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:

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, during the course of the meeting, Councillor Ameet Jogia MBE declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived behind Culverlands Close.  He would remain in the room whilst the reports were considered.

To consider the appointment of a Vice-Chair to the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2022/23.

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Nicola Blackman as Vice-Chair of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel (TARSAP) for the 2022/2023 Municipal Year.

Report of the Corporate Director of Place.

RESOLVED:  That the following nominees be appointed as Advisers to the Panel for the 2022/23 Municipal Year:

·                 Anthony Wood (Harrow Public Transport Users Advisory Association)

·                 Veronica Chamberlain (Harrow Cyclists)

·                 Louise Weldon (Harrow Association of Disabled People)

·                 John Hinkley (Harrow Resident Motorist)

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2021 and the Special Meeting held on 7 December 2021 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2021 and the Special meeting held on 7 December 2021, be taken as read and signed as correct records.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

Questions will be asked in the order in which they were received.  There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for the asking and answering of public questions.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, 7 July 2022.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that five public questions had been received and that a written response would be provided.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 47 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

Three petitions were submitted by local residents.  The residents each read out the terms of reference of their petition as follows:

Petition 1.

A petition was received from the residents of Spencer Road stating “We the undersigned request the council change the parking restrictions from part time (CA) to full time (J) or (C1) from 7.00am to midnight for 7 days a week”.

Petition 2.

“A petition from the residents on Lucas Avenue, signed to have speed humps installed due to many cars speeding up and down, day and night.”

Petition 3.

The Chair had also submitted a petition on behalf of a resident which was for the installation of traffic lights and a pedestrian crossing outside Sandringham estate on Common Road.

RESOLVED:  That the petitions be received and referred to the Corporate Director of Place for consideration.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 48 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  That, in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 48 the following deputation be received in respect of agenda item 9:

9 - Information Report - Petitions.

Full details in relation to the deputations, including questions asked and answers given, are referenced, in brief, at Minute 9 of these minutes.

Report of the Corporate Director of Place.

Prior to the consideration of the report of the Corporate Director of Place, the Panel received one Deputation (Minute 8 also refers).

In summary, the two representatives outlined how the current CPZ (CA) between the High Street (clock tower) and 40 Spencer Road should be included in CPZ (C1).  The Deputee described how this road was the only road near High Street, Wealdstone which had zone (CA) (Monday-Friday 10-11am and 2-3pm) restrictions whilst all other roads nearby had zone (C1) (Monday to Sunday 8am - Midnight) restrictions.  This meant that Spencer Road was used by many to park their cars to access the high street’s amenities and attracted displaced parking from other nearby roads, which created congestion and had made it difficult for residents to park their cars.

The Deputee noted that driveways had been blocked by those parking their cars on Spencer Road.  It was emphasised that zone (CA) parking restrictions had made life challenging for residents.  Between Friday 5pm to Monday morning residents are unable to park on Spencer Road.  They feel trapped and unable to do everyday tasks using their cars for the fear of losing their parking spaces.  In addition, it was explained that Spencer Road was like an overspill carpark.  The available parking spaces would be taken by commuters after the zone (CA) ended at 3pm.  The Panel thanked the Deputees for their presentation.  The Panel asked the Deputees for clarification of the parking restrictions, to which it was explained by the Deputee the controlled parking zone currently restricted parking on Monday to Friday between 10:00 – 11:00 and between 14:00 – 15:00.

Asked why residents of Spencer did not originally apply to be part of zone (C1) scheme, the Deputee explained that they had applied a few years ago to be included in a CPZ but the introduction of zone (CA) was only supported by the southern section of Spencer Road between High Street and 40 Spencer Road.

An Adviser also added that improvement to the nearby Peel Road car park needed to be made to make it more user friendly and to support the local area.

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

An officer reported that there had been twenty-one petitions since the last meeting and introduced each item:

1.              Lucas Avenue, which requested traffic calming measures.  It was explained that due to funding issues with Transport for London (TfL), any traffic calming scheme assessed as a priority could not be funded.  In addition, it was clarified that enforcement of speeding was a duty carried out by the police.

The Chair of the Panel requested officers notify the Police and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Corporate Director of Place.

The Panel received a report which was presented to members to provide an update on progress with the 2022/23 Traffic and Transportation programme of works, including ongoing schemes from 2021/22.

An officer outlined that this report explains current progress on traffic schemes and proposed schemes programme within the context of limited Transport for London (TfL) funding so far awarded for the 2022/23 financial year which was detailed in the Appendix.

The officer explained the context and outlined the main recommendations of the report which was regarding Marlborough School Street scheme.

Marlborough School Streets scheme

The report recommended the normal suspension of the school street over the summer holiday period (starting on 21 July) be extended to allow a new consultation to take place and until the results of that consultation are brought to the Panel’s next meeting in October 2022.

The consultation will start in July and run for ten weeks to take account of the summer holiday period.

A Member of the Panel commented that the feedback from residents would be listened to but was disappointed that another consultation would be undertaken as (only agreed by Cabinet in January 2022) extensive consultation had been carried out previously and that officers had assessed and actioned changes to address concerns raised as detailed in the report.  It would mean that the scheme would be suspended until the Autumn half term and believed it would be difficult to gain responses over the summer holidays.  School streets brought benefits including better air quality for children, fewer cars and improved safety and encouraged walking and cycling to school.  Both the school and its pupils were very enthusiastic of the scheme and hoped that residents appreciated the benefits of the scheme being continued.

In response to a question from the Member on the extent of the consultation area, an officer confirmed a wider consultation area than before had been agreed, bounded by Station Road, Greenhill Way, Harrow View and Headstone Drive (and the railway line).

The Member commented that views would be sought from people living quite some way from the school.

RESOLVED:  That the report and proposals be noted and that it be recommended to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety that:

(1)            a new consultation with residents within the area of Marlborough Hill and Marlborough School be undertaken in order to gauge their views, including suggested improvements or whether there is still support for this scheme.  This would include writing to all residents in the defined catchment area of the scheme to seek their views on the impact of the scheme so far to see if improvements could be made and whether there is support for the continuation of the scheme; and

(2)            the suspension of the Marlborough Hill School Streets scheme, which would have occurred during the school summer holidays, be extended until a decision has been made on the future of this scheme.

Other Issues raised regarding the report

Questions from the Advisory Panel to which officers answered as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Report of the Corporate Director of Place.

The Panel received a report which provided information about the identification, prioritisation, development and implementation of parking management schemes in Harrow.  It informed Members about requests for parking schemes received by the Council.  The report also recommended the programme of work for 2022/23 based on the Council’s agreed assessment criteria.

An officer gave a presentation in brief with the following being highlighted:

·                 There was a £300,000 revenue budget per annum for parking schemes across the borough, which was internal Council funding and not funding from TFL.

The Chair thanked the officer for their presentation and opened the floor to questions from the Advisory Panel to which officers answered as followed:

An Adviser raised that parking restrictions impacted the older demographic within Harrow and felt the 08:30 t0 20:30 restrictions to be draconian and raised the mental health impacts that this could have on residents due to the complexity of parking restrictions.  The Adviser challenged the usefulness of parking restrictions if residents were hindered.  In addition, the Adviser welcomed hour parking as it would deter commuters but aided residents.

·                 An Adviser noted that parking restrictions were often taken advantage of by people whereby people periodically moved their cars according to the parking restrictions.

·                 An Adviser raised the issue of sustainability and that there should be efforts directed towards encouraging active travel and the reduction of car ownership and noted the report had not mentioned other types of parking such as parking for cycles.  They noted that 6-8 traditional bicycles could be parked in a single car park space and would be particularly useful for those who lived in HMOs or Flats.

·                 In addition, the Adviser also raised the potential for car club initiatives and cargo bike rental points all of which would reduce congestion and promote sustainable and active travel.  The adviser also noted that there were other modes of transport that could be utilised by the older generation to get around and raised that this had been the case in other countries.

·                 In regard to non-standard cycles, it was noted that there were no parking facilities in Harrow that supported non-standard cycles and that disabled cyclists had not been mentioned in the Equality Impact Assessment for this report.  The adviser suggested that section 106 monies be used for new developments, such as cycle storage so that cycling to be encouraged.

·                 It was mentioned by an Adviser that footway parking had been proven to generate difficulties to those with prams as well as disabled people.

Another Adviser that represented HAD also emphasised that cars parked on pavements could result in the pavement being damaged, which could cause obstruction for wheelchair users.

The Chair thanked the advisers for their comments and sought clarification over the legality of cars being parked on pavements.  An officer explained that within London, footway parking was not permitted unless signage allowed.  A minimum of 1.5m of footway had to be accessible and a review of footway parking within Harrow could be considered.

·                 Enforcement was raised by an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Which cannot otherwise be dealt with.

A Member raised that there had been a recent death on Mollison Way and wanted to know where fatalities could be added to the agenda.

The Chair expressed condolences to the family concerned and an officer suggested that a standard item be presented to the Panel in regard to a review of schemes where fatalities and serious injuries had occurred as well as a post 12-month safety review of schemes.

RESOLVED:  That the panel received a standard report which reviewed schemes where fatalities and serious injuries had occurred as well as a post 12-month safety review of schemes.