Agenda and minutes

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 that there were no Reserve Members in attendance at this meeting.

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 interests made.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2010 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

An Adviser to the Panel stated that the minutes were a detailed and true record of discussion at the previous meeting and a vote of congratulations was offered to the clerk.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

·                    page 5, paragraph 2, the word ‘Road’ to be inserted after the word ‘Pinner’.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 51 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put at this meeting.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received at this meeting.

To receive the following deputation under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution):

Request for half hour free parking in Pinner.

The Panel received the following deputations:

1.                  The Secretary of Pinner and District Business Club requesting half hour free parking in Pinner

The Chairman stated that this Deputation related to an item on the minutes.

A Representative of Pinner & District Business Club stated that the Residents and Business community of Pinner wished to express their concerns about the detrimental impact high parking charges in Pinner were having on businesses and residents, in comparison with other local High Streets in the area.

A Member of the Panel stated that half an hour free parking, if introduced, would need to be a borough-wide initiative.  However, he believed that the costs of such an initiative would be prohibitive.  He added that the current parking policy in Harrow was inconsistent and needed to be reviewed and reported back at a future meeting of the Panel.

A Member stated that the shopping parades in Belmont and Hatch End did not have parking charges, and agreed that the costs of extending this scheme borough-wide would be prohibitive.

A Member of the Panel stated that approximately 68% of Harrow’s total parking revenue came from one hour off-street parking charges, the loss of which would impact negatively on other Council Services. 

An Adviser to the Panel requested information on the costs of introducing half hour free parking throughout the borough.  An officer undertook to provide further information and revenue figures for parking across the borough to the next meeting of the Panel due to take place in November 2010.

A Member, who was not a member of the Panel, stated that Marks and Spencer were offering to refund car parking charges to customers in Pinner.  He added that numerous shops and businesses in Pinner had closed recently and that parking charges were a contributing factor to this.  He stated that a Council-led, borough-wide initiative was required to tackle this problem.

The Chairman stated that a petition on the same subject as the deputation had been presented at Council on 8 July 2010, and would be considered at the next ordinary meeting of Council in November and the results reported back to a future meeting of the Panel.

2.                  Clinicians of Bacon Lane Surgery requesting changes to the proposed prohibited parking times in the area surrounding Bacon Lane.

A Representative of the Clinicians from Bacon Lane Surgery requested changes to the proposed parking times in the area surrounding Bacon Lane to 1.00-2.00 pm to enable clinicians to drive to visit housebound patients between clinics and when emergency call outs are required.  This would enable clinicians to drive to work and so have their car at their disposal to undertake home visits.  He stated that the alternative would be for clinicians to commute by other means, which would significantly reduce the availability of resources available to undertake home visits, which may impact on the weekly number of home visits the practice is able to offer.  He also requested that the Council grant the Surgery two free and permanently allocated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment setting out details of the petitions received since the last meeting of the Panel, including investigations and findings where these had been undertaken.

Taunton Way – request for traffic measures

Officers reported that this was a busy, narrow road, containing many natural bends.  Officers had received many complaints about this road from residents, although there were already some traffic calming measures in place.

The Chairman suggested that the report relating to Taunton Way be forwarded to the lead signatory of the petition.

Eastcote Road/Kingsley Road – Roxeth Park entrance, request for safety measures

An officer reported that officers had reviewed the site and were proposing to introduce new road markings in light of the concerns raised by the petitioners.

Canons Corner – request for parking for shops

A Member requested that if a re-consultation was agreed then the consultation area should be smaller.

An officer reported that a video survey had been carried out at Canons Corner and a scheme of improvements would be proposed at a future meeting of the Panel.

Pinner Road – request to remove parking controls

An officer stated that there had been a site meeting with Councillors, representatives of Pinner Road Shops and Transport for London (TfL).  The intention was to carry out a review, but this would not be possible until early 2011, as the current programme was very busy.

A Member of the panel stated that the involvement of TfL and the Strategic Road Network (SRN) had become an issue only when parking restrictions had been extended to weekends.  He asked if TfL was prepared to allow the relaxation of parking restrictions.  He also asked if it would it be possible to negotiate with traders for the introduction of parking bays in their forecourts.

An adviser to the Panel thanked officers for their response to the petition.   He stated that he had witnessed numerous examples of double parking and disregard for double yellow lines in the Pinner Road area and requested that parking enforcement officers provide further information about this at the next meeting of the Panel.

Kynaston Wood, Harrow Weald – footway parking issues

An officer reported that parking enforcement in this area was a relatively recent phenomenon and recommended that a footway parking exemption scheme in Kynaston Wood should not be taken forward.

A Panel Member said it was a matter of regret that agreement had not been reached for the provision of parking bays along the Pinner Road frontage since that should address the problems being raised by the traders. Such action in Alexandra Avenue was proving successful for the Rayners Lane shopping centre and he recommended further consideration for Pinner Road. 

Officers undertook to include this in the programme review.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the report relating to Taunton Way be forwarded to the lead signatory to the petition for information;

(2)               information about parking enforcement in the vicinity of Pinner Road be provided at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received the report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment detailing the results of the Statutory Consultation on the proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the Burnt Oak Broadway area, associated parking restrictions at junctions and bends and proposed one way traffic for Park Way.

The Panel received two Deputations, the first from the Bacon Lane Clinicians Group and the second from the Bacon Lane Patients’ Committee, both requesting changes to the proposed prohibited parking times in the area surrounding Bacon Lane.

Minor amendments to page 48 item 2.35, were tabled at the meeting.

An officer stated that the map at appendix A showed that the consultation area covered a much wider area than the intended CPZ area.  This had been done to consult as many residents and businesses in the area as possible.  He added that the main proposals of the CPZ were supported by local residents, and the residents of Bacon Lane were particularly in favour of Pay and Display parking bays in the environs of Bacon Lane.

An officer explained that with the introduction of parking controls, a balance had to be reached between the requirements for free access by emergency services and between providing adequate parking for residents, visitors and businesses.  The scheme introduced was supported by many residents and served the majority of the community.

The officer added that following representations from staff and patients from Bacon Lane Surgery, officers had looked into the availability of parking, including the needs of Blue Badge holders parking in the vicinity of the Surgery.  The proposed CPZ  therefore  included:

·                    junction protection measures;

·                    one-way traffic flow in Park Way, which was a narrow road;

·                    double yellow lines and loading restrictions on one side of Park Way and parking restrictions on the other side of the road during the working day, which would allow loading and unloading to service the adjacent business  premises.

The officer added that all these measures had been supported by the majority of local residents.  With regard to the 100 submissions made by the Bacon Lane Patients’ Group, these were made in the form of standard letters forwarded to Councillor Susan Hall.  However, because these letters were submitted prior to the launch of the statutory consultation, they did not meet the criteria for statutory objections, and therefore they were not formally reflected in the consultation results.  However, they were taken into consideration as comments and shown at Appendix H of the report.

The officer stated that other issues such as parking in the vicinity of the new Krishna-Avanti school would be reviewed at a later date as part of a follow-up review because the school was not fully occupied.

Following questions from Members, an officer stated that:

·                    officers had taken measures to accommodate the needs of Bacon Lane Surgery and that the residents of Bacon Lane had been heavily in favour of the CPZ;

·                    the area behind Bacon Lane Surgery shown on the map at appendix A was in fact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment setting out the findings of the public consultation on a possible extension to the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) L in Rayners Lane and recommending the roads and area for which parking controls should be introduced based on resident responses subject to statutory consultation.

The Panel received a Deputation from residents of Waverley Road requesting amendments to the double yellow lines planned for 169-200 Waverley Road.

An officer explained that the existing CPZ L had not been reviewed for a number of years, adding that officers had undertaken substantial amounts of consultation with residents and businesses in the area, including holding an exhibition about the CPZ at the Zoroastrian Centre in Rayners Lane.  However, response rates from residents in some sections of some streets had been low and these areas had been re-consulted.  He added that during the consultation officers had received a request from residents for Oxleay Avenue to be removed from the existing CPZ.  In addition, requests for parking controls in Imperial Close had been received.  Therefore, both these streets were added to the consultation.  However, due to tight timescales, it had not been possible to include the results in the report.

An officer stated that Oxleay Road showed no majority support with 40 responses received, 9 showing support for the removal of controls and 31 not supporting the proposals.  Imperial Close showed no majority support for proposals to implement parking controls, 49 responses were received with 14 supporting parking controls and 35 against the proposal for parking controls.  As there was no majority support for change in either of these roads, officers recommended that no changes be progressed.

A Member, who was not a Member of the Panel, stated that she had received representations from residents against the implementation of double yellow lines in the island between Newquay Crescent and Lynton Road, and asked for some parking be allowed on sections of the island.  The Member asked for a reduction in the size of the island to be considered.  Officers agreed to review the parking on the island and if feasible, make the necessary revisions to the plans prior to the statutory consultation.  The Member was pleased with the proposals for double yellow lines around the island at Waverley Road/Yeading Avenue, which was not heavily parked anyway.

Another Member, who was not a Member of the Panel asked if the sightlines could be considered when reviewing the Newquay Crescent island parking.

A Member asked if the double yellow lines could be extended along Kings Road from the junction with Capthorne Avenue opposite the H10 bus stop which had already been asked for by the Ward Councillors at a meeting with an Officer.  The Officers said the views of the H9 and H10 operators would be sought on this matter and also a similar situation opposite a H10 bus stop north of the junction of Kings Road with Malvern Avenue.

The Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment setting out the findings of a public consultation on a possible extension of the Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) B & H in Stanmore and various parking changes within the existing CPZs.  It also recommended the roads for which parking controls were to be amended, introduced or removed, based on residents’ responses and should be progressed to statutory consultation and implementation. 

An officer stated that there had been consultation on parking controls in Green Lanes following petitions reported to the February 2010 meeting of the Panel.  Restrictions between 8.00 am and 6.30 pm Monday-Saturday had been proposed.  This measure had been supported by residents in the southern end of Green Lanes but rejected by residents living in the northern end of Green Lanes, and supported by only half of those residents of Culverlands Close who had responded.  He added that officers had attended a residents’ meeting but there had been no clear support for the proposed measures or any other parking controls.  Further consultation would be carried out later that week on proposals for a one way section on Green Lane north of Culverlands Close.  Any parking measures regarding Green Lane and Culverlands Close would be on hold until the results of this consultation were compiled.

The officer added that the report’s recommendation be modified to include 21?29 Rees Drive following two deputations presented at the February 2010 meeting of the Panel, and the amendment, as tabled by Members, be added to the resolution below.

Resolved to RECOMMEND: (to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety)  That

(1)               Stanmore Controlled Parking Zone changes, following statutory consultation, be implemented into the following roads as shown in the plans at Appendix E:

(a)               to remove the following roads from the Controlled Parking Zone while maintaining no waiting at any time restrictions at junctions, bends and narrowings as shown on the plans.

·           Berry Hill

·           Linden Close

·           Partridge Close

·           Rees Drive, Nos 21-29

(b)               to include the following roads in the Stanmore Controlled Parking Zone B:

·           Spring Lake

·           Stanmore Hill (from Hill Close to Green Lane)

(c)               to implement no waiting at any time (double yellow line) restrictions in the following roads:

·           Copley Road (from No 3 to No 33)

·           Du Cros Drive (from Pembroke Lodge to No 1)

·           Glebe Road and Glebe Court (from No 22 to No 28, from No 29 to No 37 and the whole of Glebe Court)

·           Gleneagles (from the junction of Gleneagles and Gordon Avenue to existing double yellow lines at the junction of Rosedale Close and Gordon Avenue)

·           Morecambe Gardens (from No 5 covering the turning head)

·           Sunningdale Close (with the junction of Gordon Avenue)

(d)               to convert sections of double yellow lines to single yellow lines (hours of control 3.00 – 4.00 pm Monday-Friday) in:-

·           Rectory Lane - for a distance 4 metres either side of the path leading to St Johns Church, and for a distance 8 metres west of the junction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received the report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment setting out the findings of a public consultation on a possible extension of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) M in South Harrow and possible loading bay facilities in Northolt Road, and recommending the roads/area for which parking controls should be progressed to statutory consultation and implementation, based on business and resident responses.

An officer reported that the South Harrow CPZ had been extended a few years previously and a petition had been received from residents of Corbins Lane requesting the inclusion of the road in the CPZ and requesting loading restrictions in Northolt Road.  However, there had been no majority support for parking controls in Stoud Gate immediately adjacent to Northolt Park Station.

In response to a question, an officer stated that the two loading bays in Northolt Road would only have loading restrictions until 7.00 pm.

Resolved to RECOMMEND: (to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety)  That

(1)               the South Harrow Controlled Parking Zone proposals be extended and implemented into the following roads:

·                    Corbins Lane;

·                    Leathsail Road.

(2)               the loading bay proposal be implemented in Northolt Road, outside No. 391.

(3)               officers be authorised to make minor amendments and finalise the detailed design of the parking controls in accordance with Appendix B, notify all consultees of the consultation results and decision and how they can make final statutory objections to the advertised proposals, undertake statutory consultation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, advertise traffic regulation orders and implement the scheme, subject to consideration of any objections.

(4)               the Service Manager, Traffic and Highway Network Management, be authorised to determine any objections to the scheme received as a result of the statutory consultation or otherwise in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

Reason for Decision: To control parking in South Harrow.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment clarifying the decision making processes required for approving and delivering transportation schemes and confirming a decision making process to be used for future schemes. 

An officer explained that the existing decision making processes in use would not be affected and that an additional officer decision making process would be introduced.  This would allow improved delivery of schemes where routine or operational decisions, that were non contentious, could be made by officers in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder.

Following a suggestion from an adviser to the Panel, it was agreed that there would be regular meetings between officers and members of the London Cycle Campaign Group in Harrow to discuss cycling issues.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               there be regular meetings between officers and members of the London Cycle Campaign Group in Harrow to discuss cycling issues;

(2)               the report be noted.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 48.2 (Part 4D of the Constitution) at 9.59 pm a proposal to extend the length of the meeting until 10.15 pm was moved, seconded and agreed.

RESOLVED: That the meeting continue until 10.15 pm.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received the report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment, regarding progress being made to join the Street Works Management, London Permit Scheme.  This scheme would enable Harrow to improve the co-ordination and management of street works and activities on the highway network. 

An officer stated that the London Permit Scheme, which was already in operation in other boroughs, improved the way street works were managed and permitted officers to better fulfil their Network Management responsibilities.  A report would go to Cabinet in November to seek formal approval to join the scheme.  The scheme is intended to become operational in 2011/12.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel considered a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment on the Capital Programme Update, Traffic and Parking Schemes.  This included schemed funded by Transport for London and schemes included in Harrow’s Capital Programme. 

An officer reported that following a deputation from Nower Hill School pupils at the July 2010 meeting of the Panel, modifications to signal timings, in conjunction with TfL, had been made to allow smoother traffic flow and a new right-hand turning filter from Pinner Road into Headstone Lane. 

The officer stated that:

·                    works on the High Road, Harrow Weald scheme had been delayed but were due for completion shortly;

·                    the planning application relating to the Goodwill To All Public House had recently been approved;

·                    on-street parking provision close to the shopping parade on the north east side of Headstone Gardens was being investigated;

·                    Honeypot Lane, Local Safety Scheme was awaiting completion of illuminated regulatory signs;

·                    implementation of a 20 mph zone associated with Stag Lane School and the proposed one way system in Colliers Drive had received approval;

·                    the Earlsmead School 20 mph zone had also received majority support and would be taken forward.  However the Arundel Drive one way proposal had been omitted from the scheme because of no clear majority.

The officer added that there would be another stakeholders’ meeting regarding the ‘Mollison Way – Streets for People’ scheme and workshops were being planned in conjunction with TfL, who support the scheme.

The Chairman stated that funding for this scheme was dependant on the agreement of TfL and on the results of the Government’s Funding Review due to be released in November 2010.

An adviser to the Panel stated that the Station Road Flagship Project involved re-routing buses. TfL had not consented to the Council’s proposals but did  carry out their own consultation which included some of the Council’s suggestions, the results of which were due to be released shortly.

With regard to Mass Action, an officer stated that a scheme was proposed in the Streatfield Road service road close to the existing pelican crossing to deal with the high number of pedestrian accidents at that location.

An officer stated that Harrow Council would be providing two electric car charging point at the Civic Centre Visitors Car Park, the installation costs of which would be subsidised by TfL.

Following questions from Members of the Panel, an officer stated that the works in Rayners Lane would be suspended during the Christmas 2010 period; another officer confirmed that a 20 mph zone around Cannon Lane School would be included in the works programme for the following year subject to funding being made available from TfL.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted