Agenda and minutes

The Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure, which set out an investigation into the traffic conditions in Green Lane.  It was reported that a petition had been received from the St John’s Church of England School in Green Lane raising concern about safety. Also, complaints had been received about parking problems.  Measures to alleviate the prevailing conditions had been identified, as shown in Appendix C.  Members discussed Appendix C and a Member suggested that a speed control of 20mph could be introduced.

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

That (1) officers be authorised to consult the residents/businesses of Green Lane and associated roads on Option 2 shown at Appendix C;

(2)  subject to the development of a school travel plan, enforceable school yellow zigzag keep clear road markings be introduced at both Stanmore Hill and Green Lane entrances to the school;

(3)  the petitioners’ request for pedestrian crossings be considered as part of a Safe Routes to Schools scheme subject to funding from Transport for London;

(4)  the head petitioners be advised of the above.

[REASON:  To gain approval to consult the local community on the recommended option.]

The Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure which informed Members of the progress made in improving cycling facilities in Harrow and to review plans for delivering further cycle routes within the Borough.  An officer explained that three quarters of the London Cycle Plus (a London-wide network of cycle routes) had been completed and one quarter of the Local Cycle Network had been completed.  Transport for London had set a London-wide target to achieve at least 80% increase in cycling levels by 2010.  Officers outlined difficulties in joining up the routes particularly at junctions.  Members considered the following issues:-

·         the possibility that cyclists could use service roads to avoid congestion on roads;

·         that cycle parking offered no protection from the elements and vandals;

·         changing roundabouts to traffic lights would create problems for all road users;

·         the uptake of cycling training courses, particularly by schools.

A motion was moved and seconded and upon a vote it was

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

That (1) the report be noted and that it be accepted that there was an obligation to continue with the objectives set out in the London Cycle Network and Local Implementation Plan, however, there was a reluctance to sacrifice further valuable road space to accommodate cycle lanes and the shared use of pedestrian footways should be avoided wherever possible;

(2)  it be noted that the Panel’s preferred option was for quiet roads to be used by cyclists and that officers take this into account when drafting further schemes and that ways be found of taking into account the views of ordinary cyclists with regard to routes and facilities;

(3) the Panel considers that the Government and Transport for London should take action to oblige cyclists to comply with the law and treat pedestrians with consideration by avoiding riding at high speed along footways.

[REASON: To improve cycle facilities in Harrow, deliver further cycle routes within the Borough, reduce congestion, and improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians.]

The Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure, which informed Members that following complaints received from local residents about speeding and parking congestion, officers had been instructed to investigate.  The investigation had shown the highest weekday 85 percentile speed (the speed not exceeded by 85% of vehicles and the nationally recognised speed used for design purposes) was less than 30mph but that parking was a problem.  A Member requested that the Controlled Parking Zone be given priority in the March 2007 review.

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

That (1) the results of the consultation be noted and the priority of the Burnt Oak Broadway area be reviewed in March 2007 when the Controlled Parking Zones and Residents’ Parking Schemes Programme was reviewed;

(2) the residents be informed of the above, including the outcome of the investigation and consultation.

[REASON:  To seek a review of the priority of the area for parking controls.]

The Panel received a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure, which asked Members to consider the consultation results and to agree a way forward.

An officer reported that there had been a stakeholder meeting in November 2005 where areas of concern had been identified.  The main issues identified were 1) parking difficulties experienced by residents living just outside the current controlled parking zone; 2) requests for more visitor/shopper parking close to the High Street; 3) congestion problems especially on High Road and High Street north of George Gange Way and 4) access and safety concerns where parking occurs too close to junctions.

There had been a public meeting in February 2006 where traders had highlighted serious difficulties associated with the permitted hours of access for loading in the pedestrianised are of the High Street. It had been agreed that an urgent review would be conducted and this had now taken place, culminating in a series of recommendations for the Panel’s consideration and approval.

An officer advised the Panel that the necessary revisions to traffic orders, to relax loading times in the designated bays in the pedestrian zone to allow loading at all times had already been advertised. This was being taken forward on a fast track basis in line with the recommendation from the Panel at the meeting on 28 February 2006.

Some Members raised concerns about the proposed scheme and an additional recommendation was moved and seconded, but, having been put to a vote, the motion was lost.

Members raised a number of questions and the officer responded as follows:-

·         loading would be permitted in bays between George Gange Way and Locket Road for a shorter period than at present, between the peak hours (10.00 am to 3.00 pm), and would be restricted to defined bays;

·         that there were difficulties associated with using service roads for deliveries and that relocating service vehicles had been a Transport for London (TfL) funded initiative but this initiative had had now been stalled.  It was accepted that the proposals, including further dedicated loading facilities and disabled bays just off the main road, probably offered the best balance between traffic movement and access, at lease in the short to medium term;

·         at two junctions on Kenmore Avenue, double yellow lines would be considered to address parking problems;

·         yellow school ‘keep clear’ markings outside many schools were not enforceable, however consultation was proposed to achieve this for the markings outside Elmgrove School in Kenmore Avenue.  A Member who was also the Chair of Governors at Elmgrove School stated that the school would want these enforced;

·         operational hours would be put on all the permit bay signs;

·         footway parking proposals would not be taken forward in Whitefriars Avenue, due to little support.  In Byron Road, where consultation opinion was divided, the scheme proposed to address the current unregulated parking on the footway.

A backbench Member raised concern about cars and buses double parked at the entrance to the bus garage on High Road,  ...  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)             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 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 the following interests were declared:

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 Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

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.

(1)               Deferred Minutes

At its meeting on 20 June 2006, by Minute 6, it was agreed:-

“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”.

Subsequently, a form of amendment was proposed to the Adviser who had challenged the original wording in the Recommendation, as follows:-

“After “the undertaking of the urgent review” insert “An adviser to the Panel proposed that traders be issued with permits to provide to delivery vehicles which would allow them to park for half an hour, but upon advice from officers, it was agreed not to proceed with this.””

The form of this amendment was not agreed by the Adviser. No alternative form of amendment to meet the original objection has been forthcoming from the Adviser. The Panel’s options are:-

(i)                 to confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2006 as originally printed in the Minute Volume as a correct record (without amendment);

(ii)               to sign the minutes as a correct record subject to the form of amendment set out above;

(iii)             to defer the signing of the minutes further for the purpose of securing an amendment agreeable to the Adviser.

FOR DECISION

(2)               Minutes of Previous Meeting

That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2006, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2006 be signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment to Recommendation 3, “Urgent Review of Loading Restrictions in High Street, Wealdstone”:

“After “the undertaking of the urgent review” insert “An advisor to the Panel proposed that there be a temporary suspension of all loading and unloading restrictions in the Wealdstone area, for which there was some support from Members. Upon advice from officers, however, it was agreed not to proceed with this.””

(2)  the minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2006 be signed as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

Recommendation 1, third line of second paragraph to read, “some people.  However, a majority…”; and the fifth line of the second paragraph of Minute 13 to read, “…would cause congestion, plus concerns that the right-turn ban would result in increased rat?running.”

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).

RESOLVED:  To note the receipt of the following petitions which were referred to the relevant officer for consideration:

(i)   Petition requesting Harrow Council to implement a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in College Road, Harrow Weald, to deal with the problem of long-term parking and traffic flow

Presented by Councillor John Nickolay and signed by 15 people.

(ii)   Petition requesting improvements to pavements, pavement drives and the road in Uppingham Avenue, Stanmore

Presented by Councillor Manji Kara and signed by 321 people.

Having been advised that a late request for a deputation had been received, the Panel waived the requirement set out in paragraph 14.3 of the Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rules and

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 Athol Gardens, Pinner, in relation to agenda item 8(a) ‘Repaving of Athol Gardens Pinner – Reference from the meeting of Council held on 13 July 2006’.

(See also Minute 28).

The Panel received the above reference from the Council meeting held on 13 July 2006, and a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living), which responded to the concerns raised by residents.

An officer advised the Panel of the process undertaken to prioritise works and informed Members that officers had met with the Head Petitioner and agreed to undertake some minor repairs to the road.  The Panel was advised that the next bi-annual survey would take place in 2007 when roads below a certain standard would be identified and resources would be allocated on a worst first basis.  The time elapsed since a road was last repaved would not affect when the road would next be repaired as prioritisation was based on the condition of the road.

A Member queried the effectiveness of the herbicides currently being used to clear weeds.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the petition and response be noted;

(2)  Athol Gardens be looked at critically in the next survey;

(3)  officers inform the responsible officers of a Member’s concern regarding the use of herbicides.

(See also Minute 27).

The Panel received the above reference from the Council meeting held on 13 July 2006, and a report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living), which responded to the concerns raised by residents.  An officer explained that providing double yellow lines on both sides of the road would cause displacement of parked cars and that it might be necessary to accommodate parking on one side of the road.

Members discussed the Green Travel Plan and were advised by the Portfolio Holder for Urban Living, Public Realm, that the Vice-Principal of Harrow College was producing the College’s Green Travel Plan but this had not yet been received by Harrow Council.  An adviser suggested that the College be reminded that students under 18 could travel for free on London buses.

Members requested information on which schools had provided their Green Travel Plans.

RESOLVED:  That (1) it be noted that the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure would investigate the possibility of providing double yellow lines, consult with ward councillors and the local community as appropriate and report the findings and recommendations to the Panel and/or the Portfolio Holder;

(2)  officers contact the Vice-Principal of Harrow College for its Green Travel Plan and remind the College that students under 18 could travel for free on London buses;

(3)  officers provide Members with details of which schools had been asked to provide a Green Travel Plan, which schools had done so and which ones had not.

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living).

(See Recommendation 1).

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living).

(See Recommendation 2).

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living).

(See Recommendation 3).

Report of the Interim Head of Public Realm Infrastructure (Urban Living).

(See Recommendation 4).

Which cannot otherwise be dealt with.

a)                   Replacement of Metropolitan Line Trains

The Panel received information from officers on this matter.  An adviser explained that the new trains on the Metropolitan, Circle and Hammersmith and City Line would be standardised and subsequently there would be a net reduction of 30% of the seats on Metropolitan Line Trains.  The size of seats would be increased.  As there was a need for disabled passengers to be evacuated from the train through the back or front of the train, the gangway had to be widened.  As trains would run more frequently, there would be a net reduction in capacity of 5%.  The adviser informed the Panel that it had been suggested that a train start from Harrow on the Hill station every 15 minutes during rush hour to enable users of this and the following stations to be able to sit on the train.  The adviser explained that the Rail Liaison Group would be consulted about the shortlisted colour schemes and interiors and the needs of the partially sighted would be considered.

The adviser informed the Panel that he had made representations to get Northwick Park Station included in the accessibility programme for 2009 as it was currently in the post 2013 programme.  He reported that a London Underground Limited (LUL) accessibility officer would be meeting with him on 4 October and that Members were welcome to attend.

A motion was moved and seconded and upon being put to a vote it was

RESOLVED:  That (1) the outcome of talks held with senior officials of London Underground Limited (LUL) regarding seating in the new Metropolitan Line rolling stock be noted and that Mr Wood be thanked for the role he had played in making the arrangements;

(2)  it be noted that the increased frequency of trains should to some extent serve to offset the effect of reduced seating in individual trains, but that the Panel very much regretted suggestions to diminish this reduction have been rejected by LUL;

(3)  it be noted that, whilst the new rolling stock would be accessible for those in wheelchairs, the number of stations on the Metropolitan Line that would be totally accessible when these trains come into service was likely to be pitifully small;

(4)  that LUL be recommended to take action to rectify this situation as soon as possible.

b)                   Goodwill To All Junction

The Chairman advised Members that officers were available to discuss the plans for the Goodwill To All Junction after the meeting.

In accordance with the provisions of Advisory and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 12 (Part 4E of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:   At 10.00 pm to continue until 10.10 pm.