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 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 interest was declared:

Agenda Item 13 – West Harrow Controlled Parking Zone Review:  Results of Consultation

Councillor Susan Hall declared a personal interest in that she was on the Board of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2011, be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to the interim advisers being recorded as having been present at the meeting.

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 the following public questions were received:

1.

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 deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

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

To receive the reference from the Cabinet meeting held on 21 July 2011 on the following:

(a)   petition relating to parking controls in Stanley Road, Sherwood Avenue, Eastcote Avenue and Roxeth Green Avenue, South Harrow;

(b)   petition relating to the re-surfacing of Orchard Grove, Queensbury;

(c)   petition relating to parking provision on Pinner Road, Pinner.

The Panel received the following references from the Cabinet meeting of 21 July 2011:

1.                  Petition relating to parking controls in Stanley Road, Sherwood Avenue, Eastcote Avenue and Roxeth Green Avenue, South Harrow;

2.                  Petition relating to the re-surfacing of Orchard Grove, Queensbury;

3.                  Petition relating to parking provision on Pinner Road, Pinner.

Additionally, the following reference from the Cabinet meeting of 8 September 2011 was tabled at the meeting, which due to the proximity of meetings had not been available for circulation with the agenda. It was important that the receipt of the reference was not delayed to the Panel’s next meeting in November.

4.                  Petition from residents in and around Oxford Road, Wealdstone.

An officer informed the Panel that he had contacted the lead petitioner for further clarification because the terms of this petition had been unclear.  He explained that the petition related to an objection to the removal of the Permit Parking Bays and the implementation of No Parking or Loading on the North Side of Oxford Road between 8.00 am - 6.30 pm from Monday to Saturday.

The officer explained that originally the advertised proposal was for double yellow lines but these had been reduced to single yellow lines to address objections that had been received.  The revised proposals would still deal with the congestion at the worst recorded times and would address previous issues about the observation time before a penalty ticket could be issued as they would also be able to be enforced by CCTV.  The proposals would now allow residents to park outside the control hours and was considered to be the best compromise available.  Following a question from the chairman the panel agreed that officers should respond to the petitioner along these lines.

RESOLVED:  That the references be received and noted.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

The Panel received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services, which set out the position regarding the appointment of non-voting advisers since the Panel’s meeting in June.  Members were asked to consider and agree a revised approach.

Panel Members requested the interim advisers present to leave the room during the discussion and decision-making on this item.

The Chairman stated that this report sought to make the process of selection and appointment of advisers more transparent and in line with good practice guidelines.  He stated that the intention was to widen the pool of advisers in order that the Panel would have access to the relevant expert advice to aid its work.

Following discussion by Panel Members, it was agreed that all the organisations listed at appendix 1 be invited to submit nominations by end of October, so that the responses could be presented at the next meeting of the Panel in November 2011.

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

That

(1)               all organisations set out at appendix 1 to the report, be invited to nominate two representatives prior to the Panel recommending adviser appointments to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rule (Part 4D of the Constitution - Rule 37.4) at its next meeting;

(2)               a further report regarding the appointment of advisers be submitted to the 23 November meeting of the Panel;

(3)               in the interim, the advisers who served on the Panel during 2010/11, continue to make contributions on an informal basis at meetings of the Panel.

Reason for Decision:  To appoint advisers to the Panel for the 2011/12 Municipal Year, to assist in the work of the Panel.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report summarising the anticipated impact of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and other cultural events such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations and the Notting Hill Carnival, on residents, business and the transport system in Harrow.

An officer made the following points:

·                    Transport for London (TfL) had indicated that during July and August 2012 there would be increased pressure on the highway network because of the creation of an Olympic Route Network (ORN) for use by the Games family, which was being developed by TfL.  This additional pressure would have a knock-on effect on Harrow as the ORN would  extend to Wembley.

·                    The Jubilee line, which connects most of the Olympic sites, would be heavily used during the summer 2012.  The termini at Stanmore, Canons Park and Queensbury stations would be vulnerable to additional on-street parking at these stations by people looking to do part of their journeys by car both from within and outside London.

·                    The TfL transport strategy for the Olympics did not appear to take into consideration any impact on outer London boroughs and that London Councils were lobbying TfL for action on behalf of Boroughs.

·                    TfL had acknowledged that transport systems would not cope with the anticipated demand to travel and that a key strategy was to reduce that demand through the use of information systems and publicity to encourage passengers and road users to use alternative or different travel patterns.

·                    Disruption caused by the games locally in Harrow could be mitigated by implementing the following measures:

- temporary parking controls at Jubilee Line stations and parking displacement controls;

- seeking special dispensation from the Department for Transport to use measures to manage on-street parking, similar to those employed by Brent Council on event days.

It was noted that:

·                    officers were currently bidding for additional funds in the harrow capital programme for 2012/13 and put the estimate of the total costs at £70k;

·                    it would be difficult to predict the exact start and finish times of the events;

·                    if agreed, these measures could be funded from Harrow’s Capital Programme or other funding options could be investigated.

An adviser to the Panel stated that congestion could have serious health and safety implications and it was important to remember that although the borough of Brent would be the destination for most passengers, Harrow would be a transit point.

Following questions from Members of the Panel, an officer stated that:

·                    8 football matches were planned to take place at Wembley Stadium and there would be 15 consecutive days of events at Wembley;

·                    neither Brent Council nor TfL had finalised their plans with regard to routes or emergency back-up plans for the Wembley venue;

·                    the Wembley Stadium exit route would probably pass through Preston Road towards Harrow;

·                    relaxing parking restrictions, rather than benefiting business, would have a disproportionately negative impact on Harrow’s roads and residents.

A Member of the Panel stated that the Harrow Olympics Committee was considering expert advice  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment setting out the results of consultations about parking in the Pinner Road and County Road Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) review area.

An officer stated that the report covered three distinct key components, namely reviewing parking on Pinner Road in the vicinity of businesses, reviewing the County Road CPZ, and proposals for the Neptune Road estate, which had been postponed because of the uncertainty over a major adjacent redevelopment.  The Pinner Road review had commenced with an analysis of data about commercial deliveries and customer movements and patterns in the area.

A back benching Member congratulated officers for engaging with local Councillors, residents and traders regarding parking controls on Pinner Road.  He noted that, if implemented, the Scheme would be reviewed in 12 months’ time.  He stated that the CPZ would go some way to solving the parking problems in the area.  He also made the following points and suggestions:

·                    some of the Double Yellow Lines (DYLs) had been shortened following consultation with residents;

·                    Pinner Road shops were unique and individual in their character and attracted shoppers from all over Harrow and outside the borough;

·                    DYLs and restricted loading times, coupled with the recession, had had a detrimental effect on Pinner Road businesses;

·                    the traders had indicated that lack of adequate parking provision was the most significant of these problems, and requested the Panel to progress the Scheme as quickly as possible as he understood that the final approval rested with Transport for London (TfL) and the process for agreement with TfL was likely to be lengthy;

·                    the loading restrictions on the north side of Pinner Road be reduced and the timings during weekends also be reduced.

Following questions from Members of the Panel, an officer stated that:

·                    as Pinner Road was part of TfL’s strategic road network it would be very difficult to predict TfL’s response to a request for one of their strategic routes being modified;

·                    TfL had recently set up a group to evaluate ‘strategic corridors’ such as this;

·                    the North side of Pinner Road, where all the side roads were located, had been the site of a number of accidents.  The restrictions had been designed to address this issue.  Since the introduction of these and other local safety measures the number of personal injury accidents had been reduced significantly;

·                    fresh surveys and the monitoring of traffic flows over a 7-day period indicated that traffic flows along Pinner Road were significant on weekends with flows slightly higher than weekday peaks and lasting over much of the day.  The loading restrictions took into account modern traffic flows and enabled traffic to flow with reduced delays.

He added that if the Scheme was approved then it would go to statutory consultation and then to TfL for agreement.  TfL may request further data or suggest refinements to the Scheme.

A Member of the Panel stated that Pinner Road traders were being affected by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment setting out the results of the consultation regarding the West Harrow Controlled Parking Zone Review (CPZ).

An officer stated that the report had been delayed due to a number of reasons, one of them being that the West Harrow Residents’ Group (WHRG) had only completed their investigations in May 2011.

He added that officers took a ‘consistent’ approach to survey results, which meant that only schemes with majority support from residents were progressed.  They had consulted residents within the CPZ to see if they wished to remain in the CPZ and had consulted residents outside the CPZ to see if they wished to be included.  He added that the Double Yellow Lines (DYLs) trial results had been reported at the June meeting of the Panel.  He also made the following points:

·                    the two areas of implementation were south of Blenheim Road, where there was majority support for being included in the CPZ;

·                    under a trial by the Department of Transport (DfT) some single roads and cul-de-sacs had been allowed “permit holders only” signs at the entrance and without the normal bays and signs and markings however,  this measure would not be appropriate for all roads;

·                    DfT had given permission for two other sites in the borough under this trial  and officers were awaiting results of the statutory consultation on these;

·                    some residents in The Gardens had shown support for the existing CPZ and had requested an extension to the hours of operation, however, this was not recommended to be progressed because of the ‘consistent’ approach officers were taking, in that there was no majority support for these in the consultation results;

·                    roads surrounding Whitmore Road were suffering from increased weekday and weekend traffic and inconsiderate parking and these roads would be included in the CPZ proposals.

The Chairman stated that following the two site trials using a refuse vehicle and fire appliance, between 8-11 parking spaces had been released.  He said officers had to strike a balance between health and safety issues and residents’ wishes.  The majority of residents were in favour of the Scheme, which would be reviewed in 6 to 8 months’ time.

Another Member of the Panel stated that she was pleased with the results of the consultation as it demonstrated that officers had engaged with residents and taken their views into consideration and the Scheme would make the area safer.  She added that residents from The Gardens had indicated they would like two separate restriction times and asked if the WHRG had been consulted.

An officer responded that he had been approached by the lead member of The Gardens Committee and could not explain the low level of response from those streets.  Officers could include a mini consultation aimed at residents of those streets as part of the statutory consultation.  He stated that the WHRG had not submitted any further response.

A Member back-benching made the following points:

·                    there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment, which outlined the outcomes of consultations related to parking in the Marlborough Hill area.

An officer stated that a consultation had been undertaken following the presentation of a petition at the June meeting of the Panel signed by residents and visitors of Marlborough Hill.  He added that given that the consultation responses, comments and objections raised by residents, there was not adequate justification to proceed with changes to permit parking in the Marlborough Hill area, but that the proposals, as illustrated in the plan at appendix A to the report should be progressed.

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

That

(1)               the existing zone boundaries and address lists for Controlled Parking Zones C and K be retained;

(2)               dual-zone bays in Rusland Park Road to resolve existing confusing layout be implemented, and the revised bays be available to both Zone C and Zone K permit holders only during the hours 8.30 am ? 6.30 pm Monday-Saturday, as shown on the plan at appendix A to the report;

(3)               the length of Zone C permit parking bay be modified and at any time waiting and loading restrictions on Milton Road be implemented to help prevent obstruction of droppedkerbs and vehicle accesses, as shown on plan at appendix A;

(4)               four pay and display parking bays in Sandridge Close be removed and at any time waiting restrictions be  implemented together with the introduction of loading restrictions Monday-Friday 7.00 – 10.00 am and 4.00 – 7.00 pm, to resolve vehicle conflict at the entrance to Harrow & Wealdstone Station car park, as shown on the plan at appendix A to the report;

(5)               ten additional Pay & Displayparking spaces in Marlborough Hill be provided adjacent to the Civic Centre campus, with operational hours Monday-Saturday 8.00 am ? 6.30 pm at the same tariff as the existing bays in Sandridge Close, accompanied by at any time waiting restrictions on Marlborough Hill east of Barons Mead, as shown on the plan at appendix A to the report;

(6)               a 24 hour loading bay on Railway Approach outside Moon House be introduced as shown on plan at appendix A to the report;

(7)               traffic officers be authorised to take the necessary steps to implement the above resolutions;

(8)               officers write to all residents in the consultation area advising them of the outcome and the Portfolio Holder’s final decision;

(9)               the 13 statutory objections received in respect to the proposals, which were all in opposition to the proposed Controlled Parking Zone changes in Badminton Close, Marlborough Hill and Milton Road be upheld, and  officers write to all objectors notifying them of the resolution of their objection;

(10)          officers make minor amendments where required for technical or practical reasons.

Reason for Decision:  To control parking in the existing Wealdstone CPZ Zone C and K in response to residents’ requests for changes to the existing parking arrangements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment outlining petitions that had been received since the meeting of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel on 23 June.

Mollison Way – Request for double yellow lines

An officer stated that all requests for Double Yellow Lines (DYLs) from residents were assessed and scored according to a formula.  This site did not meet the criteria for being selected as a priority site.  However, it would be considered within the next 6 to 9 months as part of the Burnt Oak Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

Stanley Road, South Harrow – Request for additional parking controls

An officer stated that some of the parking issues raised by the petition were due to the Biro House development.  Officers had requested the release of the Section 106 monies (S106), but the developers had refused as they did not consider that the justification for the release of the money had been met.  Without the release of these funds it was proving difficult to identify and quantify the extent of the parking problem.

An officer reported that a small amount of money had been identified to allow some surveys to take place to quantify the problem and these would be progressed quickly and submitted to the developer.

A Member stated that the residents of Stanley Road had experienced a great deal of upheaval due to the development.  The Chairman requested officers to seek appropriate legal advice about the recovery of the S106 monies.

Pinner Road, Harrow – Support of Parking provision on Pinner Road

An officer stated that further details about this petition had been provided under agenda item 12, ‘Pinner Road and County Roads Controlled Parking Zone Review, Results of Consultation’.

Marlborough Hill, Wealdstone – Objection to Advertised Parking proposals

An officer stated that residents had been consulted following receipt of a previous petition which appeared to be contrary to the one recently received.  Further details were set out under agenda item 14, ‘Marlborough Hill Controlled Parking Zone Review Results of Statutory Consultation’.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment which provided an update on progress with completing last year’s programme (2010/11) and the current programme of transport schemes and initiatives (2011/12) in the Capital Programme.  This included schemes funded by Transport for London (TfL) and schemes included in Harrow’s own Capital Programme.

An officer reported that

·                    the Stanmore Hill Scheme had begun last year.  However, TfL had since advised that the project may overrun into the next financial year due to the workload priorities associated with the 2012 Olympics;

·                    some amendments to the speed cushions had been made in Dalkeith Grove and additional cycle lanes introduced.  The consultation regarding the contra-flow cycle lane on College Road would finish at the end of September and be reported at a future meeting of the Panel;

·                    the Mollison Way area based scheme was progressing quickly and the north side footways had been completed.  The project was on track and officers had received positive feedback from the community;

·                    speed cushions were being introduced in the Cannon Lane 20 mph zone and the scheme was progressing well;

·                    speed cushions were being introduced in the Priestmead 20 mph zone and that no objections had been received at the statutory consultation stage.

Following questions from Members of the Panel, an officer stated that:

·                    the Kingshill Scheme was aimed at reducing congestion in the whole area.  Officers had monitored traffic flows and implemented measures to reduce eastbound traffic.  They were also in discussions with Brent Council regarding the right turn ban on Kenton Road;

·                    the contra-flow cycle route was a footway rather than a carriageway and the scheme was due to be discussed at the next Traffic Liasion meeting. London Buses had agreed the plans;

·                    the Canons Corner Scheme which was part of the larger Stanmore CPZ review had been due to go to statutory consultation, however, it had been delayed as a result of the by-elections in Canons Ward in May and  in Stanmore Park in July.  The earliest the consultation could have been carried out would have been July or August, however, major consultations were not carried out during major holiday periods;

·                    the request from traders in Mollison Way for temporary parking measures to be implemented would be investigated.

With regard to the ‘rat-run’ by the no entry sign by Stanmore Library, which had been compounded by current road works in the area, an officer stated he would pass this information to the traffic enforcement team.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 48.2 (Part 4D) of the Constitution.

RESOLVED: At 9.59 pm to continue until 10.15 pm.