Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 September 2011, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 September 20111 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Report Attached

The Committee considered a report that detailed the outcome of a consultation relating to various measures to improve traffic flow and parking in Upminster Town Centre. The report also included a review of existing waiting restrictions, upgrading of on-street parking facilities, provisions for loading facilities for businesses, improving accessibility for passengers at existing bus stops, pedestrian crossing improvements and pedestrian guardrail relocation.

The following proposals were detailed in the report:

Existing traffic conditions at St. Mary’s Lane/ Corbets Tey Road / Station Road Junction, Upminster

The junction of St Mary’s Lane/Corbets Tey Road/Station Road handles considerable amount of both local and long distance traffic which resulted in long queues of traffic developing on all arms of the junction particularly during the peak periods.  

The above junction was locally known as Bell Corner and it was connected with a major network of local distributor roads.  To the north of the junction, was Station Road which leads to Hall Lane which in turn connects to the A127 Southend Arterial Road, thus providing access to Central London and the M25 motorway. The eastern arm of St Mary’s Lane connects to Brentwood whereas the western arm (A124) connects to Hornchurch Town Centre, Rush Green and continues into the Borough of Barking and Dagenham. In the south, Corbets Tey Road leads to country roads heading towards Ockendon, Aveley and beyond. 

Traffic movements at the junction of Bell Corner

In St Mary’s Lane (eastbound approach to the junction) there was one traffic lane which flares to three lanes at the stop line. The first lane permits left turn movements into Station Road, second lane permits ahead movements whereas the third lane permits right turn movements into Corbets Tey Road. In St Mary’s Lane (east side of the junction) there are two traffic lanes, the first lane permits ahead and left (Corbets Tey Road.) movements whereas the second lane permits right turn movements into Station Road. In Station Road there are two lanes, the first lane permits ahead (with a short left turn filter lane) whereas the second lane is for ahead and right turning traffic. Corbets Tey Road has similar traffic movements as Station Road, except lane 2 was for right turning traffic.

There were pedestrian crossing facilities provided on all arms of the junction. All crossings are signal controlled which allowed pedestrians to cross in two stages. The bus stops on the west side in Station Road were situated in the existing lay-bys which experience a regular occurrence of illegal parking throughout the day, thus forcing buses to stop in the road which in turn causes delays to other traffic. This provided poor accessibility for passengers particularly disabled people, elderly people or people with push chairs.

Site observations and traffic flow data showed that queuing was present during all peak periods but worst after 07:30 in AM peak with queues reaching a total of 24 vehicles in Corbets Tey Road, 26 vehicles in Station Road , 32 vehicles in St Mary’s lane (west)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Report Attached

The report before the Committee detailed the finding of the feasibility study, public consultation and set out recommendations for the safety improvements outlined in the report to be approved.

Chase Cross Road, Mawney Road and White Hart lane Area – Collier Row Accident Reduction Programme was one of the schemes approved by Transport for London for funding. A feasibility study had recently been carried out to identify safety improvements in the area and zebra crossing upgrade with pedestrian refuges, illuminated beacon posts, wider speed cushions, school keep clear markings changes, carriageways repair, street lighting improvements, and slow markings are proposed.

The following safety improvements were proposed:

            Chase Cross Road

·           Chase Cross Road between Felstead Road and Lawns Way

        (Plan No:QK003/C/1)

-       Upgrading existing zebra crossing

-       Pedestrian refuge as shown

-       Tactile pavings alteration

-       Illuminated Belisha beacon posts

-       Reduced crossing width to accommodate pedestrian refuge

·           Chase Cross Road outside properties 247 and 249

         (Plan No:QK003/C/2)

-       Upgrading existing zebra crossing

-       Pedestrian refuge as shown

-       Tactile pavings

-       Illuminated Belisha beacon posts

            Mawney Road and White Hart Lane

·        Wider speed cushions were proposed along White Hart Lane and Mawney Road as shown on Plan Nos. QK003/W/1 to QK003/W/8.

The following safety measures were proposed in the vicinity of Crownfield Infant and Junior Schools as shown on Plan No. QK003/W/3.

·        Changes to the existing School Keep Clear markings operation time from Monday to Friday, 815am – 0915 am & 3.00pm – 4.15pm to Monday to Friday, 0800-1700.

·        Changes to the existing large radius kerbs to 6metre radius as shown.

·        Repairing existing damaged carriageway and kerbs as shown.  

            Following the Committee approval for a public consultation in April 2011, letters, describing the proposals were delivered to local residents /occupiers, Emergency Services, Bus companies and cycling representatives on the proposals.

            London Buses raised concerns about the bus stop along Chase Cross Road opposite to Lawns Way. Following discussion, London Buses decided to move the bus stop approximately 10metres to the northwest of the road. A resident raised concerns about the pedestrian refuge near Lawns Way which would restrict the carriageway width. Since two pedestrian PIAs occurred at this location, staff considered that the proposed pedestrian refuge would minimise these accidents. It would not cause significant problems at this location. Another resident concerned about the parking conditions in the vicinity of shops and zebra crossing outside No. 247 Chase Cross Road. Parking team would review the parking restrictions at this location.  

            From the public consultation results, the majority of residents along Mawney Road and White Hart Lane were not in favour of wider speed cushions. Although the wider speed cushions would help to reduce vehicle speeds, staff decided to omit the original proposals of wider speed cushions instead the carriageway and footways in the vicinity of speed cushions would be repaired. It was also possible to improve street lighting along these two roads. The proposals of school keep clear time changes, narrow radius kerbs and carriageway/footways repair were necessary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Report Attached

The Committee considered a report for South End Road and Rainham Road Area. The South Havering Accident Reduction Programme was one of the schemes approved by Transport for London for funding. A feasibility study has recently been carried out to identify safety improvements in the area and zebra crossing, pedestrian refuges, illuminated beacon posts, minor carriageway widening, street lighting improvements, road signs, centre line hatch and slow markings are proposed.

A public consultation had been carried out and this report detailed the finding of the feasibility study, public consultation and recommends safety improvements be considered.

The following safety improvements were proposed and shown on Plan Nos QJ005/1 to QJ005/3.

            South End Road

·           South End Road by Coronation Drive and Maybank Avenue

        (Plan No:QK001/S/1)

-       Pedestrian refuge

-       Minor carriageway widening

-       Slow road markings

-       Removal of existing un-control crossing point

·           South End Road/Wood Lane mini roundabout (Plan No:QKJ001/S/2)

-       Tarmac dome construction (50mm high) as shown

-       Illuminated zebra crossing beacon posts

·           South End Road by Condor Walk  (Plan No:QK001/S/3)

-   ‘Zebra crossing with illuminated beacon posts as shown.

·           South End Road by Ford Lane and Grove Park Road

        (Plan  No:QK001/S/4)

-              Remove existing beacon posts and install yellow globes at the existing lighting posts

·           South End Road between Blacksmith’s Lane and Guysfield Drive.

               (Plan No:QK001/S/5)

-       Centre line hatch and slow road markings as shown.

            Rainham Road

·           Rainham Road by Coniston Way and Wood Lane (Plan No:QK001/R/1)

-       Sharp deviation chevron sign as shown

-       Slow and lane arrow road markings as shown

-       Street lighting improvements

·           Rainham Road between Sowrey Avenue and Bretons Cottages

               (Plan No:QKJ001/R/2)

-       Illuminated zebra crossing beacon posts as shown

-       Upgrading existing street lightings in the area

·           Rainham Road by Stanley Road North  (Plan No:QK001/R/3)

-       ‘Slow road markings as shown

-       Upgrading existing street lighting in the area

·           Rainham Road outside property No. 237 (Plan No:QK001/R/4)

-       Pedestrian refuge

-       Minor carriageway widening

-       Slow road markings

-       Upgrading existing street lighting in the area

·           Rainham Road by Blacksmith’s Lane (Plan No:QK001/R/5)

-       Extend zigzag road markings to assist school crossing patrol.

·           Rainham Road by Cherry Tree Close and Stanhope Road

        (Plan   No:QK001/R/6)

-       Centre line hatch road markings.

·           Rainham Road by Victory Road (Plan No:QK001/R/7)

-       Centre line white studs

-       Re-mark centre line markings

-       Existing traffic island to be removed

·           Rainham Road near Dovers corner (Plan No:QK001/R/8)

                     -   Slow road markings

These proposals would reduce vehicle speeds and minimise accidents in the area. 

Outcome of public consultation

The outcome of the public consultation was summarised in the Appendix of the report.

The report also informed the Committee that the relocation of pedestrian refuge along Rainham Road would be included in the final detail design stage. The mini roundabout, traffic signal and additional traffic calming measures along South End Road were not necessary at present. These proposals could be considered at a later date, if necessary. The accident analysis indicated that thirty one and thirty eight personal injury  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Report to follow if available

The report before the Committee outlined the responses received to the advertised waiting restrictions for the Appleton Way/ Dorrington Gardens area, and recommends a further course of action.

The schedules for the proposed restrictions were appended to the report as Appendix A.

The summaries of responses received to the advertised proposals, along with staff comments were appended to the report as Appendix B.

The report informed the Committee that from the five responses received, there were no specific objections to the outlined proposals, although there were concerns over the long term parking situation in the area outside what was proposed. As there have been no specific objections to the proposals, it is therefore considered they are generally well received and are needed. The effects of any new restrictions are normally monitored to ensure that further problems are not created.

Following a brief debate the Committee RESOLVED to recommend the following restrictions: 

AbbsCross Gardens, the north, north-west, west sides, implemented to a point opposite the southern building line of no.27.

Appleton Way

(a)       the south-west side, between a point 20 metres west of the western kerb-line of Station Lane and the common rear boundary of Nos. 2 and 4 Woodfield Way;

(b)       the south side, between a point 15 metres east of the eastern kerb-line of Victor Gardens and a point 10 metres west of the western kerb-line of Victor Gardens.

Bruce Avenue

(a)       both sides, between the eastern kerb-line of Sandown Avenue and a point 10 metres east of that kerb-line;

(b)       both sides, between the western kerb-line of Sandown Avenue and a point 10 metres west of that kerb-line.

Dorrington Gardens

(a)       both sides, between the eastern kerb-line of Sandown Avenue and a point 10 metres east of that kerb-line;

(b)       the north side, between the south-western kerb-line of Appleton Way and a point 10 metres west of the western kerb-line of Woodfield Way;

(c)       the south side, between the south-western kerb-line of Appleton Way and the eastern boundary of No. 30 Dorrinton Gardens.

Sandown Avenue

(a)       both sides

(i)        between the northern kerb-line of The Avenue and a point 10 metres north of that kerb-line;

(ii)       between the southern kerb-line of Victor Gardens and a point 10 metres south of that kerb-line;

(b)       the east side

(i)        between a point 10 metres south of the southern kerb-line of Bruce Avenue and a point 10 metres north of the northern kerb-line of Bruce Avenue;

(ii)       between a point 10 metres south of the southern kerb-line of Dorrington Gardens and a point 10 metres north of the northern kerb-line of Dorrington Gardens;

(c)       the west side, between a point 10 metres south of the southern kerb-line of Bruce Avenue and a point 10 metres north of the northern kerb-line of Bruce Avenue.

The Avenue, the north side, between a point 10 metres east of the eastern kerb-line of Sandown Avenue and a point 10 metres west of the western kerb-line of Sandown Avenue.

Victor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Committee is requested to consider the report relating to Highway Schemes Applications and work in progress.

The report presented Members with all new highway schemes requests in order for a decision to be made on whether the scheme should progress or not before resources were expended on detailed design and consultation.

The Committee would either make recommendations to the Head of StreetCare to progress the scheme or the Committee would reject the request.

The Committee considered and agreed in principle the schedule that detailed the applications received by the service.

The Committee’s decisions were noted as follows against each request:

To consider any other item in respect of which the Chairman is of the opinion, by reason of special circumstances which shall be specified in the minutes, that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

During the discussion of remaining items on the agenda the Committee RESOLVED to suspend Council Procedure Rule 9 to allow the conclusion of consideration of the remaining items on the agenda.

The Committee is requested to consider the report relating to minor traffic and parking schemes.

The report before the Committee detailed all Minor Traffic and Parking Scheme application requests in order for a decision to be made on whether the scheme should progress or not before resources were expended on detailed design and consultation.

The Committee would either make recommendations to the Head of StreetCare to progress the scheme or the Committee would reject the request.

The Committee considered and agreed in principle the schedule that detailed the applications received by the service.

The Committee’s decisions were noted as follows against each scheme: