Agenda item

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).

 

Title of Deputation	Petition on parking restrictions in Spencer Road, Harrow, HA3 7AN/P
Reason for Deputation	To comment on the report made to TARSAP in January 2022 and subsequent discussion and represent the petition.

 

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 Members be put in touch with relevant Safer Neighbourhoods teams to enable speeds to be assessed so as to provide an evidence base for priority.

 

A back-benching Member commented that the Community Roadwatch had very limited resources.

 

2.              Rayners Lane, which requested the removal of a speed table.

 

A back-benching Member sought to support the request and stated despite the speed table being approved in public and statutory consultation, the resulting speed table was causing great difficulties for residents nearby due to vibrations caused, disturbance and complaints over a number of years and lack of funding should not be a reason for inaction.

 

A Member of the Panel asked if any new technologies could be used or different materials for the speed tables so that unwanted vibrations and noises could be reduced.

 

An officer explained that the council could not itself use cameras to enforce speed restriction but there were options regarding the road hump.  Different materials can reduce vibrations but they cause other problems.  The gradients of ramps can be reduced (as described in the report).  Another approach taken by some councils was not to introduce speed humps/tables but to have alternative traffic calming measures.  Officers agreed to carry out speed surveys.

 

3.              Ranmoor Gardens, which objected to the Marlborough School Street Scheme.  The officer explained a later item would include discussions on this scheme and it was agreed for this to be discussed then.

 

4.              Camrose Avenue, which highlighted safety issues including pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction with Burnt Oak Broadway (A5).  The officer explained that the A5 formed the boundary with London Borough of Barnet and (all arms of) this junction was the responsibility of Barnet as the leading authority.  Harrow were in contact with Barnet  to chase where they are on the scheme as they will be the lead authority.  The operation of all traffic signals in London are managed by TfL.

 

An invited Member explained he and previous Head of Service had observed the junction and great crossing difficulties.  He requested officers follow up with Barnet council regarding developing a scheme along with TfL.  The other issue is that of speeding and lack of crossings along Camrose Avenue and requested a speed survey.

 

A Panel Member also raised that traffic light timings had caused drivers to jump the lights in this area.  The officer noted that TfL controlled traffic light timing but could raise this issue with TfL.

 

5.              Pinner Road /Station Road which wanted a junction made safer.  An officer explained that this scheme was in its development phase and was expected to be completed at the end of the next financial year.

 

6.              Cherry Tree Way, which has objected to double yellow lines.  An officer explained that this petition had been discussed with the Portfolio Holder and Ward Members and would be implemented subject to it being signed off this financial year 2022-23.

 

7.              St Brides Avenue, which had raised safety issues.  A Member of the Panel raised that the (flat white painted mini) roundabout had proven to be ineffective and had resulted in drivers not adhering to the road layout and that there was concern for public safety especially with proximity to Camrose Primary school.  There was an original traffic triangle which appeared to offer crossing options. Residents would probably welcome the original layout being restored.

 

In response, an officer wanted to establish the history and reasoning for the current layout and investigate the best way of moving forward.  We would then need to look at what TfL LIP funding might be required in relation to the current LIP programme.

 

8.              Culverlands Close had objected to double yellow lines.  The Officer explained that following consultation an amended scheme is planned for implementation by the end of August 2022.  The officer also confirmed they had liaised with Ward Councillors on this matter.

 

9.              Pangbourne Drive and Dalkeith Grove, which requested a formal crossing.  The officer that the request would be investigated and TfL funding for any proposals sought as part of the LIP programme.  Implementation of any scheme works would be subject to funding being granted by TfL.

 

10.           Veldene Way, which requested double yellow lines.  The officer explained that this would be implemented in August 2022, subject to any objections from the statutory TMO consultation.

 

11.           Porlock Avenue, which requested for improved road safety measures.  The officer explained that defective signage had been fixed, however consideration of any new measures would require resolution of the outstanding funding issue from TfL.  Officers explained that this is highly unlikely to be this financial year due to the financial position of TfL.

 

12.           Leeway Close, which requested for a new CPZ.  An officer explained that due to delaysthis will be taken forward into next financial year 2023-24.

 

13.           Merlin Crescent, which had addressed parking issues.  An officer explained that this scheme was on the programme for the current financial year to be completed.

 

When an invited Member asked if this would be completed this financial year, an officer explained that all requests received are assessed and placed on a priority list of existing and new requests.  Only the top scoring schemes subject to funding are recommended to taken forward and subsequently included in the parking programme for the coming financial year.

 

14.           Kings Road/Drake Road junction, which requested the removal of a speed table and Kings Road/Ravenswood Crescent, which requested the removal of a speed table.

 

A back-benching Member spoke (regarding both petitions 14 and 15) strongly in favour of the immediate removal of the junction speed tables at both these junctions insisting traffic including buses and other large vehicles from early morning to late at night are causing great vibrations, also vehicles braking / accelerating and many complaints from residents needing priority action by the Panel.

 

An officer explained the council will look at the practicality of modifying the ramps of the speed tables probably reducing the gradient so that noise/ vibration effects can be mitigated.  If this proves not sufficiently successful other options, even the complete removal of the speed humps would be considered.  However, we would need to seek funding if removal was chosen as it is much more expensive.

 

The Chair of the Panel was interested at how the scheme with the road humps in Kings Road was instigated, as it surely would come from community demand and/or to address safety and have followed consultation.  Whilst not ruling out removal in the future, he was concerned with the limited funding and demand for safety and traffic calming improvements across the borough, that schemes were put in only to be removed at significant waste of funding.

 

An Adviser commented that driver behaviour was an issue with people driving too fast over these traffic calming measures and with accelerating and decelerating.  It was suggested that better signage and education including bus drivers would be beneficial for residents and road users.

 

15.           Methuen Road, which requested the timing and duration of existing zone (O) be reviewed.  An officer explained that this scheme has moved to the prioritisation stage and would be implemented subject to consultation in 2023-24.

 

A Member of the Panel asked of the origin of the parking restriction times of 08:30 to 20:30, Monday to Saturday, to which an officer explained that the parking controls that had been introduced were the result of earlier consultations undertaken in the area which were supported by the local residents.

 

The Member asked if the hours could be revisited, to which an officer explained that the cost and time involved in a review of a scheme previously supported by residents would be at cost of a potential new scheme.  The Officer continued to explain that TARSAP had previously agreed that parking scheme reviews would no longer be undertaken after implementation due to the impact this would have on the parking programme and the number of new schemes that could be taken forward each year.

 

An officer raised that a review of the consultation process and how parking and traffic schemes were prioritised should be presented to the Panel.

 

In a discussion that followed, an invited Member raised concern over how many residents may have not known about the initial consultation of this scheme and a Member of the Panel also noted that phraseology of consultations should be clear and easy to understand.  In addition, a Member of the Panel also raised that a minimum number of responses to particular consultations should be considered.

 

16.           The Heights, which requested for improved road safety measures in order for speeding concerns to be addressed.  An officer explained that speed enforcement was a responsibility of the Police, however, they had suggested a speed survey be undertaken.

 

A Member of the Panel noted that though a speed survey had taken place in the past, it was felt that speeding had recently become worse over time and that a speed survey would be welcomed.  A later time for the new speed surveys was requested.

 

17.           Merlin Crescent, which requested for road safety measures and a pedestrian crossing.  An officer explained that investigation of the petition requests take place this financial year.

 

Member requested joint consideration with petition 7 of the report due to similar issues involved.

 

A Member of the Panel also suggested that petition 13 could also be combined with the consultation.  An officer noted that the consultations would be assessing differing (road safety and parking) needs and the combination of consultations could risk fewer needs of residents being met.

 

18.           Borrowdale Avenue and Grasmere Gardens, which requested that speeding concerns be addressed.  An officer explained that investigation of the petition request would take place this financial year.  

 

19.           West Towers, Pinner, which requested that parking concerns be addressed.  An officer explained that this was to be part of this year’s programme to be investigated. 

 

20.           Brookshill, which requested for road safety measures (Hujjat Primary School).  An officer explained that the scheme proposals particularly to install guard-railing had raised some concerns about cyclists being trapped between traffic and the guard railing so a road safety assessment needed to be completed and will be reported back.

 

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.