamber of Commerce be appointed to the Panel for the remainder of the 2004/2005 Municipal Year.

Reference from the Development Control Committee Meeting held on 11 January 2005.

The Panel received a reference from the Development and Control Committee meeting held on 11 January 2005 which requested that the Panel consider the above planning application and the possible need for additional traffic measures in Uxbridge Road.

The Chair informed the Panel that this matter would be incorporated into a general report on road safety issues in the Hatch End area.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the reference be noted; and

(2)  the issue of increased vehicular activity be incorporated into a general report on road safety issues in the Hatch End area.

Report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transport.

See Recommendation 1.

Report of the Interim Head of Environment and Transport.

See Recommendation 2.

Further to it having been agreed to add this item to the agenda, a Member raised concerns over the large volume of traffic passing through the Highlands, Edgware. The Panel was informed that this had occurred as a result of motorists using this road as an alternative route from Stag Lane and the Broadway. It was noted that problems of accessibility had now arisen particularly with regard to refuse vehicles. The Member requested that officers review the area and investigate options to improve traffic conditions and report back to the Panel as appropriate.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the above be noted; and

(2)  officers investigate the traffic problems in the Highlands and report back to the Panel as appropriate.

Further to it having been agreed to add this item to the agenda, the Panel noted that a motion on this matter had been referred from Council to Cabinet. Officers were instructed to make available to Members of the Panel details of negotiations that had taken place with TfL and Network Rail between December 2002 and December 2004 (as referred to in Minute 83 of the meeting on 1 December 2004).

It was stated that residents would have preferred the replacement of the bridge at Petts Hill and the creation of four road lanes, as opposed to its renovation. A Member sought the names of contacts in TfL and Network Rail used by officers, in order that information could be passed to political colleagues at all levels; this, it was hoped, could secure funding for the replacement of the bridge.

In response, the Chair commented that after a cost-benefit analysis, TfL had decided that to renovate the bridge was more cost effective than to replace it, although it was emphasised that future consultation at any level was welcome.

RESOLVED:  That it be noted that a motion on this matter had been referred from Council to Cabinet, and officers be instructed to make available to Members of the Panel details of negotiations that had taken place with TfL and Network Rail between December 2002 and December 2004 (as referred to in Minute 83 of the meeting on 1 December 2004).

Arising from discussions at the meeting, a Member referred the Panel to a report on the Information Circular which detailed Local Safety Schemes and the Traffic Calming Programme for 2005/2006.  It was requested that in future Members should be notified of any Local Safety Schemes before they were implemented. In response, it was advised that the responsibility for managing and implementing Local Safety Schemes was delegated to officers, but it was agreed by the Panel that in future Nominated Members would be consulted on any Portfolio Holder reports on implementing Local Safety Schemes.

RESOLVED:  That Nominated Members be consulted on Portfolio Holder reports relating to implementation of Local Safety Schemes.