Agenda and minutes

The Panel discussed a report of the Head of Public Realm Infrastructure, which requested the Panel to review a previous Portfolio Holder decision, which had authorised officers to advertise traffic orders and implement a Controlled Parking Zone along Howberry Road between Cloyster Wood and Wychwood Avenue, including Howberry Close.

A Member expressed the view that the original decision had been a good one, as residents wanted some form of parking scheme and a yellow line would disadvantage some people, although a majority of residents had expressed their preference for a one hour parking restriction as applied in nearby roads. 

An amendment to the officer’s recommendation was proposed and seconded, and upon being put to the vote, it was

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (To the Portfolio Holder for Urban Living – Public Realm)

That (1) Resolution 4 of the Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder’s decision (PHD 054/05) dated 13 October 2005 on Stanmore CPZ as reconfirmed by the Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder’s decision (PHD 061/05) on 7 November 2005 not be implemented;

(2)  yellow line waiting restrictions operating 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm, Monday to Friday, be advertised in Howberry Close and Howberry Road between Cloyster Wood and the northern boundaries of 67a and 78 Howberry Road under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the details of which for order making purposes be delegated to officers and the scheme be implemented subject to consideration of objections, if any.

[Reason: To review the results of the previous consultation and decision and to control parking to address the Council’s stated priority of enhancing the environment and encouraging more sustainable transport activity].  

To note the appointment at the Meeting of Cabinet on 8 June 2006 of a Chair of this Panel for the Municipal Year 2006/07.

RESOLVED:  To note the appointment at the Meeting of Cabinet on 8 June 2006 of Councillor John Nickolay as Chairman of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2006/07.

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 of the following duly constituted Reserve Member:

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

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 the appointment of a Vice-Chair of the Panel for the Municipal Year 2006/2007.

Nominations were received and seconded for Councillors Manji Kara and Jerry Miles.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Manji Kara as Vice-Chairman of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2006?07.

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)  agenda item 11, ‘Appointment of Advisors to the Panel 2006/2007’ be taken before Agenda item 10, ‘Deputations’; 

(3)  agenda item 12(b), ‘Parking restrictions in Buckingham Road, Torbridge Close and Buckingham Gardens, Edgware – Reference form the Meeting of Cabinet Held on 16 March 2006’ be heard immediately after the deputation that had been received on this item; and

(4)  agenda item 14, ‘Headstone Drive/Harrow View/Headstone Gardens Pedestrian Facilities at Signals – Consultation Results’ be heard immediately after item 12(b), ‘Parking restrictions in Buckingham Road, Torbridge Close and Buckingham Gardens, Edgware – Reference from the Meeting of Cabinet Held on 16 March 2006’. 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2006, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

An advisor to the Panel commented that a proposal made by him at the meeting held on 28 February 2006 had been omitted from the minutes of that meeting.  The proposal related to Recommendation 3, ‘Urgent Review of Loading Restrictions in High Street Wealdstone’.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2006 be deferred until the next meeting of the Panel, when a proposed amendment to the minute for Recommendation 3, ‘Urgent Review of Loading Restrictions in High Street Wealdstone’ would be considered.

To note the terms of reference of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel.

RESOLVED:  That the terms of reference of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel be noted.

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 that no petitions were received at this meeting under the provisions of the Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 13 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

Report of the Director of Legal Services.

The Panel considered a report of the Director of Legal Services.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the following non-voting advisors be appointed to the Panel for the 2006/07 Municipal Year:

(2)  the Harrow Association of Disabled People be contacted as no response had been received from Mrs Rhoda Carratt.

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

RESOLVED:  That, in accordance with Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4E of the Constitution), a deputation be received from residents of Buckingham Road, Torbridge Close and Buckingham Gardens, in relation to agenda item 12(b), ‘Parking restrictions in Buckingham Road, Torbridge Close and Buckingham Gardens, Edgware – Reference from the meeting of Cabinet held on 16 March 2006’.

The Panel received the above reference, and a deputation from residents of Buckingham Road, Torbridge Close and Buckingham Gardens, which outlined residents’ concerns regarding the amount of commuter parking in these roads and the associated dangers.  The residents’ other concerns related to the narrowness of Buckingham Gardens and residents having to pull on to the wrong side of the road when coming out of the close.  The deputee stated that road humps had not helped the situation.  She added that most surrounding areas had yellow lines and proposed a yellow line on the south side of Buckingham Road.

An advisor suggested that a parking restriction could be put in place early in the morning, as a number of schools were accessed from the area.  Other suggestions included a ticketing system in addition to parking restrictions, and a tow away system.  An officer advised that the location of where a towed away vehicle would be taken to and the cost involved would be important considerations.   Members also commented upon the need for better enforcement of parking restrictions and yellow lines. 

In response to a query over why dropped kerbs could not be used, an officer advised that possible reasons included frontage not being deep enough, and properties being located at a junction.

A proposal for officers to submit a report to the Panel, which would consider the feasibility of a tow away system, either in collaboration with private contractors or funded by the Council, was moved and seconded.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED:  That officers submit a report, which would consider the feasibility of a tow away system.

[Note:  Councillor Mrs Camilla Bath wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the decision].

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure.

Members received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living) in this regard.

Officers set out the findings of the public consultation into safety improvements at the junction and reported that, in general, the measures had strong support.  Only the proposed right turn ban from Headstone Gardens into Harrow View (south) was opposed but there was also a significant minority that felt the relocation of the bus bay would cause congestion.   Officers further advised that the right turn ban was an essential part of the scheme that had to be retained to allow pedestrian crossing facilities to be provided without significant loss of junction capacity.

Officers advised that funding limitations meant they had to work within the existing road space to create the junction improvements sought.  Proposals involving road widening would be too costly because of the modifications needed to utilities such as gas and water mains in the footways.  They also advised that the junction currently suffered from heavy congestion making it difficult to find a solution that did not have an adverse effect on capacity or restrict traffic movement in some way.  In response to queries, an officer advised that funding for the project came partly from the Harrow traffic management budget and partly from the Transport for London Signals Modernisation budget, and that there were approximately 60 to 70 pedestrians per hour crossing the busiest arms of the junction during morning peak time.  

Members expressed concern that the proposals would result in increased rat-running in adjacent side roads, as there would be no right turn from Headstone Gardens, and there would be a small loss of junction capacity. In response to a comment that additional signs might help, an officer advised that signage on the roads leading to Headstone Gardens would be reviewed to see if approaching traffic could be re-directed well in advance of the junction.

Further comments and suggestions made by the Panel included the importance of gaining the benefits of the scheme as soon as possible and not delaying the report’s proposals, setting the bus cage 0.5 metre into the kerb to deal with the congestion concerns by providing sufficient space to allow vehicles to overtake a stationary bus and retain the cycle lane on the north side of Headstone Gardens, alternatively placing the bus stop before the traffic lights, and providing additional parking bays elsewhere around the junction.  An Advisor commented that the scheme outlined in the report provided good facilities for cyclists.       

Members commented that it would be helpful to conduct a site visit during term time in the morning peak period to get a better appreciation of the operation of the junction and the difficulties to be addressed. A proposal, which sought not to introduce turning restrictions and requested an investigation into the possibility of including signals that allowed pedestrians to cross each arm of the junction in stages, was moved and seconded.  

The Panel suggested that for most traffic schemes, photographs projected on screen to clarify  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Panel received the above reference, which consisted of a petition that expressed the desire that operators would staff stations until the last train had run.

RESOLVED:  That the Panel’s support for the petition be noted.

The Panel received the above reference, which requested an investigation into traffic problems in the area. 

An officer advised the Panel that a single yellow line could be placed on one side of the road and that a residents’ parking scheme was the only way of improving the parking situation.  During the discussion that followed, the following comments and suggestions were expressed by Members:

·         the parking situation in the area was problematic;

·         it was important to place a parking restriction in the area at certain hours.  An officer advised that if this were done, the timings should be the same as those for Buckingham Road;

·         as the area was small, it would not have a large impact upon other areas;

·         if a residents’ parking bay was added instead of a yellow line, people could buy permits, although this would not be compulsory;

·         a short yellow line could be placed just outside the properties in the area.

·         in response to a query relating to whether a skip could be put in the area if a yellow line was added, an officer advised that a license would be required.

A Member requested officers to conduct the investigation requested by the Development Control Committee.  An officer advised that, as the Transportation Programme was very full and resources limited, any work carried out on this area would require adjustment to the programme.

RESOLVED:  Officers be requested to carry out an investigation into traffic problems in the area and implement measures to alleviate obstructive parking in the turning head area.

The Panel received the above reference, which consisted of a petition requesting free parking for one hour in the Pinner car parks and charges in line with those elsewhere in the Borough.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the request from the petitioners be considered as part of the proposed comprehensive review of retail?friendly parking; and

(2)  the lead petitioners be advised accordingly.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure.

The Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure in this regard.

The Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure advised that the report had been amended since the agenda had been printed and circulated.  In the ‘Decision Required’ section, the following had been deleted:

“Recommend (for decision by the Portfolio Holder, Urban Living – Public Realm) that the programme changes as detailed in paragraphs 2.1.10 to 2.1.11 of this report be agreed”,

and replaced with:

“Subject to Council approving the Corporate Plan, to note the programme changes as detailed in paragraphs 2.1.10 to 2.1.11”.

In response to queries from Members, an officer advised that most of the funding for the programme came from Transport for London (TfL), and that there were recruitment problems.  However, the recruitment situation should improve, as the Council’s Public Realm Infrastructure Group now had a new partner to help deliver the workload.

A Member expressed concern over spending the budget for cyclists on other areas and expressed the view that encouraging people to travel down Station Road was dangerous.

RESOLVED:  (1)  That the Transportation Programme 2006/07 be noted;

(2)  subject to Council approving the Corporate Plan, to note the programme changes as detailed in paragraphs 2.1.10 to 2.1.11; and

(3)  to note that these and any further changes, reviews or additions to the programme would have significant implications for staff workload and budgets and would require compensatory adjustment to the programme.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure.

The Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure, which outlined officers’ recommendation in relation to a petition requesting preventative measures to stop further accidents between Gordon Avenue and The Avenue.  

A Member suggested that flashing speed signs could be used to advise drivers when they were driving too fast.

RESOLVED:  That officers inform the petitioners of the proposed road safety scheme programmed for 2007?08 subject to funding by Transport for London.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure.

(See Recommendation 1).  

In accordance with the provisions of Advisory and Consultative Rule Committee Procedure Rule 12.1 (Part 4E of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  At 10.00 pm to continue until 10.15 pm.