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 Members:-

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

Councillor Kairul Kareema Marikar.

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.

Agenda Item 10 – Controlled Parking Zones and Parking Schemes – annual Review

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

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record subject to the amendments listed below:

Page 1 to be amended to read:

The second paragraph on page 16 be amended to read:

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

·                    request to reduce the double yellow lines proposed in Torbay Road north of the barrier where it joins Widdecombe Avenue fromthree sides to two sides;

·                    request to have double yellow lines at the junction of Malvern Avenue and Field End Road as  traffic often backs up into Field End Road which is a main through road;

·                    reduction of the parking restrictions proposed along Waverley Road at the back entrance of the school as this would cause more parking across residents’ driveways which was already an issue between parents and residents;

·                    request to change the times of the proposed parking restrictions from 8.30 am – 6.30 pm Monday to Saturday to 8.30 am – 4.30 pm Monday to Friday;

·                    request to have alternative speed reducing methods instead of road humps in Clovelly Way, which had no houses and was at least a half-mile from the school, and Dunster Way which was very short;

·                    consider the necessity to have the proposed road humps on the upper end of Torbay Road, Waverley Road and Yeading Avenue, as they were access roads only and consequently very quiet except at school times;

·                    to have speed monitoring exercises carried out on the roads with road humps to see if these had been 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 nearby schools, such as Welldon Park, Earlsmead, Longfield, Cannon Lane and Newton Farm, and the same should apply to Roxbourne School;

·                    request for officers and Panel Members to carry out a site visit which would help them to understand the traffic issues in the area and inform their decision-making.

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 or deputations received at the 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 the receipt of the following petition, which was referred to the Divisional Director Environment and Enterprise for consideration:

Petition presented by the Chairman on behalf of residents of Somervell Road, Harrow, containing 11 signatures, with the following terms of reference:

‘We the undersigned would like the Council to extend the placement of footpath/drive to no _ and including across the road.  We think our pathway/drive are just as “bad” as where they have chosen to repair.  When leaflets were dropped it didn’t say where on Somervell, it just said “Somervell Road” scored highly enough to carry out these reconstructions.  Please reconsider!’

Report of the Corporate Director Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which set out details of the public and statutory consultation exercises carried out in November / December 2012 regarding the introduction of parking controls in various residential roads in Hatch End and the introduction of parking charges for Grimsdyke Car Park and on the Uxbridge Road near the station.  The report recommended that the parking charges be implemented and further statutory consultation in the residential roads be undertaken.

An officer highlighted the following areas of the report:

·                    objections received during the statutory consultation related mainly to concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on traders in the area and the perception that the proposed 20 pence per hour charge for the car park was too low and would not cover all associated costs;

·                    there had been majority support for the proposals from residents in the roads surrounding Hatch End station;

·                    officers had attended meetings with local Ward Councillors, local residents, and traders and staff from the nursery who had presented a petition to the Panel in 2012, to clarify how the charges would operate.  Officers had also offered to help Nursery staff to issue guidance to parents using the car park.

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

That

(1)               a CPZ operating  Mon – Sat,  10.00 am – 11.00 am and  3.00 – 4.00 pm be introduced in the following roads and taken forward to a statutory consultation:

·           Anselm Road

·           Devonshire Road (including Avon Mews)

·           Dove Park 

·           The Avenue  -   from the junction of Uxbridge Road to the junction of Royston Grove

·           Westfield Park Area  (Westfield Park, Oakdene Close, Thorndyke Court, Cherry Croft Gardens and St Cuthberts Gardens)

(2)               the objections raised during the statutory consultation be overruled and the measures in the following locations be implemented:

·           GrImsdyke Car Park to become pay & display (20p/hour) operating Mon-Sat, 8.00 am - 6.30 pm,

·           Uxbridge Road parking bays (near the Station) to become pay & display  (10p/20 mins, £4 over 6 hours) Mon-Sat,  8.00 am – 6.30 pm.

Reason for Recommendation:  To control parking in the Hatch End area as detailed in the report.  The measures were in direct response to resident requests for changes to the existing parking arrangements in their area in order to maintain road safety and parking access.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which set out details of the results of the public consultation carried out in Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) P in November 2012 (Rosslyn Crescent, Frognal Avenue and Station Road) and proposed the implementation of additional parking controls and progressing the scheme to statutory consultation stage.

An officer highlighted the following areas of the report:

·                    the review of CPZ zone P had been triggered by residents’ requests to restrict parking in the streets surrounding Harrow Central Mosque.  Section 106 funds were available to fund the review;

·                    officers had met with Ward Councillors and agreed that only minor modifications to the controls such as the implementation of 2 loading bays, loading restrictions where required and an additional shared use bay, would be necessary.

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

That the following roads and measures be considered for statutory consultation:

(1)               the proposed extension of the control hours of the existing Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) P not be implemented;

(2)               the proposed “at any time” waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) be implemented on junctions, corners and bends as shown in the public consultation document;

(3)               the proposed loading restrictions be implemented on junctions, corners and bends as shown in the public consultation document;

(4)               the proposed extension of the shared use parking bay in Rosslyn Crescent be implemented as shown in the public consultation document;

(5)               the proposed loading bay in Rosslyn Crescent be implemented as shown in the public consultation document;

(6)               a loading bay be installed outside 31 to 37 Rosslyn Crescent as requested by local businesses.

Reason for Recommendation:  To regulate parking in the Rosslyn Crescent and Frognal Avenue area as detailed in the report.  The measures were in direct response to residents’ and businesses’ requests for changes to the existing parking arrangements in their area in order to maintain road safety and parking access.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which provided information about the identification, prioritisation, development and implementation of parking management schemes in Harrow.  It also set out any requests for parking schemes received by the Council and recommended a programme of work for 2013/14. 

An officer advised that:

·                    the funding for the recommended programme and priority list for 2013/14 was subject to agreement at the 14 February Cabinet meeting;

·                    the amounts set out in brackets would be sourced from Section 106 (S106) monies which would only be triggered when the works related to the S106 were completed;

·                    Localised issues usually in smaller areas would be incorporated into the Local Safety Scheme (LSS);

·                    although Queensbury station fell within Brent, some of the roads surrounding the station where there were issues with commuter parking, were in Harrow.

A Member stated that she had serious concerns regarding the viability of this and future schemes if the staff restructuring proposals contained within the PRISM report relating to the Environment and Enterprise Directorate were implemented.  Appropriate levels and quality of staffing within the Directorate would be crucial to ensuring the work of the Panel and the traffic works programme was successfully implemented in future years.

An adviser to the Panel agreed with the Member’s comments regarding staffing.  The adviser added that the LSS budget was important, particularly when implementing double yellow lines for safety reasons.

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

·                    where funding had not been identified for a scheme, small adjustments to parking could be covered by the Neighbourhood Improvement Scheme (NIS) funds which were available to all Ward Councillors;

·                    the costing for any scheme included all costs such as the cost of consultations, officer time, etc.  Recently, two such schemes in Pinner and one in Greenhill had been implemented with NIS funds;

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

·                    residents in her Ward, living on Welbeck Road and surrounding streets had serious, long standing concerns relating to parking and congestion in the area;

·                    one of these residents had suggested that parking and congestion might be eased by implementing the following measures:

-                      one side of the road under the arches be made a no parking zone and that this be enforced;

-                      Welbeck Road be designated a residents’ only parking zone;

-                      traders who regularly parked their commercial vehicles on Welbeck Road be banned from doing so.

The Member circulated copies of photographs of the streets in question to Panel Members and officers and requested that officers investigate this issue and feedback to residents about possible solutions and implementation times. 

An officer advised that Welbeck Road was currently programmed for investigating parking controls, and the process for implementing parking controls could take some time and would require the following stages: stakeholders meeting to share information, an informal consultation, consideration of any proposed scheme by the Panel followed by a Recommendation made to the Portfolio  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which set out information regarding the sustainable transport policies agreed as part of Harrow’s Transport Local Implementation Plan, and how this was being delivered in the borough.  An officer advised that:

·                    providing a strategy on each transport mode separately (e.g. walking, cycling, etc.) had been considered, however, there was a significant overlap between the transport modes, and a strategy focused on sustainable transport generally was considered more effective;

·                    the Strategy focused on a reduction in barriers to cycling, improvement of the walking environment, and the interface of these with public transport, as well as liaison with pedestrian, cycling and other local user groups.

A Member praised the work of officers on this initiative and asked if the proposals in the PRISM report would mean the loss of the officers involved in this area of work, who in her view, were fundamental to delivery of these priorities.  An officer advised that the PRISM report had identified policy as a key area for retention, and it was his understanding that a policy team with responsibility for all areas, not simply transport would remain.

An adviser to the Panel stated that some of the administrative work relating to Fora such as the Public Transport Liaison Panel was carried out on a voluntary basis by those not employed by the council and that this should be recognised.

The adviser representing cyclists’ interests stated that, in his view, the strategy did not address the key issue of how the modal shift would be achieved and urged officers to take the following into consideration:

·                    the culture of car ownership and driving in Harrow was strong, as indicated by the increasing number of Controlled Parking Zones in the borough;

·                    to achieve greater modal shift would require increased improvement in safety and prioritisation of the needs of public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists;

·                    all residential streets should operate 20 miles per hour restrictions;

·                    more road space should be given over for cycling and more segregated cycle lanes introduced.

A Member stated that the policy needed to be realistic and take into account the needs of motorists as well.  20 mph zones were notoriously difficult to enforce.  Another Member concurred with this view, stating that Harrow had a very high proportion of second car families.

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

·                    the promotion of cycling was high on the Mayor of London’s agenda and officers were investigating funding opportunities to improve the cycling infrastructure in Harrow;

·                    the extent of cycle lanes in Harrow in comparison to other boroughs was average and the council promoted cycling among residents in the borough;

·                    in 2006, there were only four 20mph zones in Harrow and this figure had risen to 22 in 2013.  This meant that a third of the borough, especially areas surrounding local schools, operated 20 mph zones;

·                    the strategy was required to be in keeping with the LIP, which in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment and Enterprise.

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

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

·                    the Roxbourne School 20mph zone scheme had been amended to take on board any issues and concerns highlighted by the consultation;

·                    no build-outs would be used as part of the Old Redding accident remedial scheme;

·                    a comprehensive advisory signage strategy would be implemented as part of the freight management scheme;

·                    the proposed bus priority scheme on Eastcote Lane/Rayners Lane/Roxeth Green Avenue was being implemented with TfL funding to improve bus movement in the area;

·                    the St Ann’s Road public realm improvement was being finalised.  The Kymberley Road project was being funded through the Harrow Capital programme, LIP funding and Section 106 monies, the Capital funding element of which was at risk.  The S106 and LIP funding would not cover the costs of the entire scheme and it may be necessary to progress only some elements of the scheme in the interim.  Consultants for the scheme had provided several options, and the preferred option was still under discussion.

An adviser to the Panel stated that congestion and safety at Harrow bus station should be prioritised for improvement.

A Member requested officers to look into the problem of parked cars opposite Malvern Avenue and double yellow lines in Malvern Avenue and Alexandra Avenue.

The Chairman stated that this would be the final meeting of the Panel until the new Municipal Year and thanked officers, Members and advisers for their hard work over the past year.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment and Enterprise.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise 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.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.