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:-

RESOLVED:  In accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 40.1 – Part 4D of the Constitution, the Panel agreed that the following Members could speak at the meeting:

Councillor Husain Akhtar, Councillor Camilla Bath, Councillor Stephen Greek, Councillor Joyce Nickolay and Councillor Bill Stephenson.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Panel;

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 6 – Information Report: Petitions

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she sat on the Board of the London Fire Brigade.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item  10 – Traffic and Parking Schemes Programme

Councillor Mrinal Choudhury declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Local Authority appointed governor at Elmgrove Primary and Nursery School and Ward Councillor for Burnt Oak.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Mrs Vina Mithani declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was Ward Councillor for Kenton West.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 October 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 October 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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 question was received:

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 or deputations were received at this meeting.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report which set out the results of the Statutory Consultation carried out in July-August 2012 on Pinner Road - County Roads, proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) U extension, and the proposals to regulate parking along Neptune Road with a variety of parking controls.  An officer advised that:

·                    following representations from stakeholders, these streets were re?consulted this year;

·                    Devonshire Road, at its northern end had a proposed CPZ with residents bays on the Eastern side but free bays on the Western side.   Following petitions and analysis of results it was proposed that residents would be re-consulted on having residents bays on both sides of road and the results would be reported to the Panel;

·                    Dorset Road now had majority support for the CPZ, however, results and comments from the consultation showed that there was support for only a partial extension of the CPZ in Oxford Road near Pinner Road;

·                    Rutland and Bedford Roads showed no support for the CPZ and therefore no additonal parking controls would be implemented there;

·                    Neptune Road, which had a mixture of both residential and retail units, suffered from displaced commuter parking and residents and traders had complained about not being able to load and unload their vehicles.  Officers were proposing a mixture of measures comprising yellow lines, double yellow lines, pay and display bays and loading bays, whilst complying with Transport for London’s request for clear emergency access to the railway lines.

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

·                    his team had not been made aware that 6 disabled residents had been moved into the Neptune Point development by the Council and that currently there were only 2 disabled parking spaces available within the building basement parking area.  He undertook to look into the possibility of further disabled bays being implemented outside the development;

·                    only the northern end of Devonshire Road would be re-consulted regarding the implementation of a CPZ on both sides.

A Member, who was not a Member of the Panel, stated that he was grateful to officers for their hard work, courtesy and professionalism in progressing the scheme and for taking on board the views of residents and traders.  Parking problems in the area of the scheme had been a long-standing issue in his ward and although the CPZ would not resolve all parking related issues, it would reduce commuter parking, which would benefit local residents.  He requested that the scheme be implemented as soon as possible and the re?consultation of Devonshire Road be prioritised.

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

That the parking scheme be implemented as set out below:

(1)               the Controlled Parking Zone U permit parking for residents operating Monday to Friday, 11.00 am - 12 noon be extended to incorporate the following roads:

·                    Oxford Road (up to and including property numbers 28 & 33)

·                    Dorset Road

(2)               the Controlled Parking Zone U permit parking for residents operating Monday to Friday, 11.00 am -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report which set out the results of the statutory consultation regarding parking proposals for the Canons Park area undertaken in August 2012.  An officer advised that the proposals had taken into account feedback from extensive stakeholder meetings and both a public and statutory consultation.  He added that:

·                    officers had received reports that parking problems outside the station parade had been exacerbated by the Hitchin lane development, where there was currently a one hour parking ban and officers were proposing the introduction of Pay and Display (P&D) bays there;

·                    restrictions would apply Monday to Saturday in Donnefield Road, which would ease parking for residents and avoid further displacement of vehicles from Hitchin Lane development into the road;

·                    only those proposals that had been part of the statutory consultation could be progressed;

·                    some streets would have the new style CPZs, where conventional bays and lines were omitted in favour of clear signage stating that there was resident parking only and set out the times.  These had been introduced in Stanmore and West Harrow and were deemed to be successful;

·                    in Buckingham Road a CPZ had not been progressed as residents had requested single yellow lines in order to deter commuter parking;

·                    congestion issues around Bromefield and Honeypot Lane shops would be assisted by double yellow lines and would alleviate the concerns of the fire brigade about emergency access;

·                    double yellow lines would be implemented on all corners and junctions with slight amendments, which took into account vehicle tracking evidence, and any concerns raised by the emergency services, traders and residents.

Following questions and comments from Members of the Panel, the officer advised that:

·                    the new style CPZs were already in place in some areas and were now nationally approved.  These were used mainly in short roads and cul-de-sacs. Both Enforcement and observation exercises had not revealed any infringement of these by motorists.  The officer undertook to carry out further surveys to ensure that signage regarding these was clearly visible and whether these were being adhered to;

·                    the levels of engagement with a public consultation were generally much higher than with a statutory consultation.  This was because there was far more open engagement with all relevant stakeholders at the public consultation stage, and those consulted were able to both comment and influence the formulation of the proposals.  Therefore any proposals contained in the statutory consultation documents were formulated on the basis of feedback from the public consultation, and were a means of informing residents about which proposals would be implemented.  The officer report highlighted any concerns raised by consultees and officers had carried out a technical appraisal of the concerns raised and had amended the proposals where appropriate.

A Member, who was not a Member of the Panel, made the following points:

·                    the residents in his ward had reported that officers had been helpful and could see the rationale behind the proposals.  However, they had requested that officers and the Panel should carefully consider any effects of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which set out a comprehensive method of assessing and prioritising works in order to ensure that the borough developed work programmes that met its statutory duties as well as targeting areas of greatest need.  An officer stated that formalising the process for prioritising works would enable a clear audit trail and therefore make the process more open and transparent as well as enable better performance monitoring of the programme.

Following questions and comments from Members of the Panel, the officer advised that:

·                      the programme entry prioritisation system was based on a number of key categories, each with its own set of operational criteria, which would then be used to develop ranking lists;

·                      once a service or work request was received, it would be assessed and ranked against these criteria.  Those with the highest rankings would be included in a future work programme;

·                      the assessment process would enable officers to take a strategic long-term and balanced approach to developing future works programmes.  It would also provide guidance to officers, Members and the public about a consistent set of priorities which accorded with the Council’s Local Implementation Plan and Corporate Plan;

·                      in respect of the programme category criteria it was clarified that the category ‘vulnerable road users’, included a wide variety of people who might require assistance, for example, the disabled, elderly, children, and did not specifically relate to cyclists for example;

·                      in respect of the performance monitoring and targets it was agreed that bullet point 5 on page 207 of the agenda would be re-phrased to make it clear that the aim was to reduce the number of motorcycle accidents, the other performance targets would also be clarified in a similar way;

·                      in respect of road safety education it was clarified that officers regularly went into schools in Harrow to give out road safety advice.  The Council also offered cycle training for both adults and children, undertook regular road safety poster campaigns and worked in partnership with sports organisations, the police, neighbouring boroughs and TfL to raise awareness about pedestrian and road safety;

·                      an officer clarified that  the TfL funding for Harrow schemes in 2011/12 included an allocation of £1,000,000 for the Mollison Way area based scheme but that in 2012/13 there was no allocation for area based schemes and the overall funding level was significantly less in comparison as a consequence.

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

That

(1)               the programme entry procedure be introduced for prioritising all works programmes;

(2)               programme entry guidance be made a publicly available document on Harrow’s website; and

(3)               any changes to the programme entry procedure be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety.

Reason for Recommendation: The Council received many requests for works to be undertaken and difficult decisions needed to be made to determine which schemes provided the greatest benefits to the borough due to the limited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Divisional Director, Environmental Services which set out details of the petitions that had been received since the last meeting of the Panel and provided details of the Council’s investigations and findings where these had been undertaken.

Officers made the following points about the petitions listed below:

Weald School - Objection to 20 mph zone

The informal consultation relating to this scheme had been reported to the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel meeting in September 2012 and residents would have a further opportunity to express their concerns at the statutory consultation stage.

Petitioners had raised a number of concerns and officers had made a number of revisions to the scheme:

·                    speed surveys had revealed that vehicle speeds in the roads proposed to be included in the 20 mph zone were above the recommended threshold and therefore speed cushions were considered necessary in order to make the zone self-enforcing;

·                    the one way proposals outside the school entrance in Robin Hood Dive had been omitted from the revised scheme;

·                    yellow lines were being proposed at junctions to prevent vehicles from parking within 10 metres of a junction, which was a well established principle of the Highway Code;

·                    officers would work with schools to promote the advisory one way scheme, which operated in the vicinity of the school at peak times;

·                    it would not be possible to introduce resident only access to roads that were public highway;

·                    it was not permitted to use LIP funds for highway maintenance projects.

Speed surveys carried out by officers had revealed higher speeds than specified, and traffic calming measures such as speed cushions were considered as these were effective in reducing speeds in residential areas and had proved successful in other parts of the borough. 

Following questions and comments from Members of the Panel, an officer advised that:

·                    the petition had been received during the public consultation stage and prior to the statutory consultation.  Several of the signatories to the petition had indicated their agreement with the proposals for a 20 mph zone in their consultation responses;

·                    speed tables were more expensive than speed cushions and officers were operating within a budget;

·                    a 20 mph zone was only effective when there was self-regulation by motorists as well as enforcement.  These zones were targeted in areas around schools and officers had accommodated feedback from residents and had made amendments to the scheme on the basis of this feedback.

An advisor to the Panel stated that it might be more practicable to implement a single speed cushion on each road, rather than two or three as this would make access for emergency vehicles easier.  He also requested that yellow lines be implemented on either side of the cushion to prevent vehicles being parked there.

An officer advised that the design and size of a cushion was dictated by the width of the road where it would be implemented.  He added that residents of the Avenue had requested to be included in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Divisional Director, Environmental Services which provided an update on the progress with delivering the 2012/13 programme of traffic and parking schemes, including schemes funded by Transport for London (TfL) and those included in Harrow’s Capital Programme.

An officer made the following points about some of the schemes:

Stanmore Broadway - linking of traffic signals

There had been a slight delay with TfL validating the scheme and officers had recently met with residents of Green Lane to discuss a road closure.  Any closure would have a potential impact on the Stanmore Hill junction.

Accident remedial scheme - Old Redding

·                    Personal injury accident (PIAs) figures for this road were of concern.  There had been several motorcycle accidents and it was noted that motorcylists often tended to drive through the gaps in speed cushions at high speed.  The accident cluster was on a section of road near to the bends in Old Redding.  Officers had liaised with fire brigade who had indicated that speed platforms were easier for fire engines to negotiate.  Therefore, the height of speed humps on Old Redding had been reduced to 50 mm or 2 inches, which was the minimum legal requirement for vertical deflection.  Speed cameras and time over distance cameras were not feasible on this road for various reasons and a number of safety measures introduced four years ago had proved less effective in reducing either vehicle speeds or the number PIAs.

A Member, who was not a Member of the Panel, made the following points about the area around Roxbourne School with regard to proposals for a 20 mph zone in the roads around the school:

·                    barriers had been erected on three sides of Tolgate Road, at the end near Widdecombe Avenue had the road, which had made it safer;

·                    the end of Malvern Road near Field End Road was a busy junction and traffic queues frequently backed up along it and it would benefit form similar barriers;

·                    local parents were opposed to the implementation of single yellow lines and restrictions outside the school;

·                    the current restrictions should be changed from Monday to Saturday 8.30 am ? 6.30 pm to Monday to Friday 8.30 am ? 4.30 pm;

·                    two of the streets in the scheme, Widdecombe Avenue and Clovelly Way had no houses on them;

·                    residents were also opposed to speed humps on access roads such as Yeading Avenue, which was busy at school times and quiet at other times;

·                    officers should carry out vehicle speed monitoring exercise on roads with speed humps to see if these were successful in reducing vehicle speeds;

·                    the consultation questionnaire could be made more explicit and be amended to read:  ‘Are you in favour of the proposed 20 mph zone?  If yes, then which form of traffic calming measure would you prefer?’

·                    minimal traffic calming measures had been implemented in the vicinity of Welldon Park, Earlsmead, Longfield, Cannon Lane, Newton Farm Schools and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

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

RESOLVED: At 9.59 pm to continue until 10.10 pm.