Agenda and minutes

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living) which outlined proposals for the implementation of a 20 mph zone in Kings Road and the surrounding area through the use of speed cushions. Residents had been consulted on options for the road humps, and officers presented the results of the consultation. The consultation had demonstrated that whilst generally residents were in favour of humps in their own roads, they were not in favour of humps in nearby roads.

In the discussion that followed, a Member asked for details of the consultation with stakeholders, including the emergency services, London Buses and Harrow Public Transport Users Association (HPTUA). It was established that confusion had arisen because of the use in the report of the generic term ‘road humps’ to describe the speed cushions that were to be introduced. Whilst stakeholders were opposed to road humps, as they caused delays and discomfort for users, speed cushions were a more acceptable compromise. It was suggested some of the consultation documents may not have reached the appropriate people, and officers agreed to investigate this.

A Member described the distribution of accidents in Kings Road and the neighbouring area. It was suggested that as the majority of accidents in this area occurred at junctions, traffic calming measures should focus on the junctions. Officers reported that junction tables had been considered, but dismissed in favour of road humps.

A Member of the Panel tabled information containing statistics which suggested that the overall support for road humps had fallen from 88% ten years ago to just over 50% now. Further to this, he proposed a motion to defer decision on the item until officers obtained more conclusive information from the emergency services regarding the effect of road humps on their ability to reach incidents in good time, as well as seeking further views from bus operators and other interested parties. Furthermore, the motion requested that officers provide more specific accident data relating to individual roads in the area, so that a decision could be taken in the light of all circumstances.

Members of the Panel emphasised that traffic controlling schemes caused a reduction in the number of casualties on the roads. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was rejected and the officer recommendation was carried.

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

That, subject to the consideration of any formal objections to the advertised statutory notices, officers be instructed to take all steps necessary to introduce a 20 mph zone in the Kings Road area of Rayners Lane, as shown on the plan at Appendix A to the report.

[REASON:  To seek approval to introduce the scheme in the current financial year.]

[Note: Councillors John Nickolay, Arnold, Kara and Anjana Patel asked to be recorded as having abstained from voting on the adopted recommendation, and as having voted for the motion that was lost.]

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living) which detailed the review of the experimental road closure in Kenton Park Road at its junction with Kenton Lane. Officers further advised of the results of an investigation to assess the feasibility of widening Kenton Road to provide a dedicated right turning lane into Kenton Lane.

Your Panel received a deputation on behalf of residents in Kenton Park Road, in favour of the officer recommendation to make the road closure permanent. The meeting was informed that the road closure had improved road safety and reduced traffic congestion. The deputee acknowledged the objections of residents in neighbouring roads who claimed to have experienced increased congestion, although agreed that removing the barrier at Kenton Park Road would not improve their situation. In response to a question from a Member, the deputee confirmed that he was in favour of re-introducing a dedicated right-turn lane at the Kenton Road/Kenton Lane junction.

A Member of the Panel made reference to a petition signed by 825 residents in the immediate area and roads further afield of Kenton Park Road, complaining about the increase in through traffic. Officers advised the Panel that reinstating the right turn and introducing traffic calming measures in roads further afield would help alleviate the problem, but emphasised that further road closures would make large areas of Kenton inaccessible. A Member of the Panel emphasised the need to make main roads more attractive to drivers.

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

That (1) officers be authorised to take all necessary steps to make the experimental road closure of Kenton Park Road at its junction with Kenton Lane and the associated double yellow line waiting restrictions permanent, pending the outcome of the proposed road widening scheme; and that a further review of the road closure be carried out after the implementation of the road widening scheme and the reinstatement of the right turn from Kenton Road into Kenton Lane;

(2)  subject to funding, officers be authorised to investigate and consult the frontages on traffic calming in Kingshill Avenue (north of Alicia Avenue), Alicia Avenue, Elmsleigh Avenue, Alicia Gardens, Brampton Grove and Prestwood Avenue, including the review of the existing St Leonards Avenue traffic calming scheme, and advertise the scheme by publishing the statutory notice subject to the results of the proposed consultation;

(3)  the Kenton Road widening scheme and the reinstatement of the right turn into Kenton Lane be progressed to implementation, subject to TfL approval, consultation and funding - including securing Brent Council’s share of the cost;

(4)  officers be authorised to take all necessary steps to introduce yellow line waiting restrictions in accordance with the details shown at Appendix N to the report;

(5)  the objections to the road closure becoming permanent be set aside for the reasons given in the report, and that the head petitioners and objectors be informed accordingly.

[REASON:  To seek approval to make the road closure  ...  view the full minutes text for item

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living) which proposed an amendment to the Council’s current policy on ‘ghost capes’ that would make it easier for officers to implement them at junctions. Officers informed the meeting that ‘ghost capes’ could alleviate dangerous and/or obstructive parking at junctions at relatively little cost and reasonably quickly.

Members briefly discussed further options for enforcing restrictions on parking at junctions.

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

That ‘ghost capes’ be provided at junctions where regular parking in their proximity significantly interferes with driver visibility and safety and/or regularly causes access difficulties for refuse collection or emergency services vehicles.

[REASON:  To review the current policy on the provision of ‘ghost capes’.]

Your Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living) which presented the results of a consultation exercise on proposed parking and loading restrictions in Hatch End.

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

That (1) the objections to the traffic orders be set aside for the reasons given in the report;

(2)  the advertised waiting and loading restrictions on the east side of Grimsdyke Road except for the first 10 metres be dropped in favour of road widening and implementation of the advertised waiting and loading restrictions on the west side as shown at Appendix F;

(3)  officers be authorised to implement the yellow line waiting and loading restrictions and a speed table in the service road as shown at Appendices F and G under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996;

(4)  the statement of reasons be ‘to control parking and to improve traffic flow and safety’; and

(5)  officers be authorised to inform the objectors and head petitioners accordingly.

[REASON:  To set aside the objections and gain approval to implement the proposed waiting and loading restrictions associated with the Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) road safety scheme. The yellow line waiting and loading restrictions would reduce congestion in Uxbridge Road and complement the proposed road safety scheme.]

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)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

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

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 personal or prejudicial interests made by Members of the Panel arising from 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) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following agenda item be admitted late to the agenda by virtue of the special circumstances and grounds for urgency detailed below:-

(2) all items be considered with the press and public present.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2005, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2005, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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:  To note the receipt of the following petition, which was referred to the Bus and Rail Liaison Meeting in January 2006 for consideration:

·                     Petition seeking the provision of a bus service in the outlying areas of Wealdstone ward

Presented by Councillor Blann and signed by 152 people.

Petition submitted by Councillor Silver.

The Panel received a petition submitted by Councillor Silver and signed by 520 residents and parents requesting an improved pedestrian crossing facility at the intersection of Pinner Road and George V Avenue junction.

The meeting received a deputation in support of the petition. It was advised that the petition had the support of a local MP and four schools within the vicinity of the crossing. Although it was emphasised that the crossing posed a danger to both children and adults, the danger was particularly significant for children attending Nower Hill High School, whose entrance was on George V Avenue.

A poster suggesting options for the crossing was circulated to Members and attendees. The deputee suggested that although people readily acknowledged that the crossing was dangerous, no solution had ever been presented. Officers were asked to provide clear timescales and options for the crossing.  

Officers informed the meeting that any scheme to improve the pedestrian facilities at the junction had to be approved by Transport for London (TfL), as the road formed part of the Strategic Road Network. TfL had rejected an initial scheme providing pedestrian facilities on all approaches to the junction because of the expected congestion that would be created. The meeting was informed that proposed schemes also had to comply with the Traffic Management Act 2004, which required local authorities to consider easing congestion when implementing schemes. It was acknowledged that a scheme was required which balanced the needs of pedestrians with the requirements to reduce congestion. Officers would be submitting revised proposals to TfL in January 2006, which addressed some of TfL’s concerns, but still included all round pedestrian facilities.  If not agreed, further options for consideration would be either crossing facilities on the most difficult approaches or pedestrian facilities further away from the junction and closer to the entrance to the school. It was anticipated that TfL would take at least 30 days to respond to the proposal, and that a further report would be provided to the February 2006 meeting of the Panel.

In the discussion that followed, the meeting was informed that the route had not been included in the Safer Routes to Schools scheme at this time, and that the proposed junction improvement scheme was being considered instead to address the high number of vehicle to vehicle injury accidents. Members supported various suggestions for the junction, including moving the speed cameras on the road nearer to Nower Hill High School, enforcing restrictions on parking on the approaches and providing signs indicating the school to approaching drivers. It was agreed that officers should consult with parents and residents on their proposals for TfL.

RESOLVED:  That (1) officers report back to the Panel meeting on 28 February 2006 with proposals for the junction approved by TfL;

(2)  officers consult with parents and residents on the formulation of the proposals;

(3)  officers investigate immediate provisions to improve safety at the junction, including moving the speed cameras and providing signs indicating the school to approaching drivers.       

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

See Recommendation 2 and Minute 140.

Reference from the Council meeting held on 20 October 2005.

The Panel received a petition from residents of Parkside Way, North Harrow which had been referred from the Council meeting on 20 October 2005.

Officers agreed to investigate illegal parking problems on grass verges in Parkside Way and the use of central refuges at crossings, including the existing crossing near Pinner View, in addition to the on-going surveys to determine remedial measures to be taken.

RESOLVED:  To note the report and the ongoing surveys to identify remedial measures that would allay the concerns of the petitioners.

Reference from the Council meeting on 20 October 2005.

The Panel received a petition which had been referred from the Council meeting on 20 October 2005.

In response to a query from a Member, officers confirmed that the extension of the existing Rayners Lane CPZ would take at least a year to implement, and that acute problems with disabled parking spaces would be addressed more rapidly.

RESOLVED:  That the above be noted.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure                                   

See Recommendation 1.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure

See Recommendation 2.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure

See Recommendation 3.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure

See Recommendation 4.

Which the Chair has decided is urgent and cannot otherwise be dealt with.

(i)            Proposed Withdrawal of the 350 Bus Service

An adviser to the Panel informed the meeting that it was proposed to withdraw the 350 bus service from 26 March 2006, as London Buses would not provide the additional funding required to keep the service. The Panel was advised that there was a lot of public support to keep the service, and the adviser encouraged representations to London Buses from both individuals and organisations.

RESOLVED:  That the Panel’s support for the retention of the 350 bus service be noted.

(ii)            Accident Statistics

Officers agreed to provide details of road accidents, including the cause of the accident, within the appendices of any safety scheme presented to the Panel.

RESOLVED:  That the above be noted.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14.2 (Part 4B of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  (1) At 10.00 pm to continue until 10.15 pm;

(2) at 10.15pm to continue until 10.30 pm.