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.

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 8 – Controlled Parking Zones and Parking Schemes – Annual Review

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Ward Councillor for Harrow-on-the Hill and his mother lived in Torrington Drive.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Jean Lammiman declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a Ward Councillor for Hatch End.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Ms Pamela Fitzpatrick declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a Ward Councillor for Headstone South.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

All Agenda Items

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a Ward Councillor for Hatch End Ward.  She would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

Councillor Ameet Jogia declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived in the area of Headstone Lane Station, was a Ward Councillor for Canons Ward and was a regular visitor to the Lohana centre.  He would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

Councillor Barry Kendler declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Ward Councillor for Edgware Ward.  He would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

Councillor Jerry Miles declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Ward Councillor for Roxeth Ward.  He would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

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

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

That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 2 October 2014 and the Special meeting held on 10 December 2014 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 2 October 2014 and the special meeting held on 10 December 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 9 February 2015.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

To note that 4 public questions had been received and responded to and in line with the statement made by the Chairman, 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. Petition containing 46 signatures from residents of Somerset Road Harrow, requesting the implementation of a CPZ in Somerset Road, Harrow, HA1 - 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:

Petition containing 48 signatures, presented by a Resident of on behalf of residents of Somerset Road, Harrow with the following terms of reference:

‘We, the residents of Somerset Road, Harrow, petition the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel to conduct an urgent review to implement a Controlled Parking Zone on Somerset Road, Harrow during the hours of 10.00 am to 11.00 am and 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm Monday to Friday in line with the Controlled Parking Zone that is due to be implemented on neighbouring roads in North Harrow.

This petition is being lodged as the introduction of Controlled Parking Zones in the neighbouring roads will result in parking displacement onto Somerset Road and will be to the detriment of the residents of Somerset Road.’

Petition containing 32 signatures, presented by Councillor Ameet Jogia on behalf of residents of Lake View and Dukes Avenue, Harrow, with the following terms of reference:

‘Attached is a list of residents who we have surveyed and who are concerned by the parking issues faced by residents on Lake View and Dukes Avenue, caused largely by abandoned vehicles, commuter parking, congestion and obstructive parking.  We have conducted our own short survey of the issue in the area and call upon the Council to review the parking situation on the estate, and mainly Lake View and Dukes Avenue and help us, the residents, with coming up with solutions to alleviate the problems mentioned.

Attached is a copy of the survey and also the letter which was submitted to the affected residents.’

Petition containing 35 signatures, presented by Councillor Susan Hall on behalf of residents of Malvern Gardens, Harrow, with the following terms of reference:

‘We, the undersigned are enormously disappointed that, at the meeting of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel on 2 October 2014, an amendment was made to the recommendation regarding Malvern Gardens and Winchester Road.  Specifically, that the recommendation of a Monday-Sunday 8 am?midnight controlled parking zone was amended to only cover Monday-Sunday 6 pm?midnight.

This last-minute change to the recommendation was made without consideration for the wishes of the many residents of these roads, and is contrary to what we have requested the Council impose for a number of years.  We therefore petition the Panel to reconsider its decision, and reinstate the original recommendation for a Monday-Sunday 8 am?midnight controlled parking zone for these roads.’

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

RESOLVED:  To note that none were received.

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 information regarding the identification, prioritisation, development and implementation of parking management schemes in Harrow.  It also included information about requests for parking schemes received by the Council and recommended a programme of work for 2015/16. 

An officer tabled an amended copy of Appendix C to the report and provided a brief overview of the report. 

A Member back benching stated that in recent months, increasing numbers of residents had contacted both him and a fellow Harrow on the Hill Ward Councillor regarding the effects of displaced commuter parking in Whitmore Road and in the vicinity of Harrow on the Hill.  The displaced parking was as a result of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in West Harrow.  The main issues related to blocked driveways, cars unable to pass each other due to parking on both sides of the road, difficulty of access for emergency and refuse vehicles and inconsiderate and hazardous parking generally.  He urged the Panel to take on board residents’ views and review this situation as a matter of urgency and implement parking controls in those streets.

Another Member back benching stated that parking controls should be introduced in service roads in the vicinity of Hatch End to deter all-day parking in those roads.  All-day parking was having a detrimental effect on local businesses.  The introduction of parking controls would allow the flow of traffic and support local traders, who were in favour of controls.  Shoppers and visitors to the area now benefited from 20-minutes free parking.  The Member also requested that parking restrictions in the vicinity of St Anselm’s Church be limited to mornings only.  The church served as a community and cultural centre as well as a place of worship and was therefore in regular daily use.  She referred to a petition received at a previous Panel meeting which had requested that parking controls be restricted to mornings only, the parking bay outside the church be removed and a dropped kerb be implemented at the rear of the church.   She also stated that there should be some latitude for the church officers to park outside the church.

Another Member back benching stated that she and fellow Ward Councillors had received a large number of representations from residents regarding displaced parking in Somerset Road, as detailed in the earlier petition submitted by residents of Somerset Road.  She urged the Panel to carry out an early review of Somerset Road.

A Member stated that she had received emails from residents living in the top half of Whitmore Road, regarding dangerous and inconsiderate parking in the road and requested parking controls be introduced there.  The emails were from 34 of the 47 properties located at the top end of Whitmore Road.  In her view, these emails could form part of the statutory consultation which would enable the scheme to be implemented sooner.  Referring to the petition she had presented earlier  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

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 the proposed programme of schemes to be implemented with the £100k local transport fund allocated to the London Borough of Harrow by Transport for London (TfL) in 2015/16.

Following a brief overview of the report by an officer, Panel Members made the following comments and asked the following questions:

·                    that the speed restrictions planned for St Paul’s Avenue, Earlsmead School, Merlin Crescent as well as minor road safety measures with a reduced allocation of £10k be prioritized for implementation. And the Panel agree, subject to confirmation of LTF funds being available for the 2016/17 programme, that the Panel also prioritise the scheme planned for The Ridgeway for implementation in 2016/17;

·                    would it be possible to reduce the amount of money allocated for some of the larger schemes and re-distributed it in such a way so that all the proposed schemes could be completed?

·                    road markings and signage around the borough were in need of re?fresh and should be prioritised as they had safety and traffic flow implications;

·                    was there any TfL funding available for bus priority schemes?

An officer advised that:

·                    it would be possible to amend the amounts allocated to each scheme within the £100k allocation to enable all the schemes to be progressed;

·                    the Council had invested in renewing road markings and signage in key areas around the borough.  This activity was funded from Revenue rather than Capital Funds.  There was a specific programme of works and funds allocated for this work in 2015/16;

·                    2 bus priority schemes, one in Rayners Lane and the other on Eastcote Lane, had been budgeted for.

The Chair moved a motion, which was seconded and agreed unanimously, as follows:

1.                  that Schemes 1, 2 and 5 be prioritised and the amount allocated for Scheme 5 be reduced to £10K;

2.                  that traffic officers be authorised to initiate Schemes 3 and 4 following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Crime and Community Safety and the Chair of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel, without exceeding the £100k budget.

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

That the local transport schemes included in the 2015/16 programme are:

1.                  Schemes 1 and 2;

2.                  Scheme 5 with the amount allocated reduced to £10K;

3.                  Schemes 3 and 4 are initiated following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Crime and Community Safety and the Chair of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel, without exceeding the £100k budget.

Reason for Recommendation:  In order for the Council to spend the £100k allocated by Transport for London on prioritised local transport schemes within the 2015/16 financial year.

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 details of a review of the scheme development process for parking management schemes and recommended changes to improve this process.

An officer highlighted the following aspects of the report:

·                      the review of the consultation documents and materials used by the traffic and highways section had highlighted a number of issues that needed to be reviewed, and consultation materials had been amended and updated accordingly;

·                    the only recurrent issue highlighted by residents had been the level at which a majority view was established.  It may be easier to justify a majority, if a higher 60% level of support was required in the road by road analysis of consultation responses.  It was proposed that future schemes be assessed on this basis.

Panel Members made the following comments:

·                    residents should be encouraged to engage with consultations and the importance of putting their views across should be emphasised to them;

·                    the rationale behind the increase of what constituted a majority to 60% should be explained to residents;

·                    consultation documents should clearly state that the decisions regarding proposed parking and traffic schemes were made by Councillors and not traffic officers.  This would ensure that officers were not unfairly criticised or held responsible by residents for decisions made by Councillors;

·                    paragraph 2.10 of the officer report should be amended to state that TARSAP Advisors were also invited to attend stakeholder meetings;

·                    where possible, consultation documents should be expressed in plain English and the difference between a public and a statutory consultation should be made clear.  All of the above measures would lead to increased engagement by residents;

·                    parking issues were well managed under the current programme, however, a more structured approach should be taken for traffic-related issues;

·                    residents sometimes claimed not to have received consultation documents.  Would it be possible for Ward Councillors to engage in door-knocking and advise residents about current consultations in their area?

The Chair stated that an assessment of whether the current balance of work between parking and traffic issues was appropriate.  The Consultation process needed to be open and transparent and much of it was prescribed in law.  Ward Councillors had an ambassadorial responsibility in this, and could help officers encourage resident engagement and respond to their queries.

An adviser stated that all day parking controls were detrimental to community life as they prevented traders, residents, visitors, doctors and district nurses, etc from parking in residential areas.  Conversely, one-hour restrictions were successful in deterring commuter parking and allowed life to go on. 

An officer advised that the hours of operation of Brent council’s CPZs was 10.00 am?3.00 pm.  This allowed enforcement officers a 4?5 hour window to carry out enforcement action.  Traffic officers were investigating alternative models for the timings of parking restrictions.

A Member proposed a motion which was seconded and agreed unanimously that:

The phrase ‘early in 2015/16’ be omitted from Recommendations 2 and 3 and be replaced with ‘as soon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment & Enterprise.

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

Following a brief overview of the report, an officer provided the following responses to Panel Members’ questions:

·                    it may be possible to carry out localised patching to repair sections of Marsh Lane that were in need of re-surfacing and introduce pedestrian crossings;

·                    there had been a number of accidents involving pedestrians on Marsh Lane / Pinner High Street and the existing zebra crossings are location close to each other. It is therefore proposed that the footways would be widened to alleviate overcrowding and the zebra crossings would be slightly repositioned.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.