Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Community.

Prior to the consideration of the report of the Corporate Director of Community, the Panel heard from the five deputees present at the meeting (Minute 78 also refers), full details of which were available by following the link at Minute 78 and listening to the audio recording.

 

In summary, the deputees urged the Panel to reject the schemes that they were speaking on and that they were vehemently opposed to proposals because of the adverse impact they would have on their communities.  Their submissions are also set out at Appendix 1 to these minutes.

 

The deputees responded to questions from Members of the Panel and stated that:

 

-               the proposed schemes for Dennis Lane and Green Lane areas were counter productive and would not increase the use of public transport or walking;

 

-               the pedestrian barriers in the Honeypot Lane area had not encouraged people to walk to their local shops and there was evidence that the foot fall had dropped considerably which was crippling businesses in the area.  The situation had been exacerbated by the lack of parking, including the provision of parking for people with disabilities;

 

-               the proposals for the Pinner View area (Scheme LTN-02 at revised Appendix A to the report referred) would lead to traffic congestion in the surrounding roads.  A Member cited the proposals previously rejected by the Panel for the Goodwill to All junction and asked officers how the two proposals were related.  An officer responded that there were plans to consult on the Goodwill to All junction which had had to be delayed due to Covid-19.  Another Panel Member stated that in light of the officer response it was best that both the schemes were held in abeyance and was of the view that the response given appeared to give an impression of silo working mentality;

 

-               the School Streets Grimsdyke Primary School Scheme SS-01 was poor and would increase traffic flows and congestion and did not interact with other schemes in the area.  The consultation was poor and a 20mph zone was required in Hillview if the scheme were to proceed.  An officer replied that funding was only available for SS-01 but that he would ascertain if a 20mph could be incorporated but he was not certain that the parking issue (Grimsdyke Road) could be resolved.  

 

The Chair thanked the deputees for their presentations.

 

Prior to the consideration of the report of the Corporate Director of Community, the Panel also heard from a number of back-benching Members who, in brief, were opposed to the implementation of a number of schemes, as follows:

 

-               Green Lane/Dennis Lane – the proposals were unrealistic and partial closures would impact on the surrounding area and would result in traffic gridlocks.  Both Green Lane and Dennis Lane had steep gradients and would not encourage cycling.  The problems would be exacerbated when children returned to schools in September 2020.   The existing width restriction at Dennis Lane would need to be removed and were the proposed scheme to fail, it would result in a greater volume of traffic, particularly heavy traffic traversing through this road.  It too would benefit from a 20mph zone;  

 

-               Streatfield Road, Queensbury (PS-07) and Cycle lanes at Honeypot Lane (SC-01) – had had an adverse impact on businesses and restaurants which relied on night time trade as there was no parking available.  The cycle lane had been badly designed, it also included a bus stop, and would endanger cyclists and lead to rat-running traffic.  A 20mph zone was required for the area which might help improve the cycle lane;

 

-               there had been an overall lack of consultation and good decision-making had been compromised, particularly when the proposals could have been presented at programmed meetings of the Panel, including the Cabinet.  Additionally, the lack of available detail for a number of schemes and how they would operate was lacking.  The approach taken had had reputational damage and it would have been better to have fewer schemes in place supported by residents instead of imposing schemes that had been ill-conceived in order to deliver a better street scape and a better Harrow;

 

-               Pinner View area, Headstone South (LTN-02) and Southfield Park area, North Harrow (LTN-06) – the schemes would split Headstone Ward into two and would lead to congestion and impact upon children and parents travelling to Vaughan School.  The schemes should only proceed if supported by the emergency services, particularly the Fire Brigade, and if they were reviewed on a monthly basis.  Perhaps only one scheme ought to be implemented and that the barrier in Pinner View could be installed at a latter date;

 

-               Streatfield Road, Queensbury - shops (PS-07),  Kenton Road –shops (PS-10) and Kenton Lane – Belmont shops (PS-11) – the barriers and traffic cones were unwelcoming and the proposals were impacting adversely on independent businesses and giving priority to supermarkets.  Deliveries to some of the shops was being compromised due to lack of parking and all the schemes ought to be rejected;

 

-               Uxbridge Road, Harrow Weald – cycle lane – the scheme was poor and not safe.  A joined up approach was lacking.  The scheme should be removed or not made permanent.

 

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Community in respect of the delivery of the London Streetspace Programme (LSP) in Harrow as a response to the COVID-19 public health pandemic.  The Panel also received the following:

 

-               a Supplemental Agenda, which included a Revised Appendix A, setting out the Pedestrian Space Measures, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, School Streets, Strategic Cycling, Schemes not approved and Revised Indicative Implementation Schedule, on the grounds of special circumstances and urgency set out in the Supplemental Agenda;

 

-               a Second Supplemental Agenda, which included additional appendices setting out the outcomes of consultations with Ward Councillor, including representations received from a local MP and other Members  to the report of the Corporate Director of Community, on the grounds of special circumstances and urgency set out therein.

 

The Director of Environment introduced the report and informed the Panel that

 

·                     the Covid-19 health emergency had significantly affected the way in which people worked and travelled;

 

·                     the government was providing £2 billion to support areas with high levels of public transport such as London to take measures to reallocate road space to people walking and cycling to encourage active travel, enable social distancing and prevent an increase in private car use that could detrimentally affect the road network;

 

·                     currently the bus and rail systems could only take up to fraction of the normal capacity.  Therefore, there was a significant potential for many journeys to convert to private car instead, as the economy opened up and more journeys were made;

 

·                     Harrow Council, along with the other London Local Authorities, had applied to Transport for London (TfL) for funding for pedestrian space, low traffic neighbourhood and school streets schemes as a part of the Street Spaces Programme.  Separate funding had also been made available from the Department for Transport directly to be used on strategic cycling schemes;

 

·                     the schemes had been developed in accordance with the applicable criteria and publicised online via an engagement portal and, more recently, officers had met with Ward Councillors in relation to schemes in their Wards.  There were two supplementary reports to the main report which provided additional information in this regard;

 

·                     the report collated all the comments, feedback and contributions on the schemes for the Panel, including feedback from Ward Councillors to allow the Panel to consider which schemes should be recommended and proceed to implementation;

 

·                     the duration of the schemes was as follows:

-               the pedestrian space schemes that had already been implemented at an earlier stage in the programme were temporary only and would be removed when no longer required;

 

-               all other schemes were experimental using temporary or low cost measures that could be easily removed at a later date following a detailed review after approximately 6 months.

The Director informed the Panel that the report also indicated an additional regular review process for schemes so that the impact could be regularly monitored and adjustments made quickly as and when they were necessary.  He added that the funding available was of a short term nature and any schemes recommended for implementation needed to be completed by the end of September 2020 to comply with the funding requirements.  The 7-8 weeks remaining period represented the minimum length of time to successfully deliver these.

The Chair stated that he was conscious of the time and wanted to ensure that sufficient time was allowed for debate on those schemes that were contentious and he listed them as LTN-05, LTN-07/08/09 and SC-10 and referred to a proposed draft recommendation in relation to George V Avenue scheme which was read out at the meeting.  Panel Members expressed concerns and were of the view that decisions ought not to be left to officers only and that the Panel ought not to be by-passed and that, as elected Councillors, they were accountable to residents. 

 

A couple of the advisers to the Panel stated as follows:

 

-               the proposals ought to be supported in order to improve the general health of people living and working in Harrow, as diabetes was prevalent amongst the residents of Harrow;

 

-               road space needed to be re-organised and changes needed to be put in places now and before the schools re-opened in September 2020;

 

-               consultations had been put in place and true consultations would effectively commence during the trial period;

 

-               low traffic neighbourhood schemes would improve road safety and increase walking.  It was important that the schemes were in place now and, in time, residents would appreciate their benefits.  Harrow had the lowest cycling rates in London and this needed to be improved.  The use of electric bikes would help negotiate gradients;

 

-               the Honeypot Lane schemes could be improved further but it was not a busy route for buses;

 

-               the scheme proposed for George V Avenue should be implemented and would help protect children cycling to school;

 

-               the scheme proposed for Uxbridge Road ought to be extended;

 

-               the proposals were bold and appropriate and showed that Harrow was committed to dealing with the issues it faced in public health and encourage active travel.  Children (1 in 5) in Year 6 in Harrow were obese, car ownership was the second highest in London and Harrow was in the fifth lowest quartile of frequent walkers.  The Council needed to address all these aspect for a better and healthy Harrow.

 

Members of the Panel commented as follows:

 

-               they needed to listen to the deputees and residents who had made representations to them;

 

-               consideration needed to be given to the adverse impact on Harrow’s communities, such as places of worship and businesses.  The barriers installed in certain areas needed to be removed;

 

-               some schemes need to be removed with immediate effect;

 

-               Ward Councillors ought to be fully involved and consulted.

 

Members of the Panel moved and seconded a number of changes to the recommendations/proposals set out in the report of the Corporate Director of Community and indicative votes were taken in respect of PS-07, PS-08, PS-10 and PS-11 details of which were set out in the Revised Appendix A to the report of the Corporate Director of Community.  It was also recommended that schemes LTN-04/05/08 be removed.

 

A Panel Member stated that Members had been put in a difficult position and the Panel would generally support walking and other health benefits that would ensue.  He acknowledged the passionate comments from the advisers who spoke in support of the proposals.  However, as elected officials, Members needed to balance and consider the impact of the schemes on Harrow’s residents, schools and businesses.  He was of the view that local residents and businesses were best placed to realise how schemes would impact on them and this factor could not be ignored.  He stated that the discussions he had had with officers in respect of his Ward had not been captured in the appendix circulated with the Second Supplemental Agenda.

 

The same Member suggested that the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition make representations to the government/TfL in order to negotiate the best deal for Harrow.

 

Prior to moving to a formal vote on the recommendations set out in the report, the Chair stated that he had read all the comments, including those set out in the Portal as part of the consultation process.  He reminded Members of the Panel that no other funding would be available as part of the Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

 

The Panel was of the view that they could not support all the recommendations/proposals before them and amended some of the recommendations/proposals to those set out in the report of the Corporate Director of Community and these were moved and duly seconded and it was

 

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to the Leader of the Council)

 

That

 

(1)          the impact of the health crisis on travel and public transport due to social distancing requirements and the measures proposed by the Government and the Mayor of London to address the crisis be noted;

 

(2)          the pedestrian space schemes implemented, as shown in the revised Appendix A, table 1, be noted, except that the following Pedestrian Space Measures be withdrawn:

 

PS-07 – Streatfield Road, Queensbury – shops

PS-08 – Honeypot Lane, Canons Park – shops

PS-10 – Kenton Road, Kenton – shops

PS-11 – Kenton Lane, Belmont – shops

 

(3)          the low traffic neighbourhood schemes shown in the revised Appendix A, table 2, for implementation on an experimental basis by the end of September 2020, be approved, with the exception of the following:

 

LTN-05 – Green Lane area, Stanmore

LTN-07 – Byron Road area, Wealdstone

LTN-08 – Dennis Lane area, Stanmore

LTN-09 – Princes Drive area, Stanmore

 

and on the basis that the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Scheme – LTN-02, Pinner View area, Headstone South, be subject to consultation with Ward Councillors

 

[Note: Councillors Hinkley, Jogia and Patel wished to be recorded as having voted against the implementation of LTN-04 – Vaughan Road area, West Harrow.  Councillors Assad, Lee, Perry and Miles voted in favour of the implementation of LTN-04.  Therefore the Recommendation to the Leader of the Council to approve the implementation of LTN-04 was carried.]

 

(4)          the school streets schemes, as shown in the revised Appendix A, table 3, for  implementation on an experimental basis by the end of September 2020, be approved;

 

[Note:  Councillors Assad, Hinkley, Jogia, Lee, Patel, Perry and Miles wished to be recorded as having voted for the implementation of School Streets, SS-01 to SS-04.  Members voted unanimously for the Recommendation.]

 

(5)          the cycling schemes –  SC-01, SC-03 and SC-09 – implemented as shown in the revised Appendix A, table 4, be noted;

 

(6)          the George V Avenue (Hatch End) cycle scheme, SC-10, be approved for implementation as shown in the revised Appendix A, table 4,on an experimental basis by September 2020, subject to the Corporate Director of Community amending the scheme to reduce the length of the scheme to avoid it continuing past Nower Hill High School or to incorporate dedicated cycle lanes without the need to utilise a lane either side of the road;

 

(7)          the making of the experimental traffic orders, where required, to implement the necessary traffic and parking restrictions for the schemes for a minimum of 6 months be approved;

 

(8)          the Corporate Director of Community, following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment, be delegated authority to undertake a regular review of the schemes and provide a monthly update to members of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel and Ward Councillors and determine whether any amendments were required for schemes, including ending any experimental scheme;

 

(9)          a report be submitted to the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel following the initial 6 months of operation of schemes, to feed back the results of consultation and the equality impact assessments and to consider whether schemes should be ended, extended up to a maximum of 18 months or made permanent. 

 

Reason for Recommendation:  To implement the Street Spaces Schemes in order to address the  impact of the Covid-19 health crisis on travel and public transport and to support more active travel by walking and cycling and public health in line with current Department for Transport and Transport for London guidance.