Agenda item

Report of Corporate Director, Community

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director, Community, which provided an update on improvements to the “Goodwill to All” junction at Harrow View, Headstone Road and Headstone Drive. 

A council officer introduced the report, describing the assessment of different traffic flow options and explaining the balance which would need to be struck between, for example, the use of right-turn bans and maintaining the flow of traffic through the area, particularly at peak times.  There were always compromises to be made when the road space could not be increased to any degree.  He underlined that there would be extensive public consultation on the options before decisions were taken. 

 A Member suggested that right-turn bans elsewhere had not worked in avoiding congestion.  It was explained that there were sometimes different grounds for their use, eg. safety rather than dealing with congestion. 

Another Member asked whether consideration had been given to the creation of a roundabout and road to allow for traffic to Wealdstone to go through the Kodak site.  Bus lanes could also be created with land from the site to improve the flow for the H10 and H14 buses.  The council officer explained that the pub on the corner had been developed separately from the regeneration programme site.  He also pointed to the priority for housing within the regeneration strategy and this would obviously impact on the land which could be taken for transport purposes.  The Council’s Planning Committee would consider the traffic implications of proposed development and this would include the reports of the applicants’ transport and traffic consultants. 

In response to Mr Wood’s question, the council officer advised that signage in respect of banned U-turns would be reviewed as part of the overall scheme.

A local ward Member addressed the meeting expressing concerns over southbound traffic through the junction facing no-right turns.  He was not convinced by the consultants’ reference to alternative routes for motorists and he argued that data should be obtained about the number of cars turning in this area.  In particular, he considered that data from 2016, before the Victor Road closure, could not be relied upon.  The Member also referred to problems with the current phasing of traffic lights through the junction and concerns about rat-running in the area.  He suggested that more information be provided so that the public consultation would be more meaningful. 

The council officer reassured the Member that a considerable amount of data was available to inform assessment of different options and, in respect of traffic light phasing, TfL’s modelling of traffic flows was rigorous and would avoid any effect of current phasing issues.  He underlined that the current report to this meeting was an overview rather than offering detail on issues, and that information would be provided in readiness for the public consultation. 

Another Member suggested that the reference to the “all red pedestrian phase” in the report did not reflect the actual wording of the Section 106 agreement with the developer and other options could be considered.  The council officer stated he would need to check the wording, but the measures were certainly about improvements for pedestrians.  The Member also asked whether the transport and traffic consultants of developers in the area had informed the assessment outlined in the current report to the Panel.  The council officer advised that this was not the case and that the developers had discharged their responsibilities through the Section 106 agreement.  The Member indicated that the assessment of the options for the junction was complex and that he would need to reserve judgment until more information and analysis were available. 

The Chair thanked Members and Advisers for their comments and looked forward to the public consultation to follow.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.