Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director, Community which set out the key contents of Harrow’s Draft Transport Local Implementation Plan, the consultation process, consultation results and the recommended changes to the plan following consultation.

A Member advised that the LIP reflected the strategic outcomes of the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy and that the draft proposals had been amended taking into account the consultation results.  The policies in the LIP would enable a move towards improved, safer and more sustainable systems of transport in London.   He added that it was encouraging that TfL’s response to the draft LIP submitted by Harrow had been positive.

Members asked the following questions and officers responded as follows.

Did the Mayor of London’s  target of 80 per cent of all trips to be made on foot, by bicycle or using public transport by 2041 include Harrow and was step-free access planned for all tube stations in Harrow?

The officer advised that the 80 per cent target was a London-wide target.  He added that TfL had a programme for the introduction of step-free access at all tube stations and works had begun at Harrow on the Hill station. Discussions were ongoing with TfL regarding Stanmore and Sudbury Hill stations and officers would continue to lobby TfL regarding the matter.  The officer undertook  to seek confirmation from TfL regarding whether Sudbury Hill Station had been prioritised for step-free access and to share this information to Committee Members.

With regard to the new policy to support the police to address anti-social behaviour around Harrow bus station – were there plans to roll this out to bus stops near schools?

The officer advised that this measure would be focussed on Harrow Bus Station.

A Member asked whether the policy CB3 - the intention to encourage modal shift towards more sustainable forms of transport by developing travel plans and working with businesses to encourage them to switch deliveries from vans to sustainable travel modes - was valuable or would it restrict the Council’s options?

The officer responded that the consultation response from Harrow Cyclists  was extremely useful.  The cycling schemes and measures proposed by the group had been shown to work elsewhere and could work equally well in Harrow.  Members and traffic officers had recently undertaken a visit to Waltham Forest to evaluate the mini-Holland cycling scheme which had been introduced there.

How would the police and schools be supported to address traffic noise and pollution issues and were the proposed 20mph zones enforceable?

The detail of how the LIP policies would be implemented and funded would be worked out once TfL and the Council had approved the draft policy.  Officers would work with existing partners such as schools and the police to develop the best way to deliver the policy. 

How and when would the LIP3 policies be risk assessed and would other agencies such at the police and the local planning authority be consulted?

Did he expect an increase in litigation against the Council with regard to the implementation of new schemes, for example, R2, giving consideration to the potential reallocation of road space to benefit sustainable transport and introducing road traffic restrictions and play streets?

The officer advised that none of the proposals posed additional risks to those already mitigated at the current time.  It was standard practice and there was a legal obligation to risk assess every scheme in accordance with health & safety regulations and to take account of equalities impacts assessments, which gave due consideration to all the protected characteristics.

A Member expressed disappointment that the total number of responses was 35 from 6 responding organisations.  She commented that the Council needed to improve the way it disseminated information to and engaged with the wider community in relation to major consultations such as the LIP.  Had social media platforms been used?  How had younger people been targeted?

The officer stated that every effort had been made to publicise and promote engagement with the LIP consultation.  Nevertheless, the dry nature of the subject matter meant that engagement was generally low.  In terms of local stakeholders, the consultation had been circulated to schools, Community Champions, partner agencies and Members.  Nevertheless, the comments received were detailed and useful and some expert advice and suggestions had been received from a wide range of organisations including TfL, neighbouring authorities such as Ealing, Harrow Cyclists, the Pinner Association, Historic England and Natural England.  He confirmed that the consultation had been publicised on the Council’s website and the Council’s Communications team had tweeted on the subject.

Did S11, relating to mobility issues, take into account hidden disabilities such as mental health issues and the need for some people to feel safe to travel by public transport or by walking? How were young people supported to travel?

The officer confirmed that S11 related to barriers in the physical environment, however, he was aware that there were other barriers.  The Council offered training, information and assistance to help individuals feel safe when travelling.  This had been included in the draft policy and there was an existing programme of Independent travel training. The officer undertook to provide the Member with a separate briefing regarding the matter outside the meeting.

A Member commented that incidences of illegal cycling on the pavement, inconsiderate parking in the vicinity of schools, the reduction of parking at the Civic Centre site, greening the borough, implementation of 20 mph zones (which, in his view were not in fact self-enforcing) would not be enforceable due to a due lack of resources.  Who would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of some of these measures, such as greening the borough?

The officer responded that whereas TfL would provide the initial capital for the implementation of schemes, ongoing maintenance costs for these would be the responsibility of the Council and funding would be prioritised accordingly. He explained that the use of resources for maintenance would be prioritised in accordance with current asset management strategies to maximise the benefit on the network.  He added that population projections and modelling studies had shown that the population of London would continue to grow at a steady pace, though the road network could not be expanded to keep pace with this growth and increase in demand.  Traffic, parking and congestion issues would continue to be exacerbated.  It was therefore paramount that the Highways authority work closely with TfL to engage in long-term forward planning to mitigate against this trend and put in place a transport plan to mitigate its impact. 

The former Leader of the Council and the Labour Group had stated that he did not believe that the Mayor of London’s ambition to reduce the number of car journeys and car ownership to be practicable in outer London Boroughs.  What was the view of the current administration regarding the matter?

The Portfolio Holder for Environment stated that it was not feasible to expect to drastically reduce car ownership and car use in outer London boroughs.  The transport dynamics and challenges in Central London were very different to those in outer London Boroughs such as Harrow.  The Council was obliged to consider a number of different strategies and would continue to work closely with local stakeholders and TfL to review and improve the infrastructure and encourage modal shift through educating residents.

The officer added that the LIP contained ambitious forward-thinking targets for 2041.  The intention was not to demonise motorists but to encourage voluntary modal shift among residents to promote more sustainable travel patterns.

RESOLVED:  That the Draft LIP3 and the recommended changes be endorsed.