To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 48 (Part 4D of the Constitution).
Minutes:
RESOLVED: That, in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 48 (Part 4D of the Constitution), the following deputations be received:
1. Update regarding safety concerns about Traffic & Parking on Dorset Drive and Cavendish Drive.
The Deputee stated that:
· further to a previous deputation and petition presented to the Panel regarding the above, the incidences of inconsiderate parking of heavy and commercial vehicles by staff at nearby garages continued to be an issue for residents of the above streets. As a result, residents regularly experienced blocked driveways, litter on their streets, speeding low loaders, noise from the testing of vehicle brakes, loading and unloading of vehicles and flashing lights;
· there had been a recent altercation between one of the residents and the driver of one such vehicle who had verbally abused and intimidated the resident;
· local residents worked hard, paid their taxes and contributed to society and naturally expected to receive support from the Council in helping to resolve the matter;
· deputees presenting at the previous meeting of the Panel had requested officers to look into the business licences of the nearby garages and any Planning conditions and to take the appropriate enforcement action against them. However, the deputees had yet to receive any feedback from the Council regarding this request;
· the Council should consider implementing parking controls on these streets to help deal with the situation and hoped this issue would be considered sympathetically at the February 2018 meeting of the Panel.
A Member added that this had been a long-standing issue for residents of Dorset & Cavendish Drives. Residents of those streets planned to present another petition before the February 2018 meeting of the Panel. He hoped that the petition could be put together with support and advice from Traffic officers. Residents were of the view that the only possible solution would be to extend the times of the existing CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone).
An officer advised that officers had met with local residents to discuss possible solutions. This issue would be included in the agenda for the February 2018 meeting of the Panel. He added that officers would rank and score schemes in accordance with policy and that the Panel would make the final decision about which schemes should be progressed.
2. Speeding and Traffic Calming issues on Northumberland Road.
The Deputee stated that:
· residents of Cambridge & Northumberland Roads had a recent meeting following a walk-about by the Leader where they had discussed traffic calming measures and 20 mph zones;
· residents of Cambridge Road and Woodlands Road were not in favour of having 20 mph zones with speed cushions implemented in those streets;
· average speeds on Northumberland Road were 40-45 mph and the road was often used as a ‘rat run’. Whereas, the average speed on Woodlands Road was between 20-25 mph, which was in part due to a poorly designed CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone), which meant that cars were parked along only one side of what was a narrow road. Officers had refused residents’ request that parking bays be available on alternative sides of the road and did not propose any alternative solution to deal with residents’ concerns. Why had the Council failed to engage with residents?
· In recent years, residents had met with several Councillors to discuss ongoing safety concerns, following which they had proposed that parking bays be placed on both sides of the road. He had been informed that having all the bays on one side of the road meant there was a net increase in driving speed of 1 mile per hour;
· the Council had refused residents’ requests to move two of the bays to the opposite side of the road which would have been less expensive than implementing speed cushions (as was the case in Lancaster Road, which was parallel to Northumberland Road). Residents were told that having all the bays on one side of the road would lead to an increase in average speeds;
· it was his understanding that the Mayor of London was not in favour of speed bumps because they increased pollution. Local residents had considered mounting their own 20 mph signs on the streets but were not in favour of speed bumps or speed cushions;
· in his view, the 85 percentile rule used by the Council in traffic surveys was not an accurate reflection of actual speeds on local streets;
· was the Council aware that there was a private school located on Northumberland Road;
· Panel Members had not visited the site or met with local stakeholders or proposed any solutions to residents’ concerns regarding safety.
An officer responded that:
· legislation and Department for Transport guidance stated that 20 mph zones must be self-enforcing as the Police would not enforce these due to lack of resources. Therefore, speed bumps and speed cushions, which were considered self-enforcing were used;
· on roads where the speed was considered to be within tolerance levels, for example, those roads where the physical nature of the road, (for example, extremely narrow or winding roads which would not allow speeding) meant vertical deflections were not considered necessary;
· the 85 percentile measurement was the key speed used by transport professionals. This was the 85th highest speed out of a sample of a 100 which was recorded during traffic surveys. This measurement was used by the Metropolitan Police, in terms of enforcement and by transport professionals in terms of designing schemes;
· the Council was obliged to target its limited resources in accordance with its policy which set out how schemes were ranked and prioritised. Harrow’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) stated that 20 mph zones would be focussed in the vicinity of schools. As well as improving safety, these zones were designed to encourage modal shift and promote an environment that was more conducive to walking and cycling. Additionally, evidence to showed that residents felt safer to walk and cycle in 20 mph zones;
· numerous traffic assessments and surveys had been undertaken by the Council in recent years in Northumberland Road. These had indicated that speeds were within tolerances and speed limits and therefore, in accordance with Council policy no further action had been deemed necessary.
Following questions from Members of the Panel, an officer responded that a vehicle had overturned on Northumberland Road several years ago. this was due to an elderly resident accelerating instead of braking which caused the vehicle to hit the kerb and to overturn. He added that there were over 40, 20 mph zones in the Borough, mainly around schools. He had not known about the private school on Northumberland and officers would be willing to carry out another assessment of the road.
A Member acknowledged the issues faced by residents on Northumberland Road and requested that officers liaise with local residents to review the situation there.
An officer stated that parking bays had been moved to the opposite side of the road in one section of Northumberland Road, but these had been moved back as residents had complained that they could not get out of their driveways when vehicles were parked in them..