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.

RESOLVED:  That the following nominee from the Harrow Association of Disabled People (HAD) be permitted to speak at the meeting pending formal approval of her appointment as adviser to the Panel by the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Crime and Community Safety:

Nicky Baker – Harrow Association of Disabled People.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Panel, welcomed Nicky Baker to the meeting.

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:

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 9 – Queensbury Area Parking Review – Statutory Consultation Results

Councillor Nitin Parekh declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was an Edgware Ward Councillor.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Aneka Shah declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a Kenton East Ward Councillor.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2014 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2014, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Monday 29 September.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

To note that one public question had been received and responded to and the recording had been placed on the website.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 48 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

(1) A petition containing 408 signatures,  requesting that parking restrictions in the vicinity of the Parish Church of Saint Anselm Hatch End be reviewed urgently.  Petition to be presented at the meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note the receipt of the following petitions, which were referred to the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise for consideration:

1.                  Petition presented by The Reverend Prebendary Clive Pearce on behalf of parishioners and users of the St Anselm Parish Church

‘Our grounds for challenge are as follows:

There was insufficient and defective consultation with St Anselm’s parishioners who had no chance to put across their views on the new parking restrictions in Westfield Park during the consultation period because the Church was not notified of the process.  Not being a resident or business, I was not notified about the process and did not find out until too late.

That your duty to take into account the needs of this faith group has been failed.  There is also discrimination to persons of restricted mobility within this group.

The church is now prevented from doing what it must do by law as its services are not open to all.

We have lost a great deal of income from hall hire bookings and it has been difficult to run church events as we have no parking spaces available for myself or key personnel.  The church has to cover its costs of operation and maintenance and, as the Church of England, the parish church is legally obliged to offer services for the parish and to prevent this is contrary to English common law.  There have already been such cases elsewhere in the country and councils have had to rescind parking restrictions.

We are asking that:

Restrictions are applied just once a day from Mon-Sat 10 am - 11 am.  This would give us more flexibility for events.  Alternative suggestions include: Restrictions only on Mon-Fri and to change them to 1 - 2 pm in place of 10 - 11 am.

We ask that the residents parking bay is removed from outside the main West Doors of the Church.

We seek permission for a dropped curb at the rear of the church so that the Vicar and church wardens can park off road when necessary.  There is a tarmac pathway to the entrance of the Church Hall which has been cut off by the new residents permit holder bays.  There is also a pathway which offers a route from once side of the church to the other and to side entrance.’  

2.                  Petition presented by Councillor Jerry Miles on behalf of residents of Somervell Road

‘We the undersigned, wish to have introduced to Somervell Road, where traffic is speeding well above the 30 mph in certain sections of this road, traffic calming is some form.  Speed reduction is very necessary as other roads nearby have this facility.  We must stop this unnecessary killing of our pets which one day could be our children.  Whilst conducting this petition we found there are 30 children within this section of Somervell Road, living with families.  Also, residents have spoken of various accidents, i.e. their cars being damaged.  Action must be taken in stopping these speeding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  That, in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution), the following deputation be received:

The Friends of Northumberland Road – the North Harrow Area Parking Review – Statutory Consultation Results

The deputee made the following points:

·                    the consultation process needed to be reviewed as the informal consultation was too informal and the formal consultation was too formal.  The transition from the informal consultation to the formal consultation was too swift and a midway point for engagement should be sought; 

·                    residents, on the whole, had been in favour of the proposal in principle, however, were against them once the detailed plans emerged;

·                    attendance at stakeholder events was by invitation only and residents felt that their comments would not be taken into consideration; 

·                    changes needed to be made to the process and to the consultation documents to make the information more accessible for the general public.

A Member of the Panel stated that at a meeting regarding the CPZ six months ago there had been a wide range of opinions regarding the parking review and that it was very difficult to accommodate everyone so a ‘best fit’ solution was sought.   The Member questioned whether additional consultation would be too much and have resulting cost implications.

Following questions and comments from Members of the Panel, the deputee stated that:

·                    the stakeholder meeting on the North Harrow Area Parking Review had been overshadowed by the removal of the one hour free parking scheme in North Harrow;

·                    attendance at the stakeholder event being by invitation only had upset residents;

·                    residents were aware that Councillors were doing their best for the residents;

·                    residents should be provided with more information and the details of the scheme earlier in the consultation process, which would increase levels of engagement and to produce better consultation responses.

A Member of the Panel advised that the current consultation process did work but that there was room for improvement.  The Portfolio Holder with responsibility for resident engagement would be involved in reviewing the consultation process and documents. 

Report of the Director of Legal & Governance Services.

Members received a report which detailed the appointment of an additional co-opted, non-voting adviser to the Panel for the 2014/15 Municipal Year, following a recommendation from the Scrutiny Review Group Report on Accessible Transport.

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

That the nomination for an additional Adviser to the Panel, as set out in Appendix 1 to the officer’s report, be agreed.

Reason for Recommendation:  To appoint an additional adviser to the Panel for the 2014/15 Municipal Year, to assist the work of the Panel.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment & Enterprise.

A revised Section 1 – Summary and Recommendations of the report was tabled and included a recommendation on introducing double yellow lines at junctions, in turning heads, along narrow sections of carriageway and at bends throughout the consultation area.

Members considered the report which provided the results of the statutory consultation exercises carried out in the wider North Harrow area in July 2014 regarding the introduction of parking controls.

Members who were not Members of the Panel stated that:

·                     the majority of respondents had rejected the proposal for an all day CPZ and it was welcomed that the proposal for the Northumberland Road area (NH2) was for a CPZ with operational times of Monday-Friday 10 am to 11 am.  The level of resident involvement in the consultation process was very positive;

·                     there were pedestrian crossings at St John Fisher School and Nower Hill School and advised that safety concerns regarding Pinner Road had been raised with the fire brigade.  Was there any update on the 30 mph automated sign in Pinner Road?;

·                     the recommendation in the North Harrow Parking Review would help to alleviate the problems faced by residents and Ward Councillors would continue to keep under review the roads where there had been opposition to the proposals.

An officer advised that a speed activated sign, in Pinner Road for traffic travelling eastbound, was going to be installed within 3 to 4 weeks and the work was currently with the contractor.

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

That:

(1)               a controlled parking zone (NH2) be introduced as shown on Appendix A with operational times of Monday-Friday 10.00 am to 11.00 am in the following roads:

·           Northumberland Road (from Imperial Drive to 97, Northumberland Road)

·           Suffolk Road (from Northumberland Road and The Ridgeway)

·           Lancaster Road;

(2)               a controlled parking zone (NH1) be introduced as shown in Appendix A with operational times of Monday-Friday 10.00 am to 11.00 am and 2.00 pm and 3.00 pm in the following roads:

·           Canterbury Road (between Station Road to 87, Canterbury Road)

·           Gloucester Road

·           Cumberland Road

·           Westmorland Road

·           Durham Road

·           Sussex Road (between Durham Road to 154, Sussex Road)

·           Norfolk Road

·           Surrey Road

·           Collapit Close

(3)               double yellow lines at junctions, in turning heads, along narrow sections of carriageway and at bends throughout the consultation area be introduced;

(4)               the objections to the scheme received during the statutory consultation for the roads outlined above be overruled and the parking controls be implemented as shown on the plans in Appendix A;

(5)               the parking proposals in Cornwall Road, Somerset Road, Sussex Road (between Pinner View to 152, Sussex Road), Argyle Road and Blenheim Road not be implemented and that the objectors be informed;

(6)               all residents in the consultation area be informed of the decision once approved by the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Crime and Community Safety.

Reason for Recommendation:  To control parking in the North Harrow area as detailed in the report.  The measures are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment & Enterprise.

A revised Section 2.17 to 2.23 of the report was tabled at the meeting which updated the consultation responses for Honeypot Lane, Everton Drive, Malvern Gardens and Winchester Road (Zone Q5).

Members considered the report which provided the results of the statutory consultation exercise carried out in the wider Queensbury area between 7 August and 27 August 2014 regarding the introduction of parking controls.

In response to questions for Members, officers made the following comments:

·                    the proposed operational times for the CPZ for Everton Drive were from 8.00 am to midnight to help address the dual issues of commuter parking and the parking of patrons of the restaurant in the area;

·                    residents of Reynolds Drive did not support a CPZ operating at “any time” but had expressed a preference for one hour parking controls.  The consultation results had been compared and indications were that there was support for some limited parking restrictions;

·                    the roads in the Everton Drive area (zone Q5) were being considered for a CPZ as a whole because on a street by street basis residents in some streets had been marginally in favour of the CPZ, whilst others had been marginally opposed to it.  It was difficult to find a consensus for a holistic zone on a street by street basis. 

A Member of the Panel stated that long parking restrictions would not help to support local businesses.

Another Panel Member had reservations regarding the recommendations of the CPZ.

A Member who was not a Member of the Panel advised that local Ward Councillors supported the proposal for Reynolds Drive and that the outcomes of the traffic order should be monitored.  The Member drew attention to the consultation results for Everton Drive, which were 18 in support and 18 against, and Honeypot Lane which were 7 in support and 7 against and suggested that the status quo should be maintained.  There were concerns regarding the double yellow lines being implemented in Turner Road because as it was outside the CPZ and would not be eligible for residents parking permits.  Therefore residents would be unable to park outside of their houses.  The Member advised that in Reynolds Drive there were marked parking bays over dropped kerbs and requested that the practice of introducing double yellow lines in front of driveways be continued.

In response to Members comments an officer advised that whereas it was permitted that elements of a traffic order be omitted, it was not permitted that additions be made.  Further consultation would be required and this would have cost implications.  If it was anticipated that future amendments would be made to the traffic order then funding would need to be allocated for this.

A Member proposed a motion that the recommendations be amended as follows:

·                    Under section (a) of the recommendations change the paragraph at the second bullet point to state: 219 – 339 Honeypot Lane, Malvern Gardens (Honeypot Lane to no. 93 and no.112 and  Winchester Road (Honeypot Lane to no.40 and no.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment & Enterprise.

Members received a report which set out the details of the petitions which 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 and that the outstanding petitions – Kinsgley Road, South Harrow – Request for 24 hour 7 day Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), Scarsdale Road, South Harrow – Request for 24 hour 7 day CPZ, Wyvenhoe Road, South Harrow – request for CPZ and The Ridgeway and Imperial Drive, North Harrow – Requesting the Council to provide a residents only parking CPZ be considered at the meeting of the Panel in February 2015.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment & Enterprise.

Members received a report which provided an update on progress with the 2014/15 traffic and parking scheme programme of works.  This included schemes funded by Transport for London (TfL) and schemes included in Harrow’s Capital Programme.

In response to questions and comments from Members and advisers to the Panel, officers made the following points:

·                    a permit had been issued to a utility company for works at Alpine Junction and it was anticipated that the work would commence soon;

·                    it was possible that an exemption for cyclists could be included with the implementation of a ‘point of no entry’ in Radley Gardens;

·                    there were 26/27 20 mph zones in Harrow which covered approximately half of the schools in the borough and the town centres of Harrow and Wealdstone.  A 20 mph zone was different to a 20 mph speed limit;

·                    the layout of a road was taken into consideration when determining which speed calming measures should be introduced;

·                    Sustrans had been assisting TfL with cycle routes and a ‘quiet way’.  Bike rides had been organised to evaluate the borough’s current ‘quiet way’ proposals and it was anticipated that these would be prioritised later this month;

·                    the funding for The Common / Common Road junction improvement was from TfL and Section 106 contributions;

·                    the introduction of an “all red” phase at Stanmore Hill would be highly beneficial to pedestrians and was being progressed;

·                    an area being considered for the ‘lorry enforcement points’ included Streatfield Road.  There have been changes to the directional signs to illustrate the advisory lorry routes.  Consideration would need to be given to how to enforce an ‘access only’ restriction as the Council did not have any powers to stop vehicles.  Passenger service vehicles were exempt.

A Member who was not a Member of the Panel welcomed the 20 mph zones around schools because of the importance of child safety.

The Chairman stated that a more gradual approach had been taken in Harrow with regard to the introduction of 20 mph zones and that there needed to be work done with the Government to improve the statutory powers of local authorities to enforce the zones.  In addition, the Chairman stated that some cycle routes, such as Grasmere Road, were dangerous and consideration should be given to their signposting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.