Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 May 2011, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 May 2011 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee is requested to consider the report relating to work in progress and applications.

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:

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:

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.

Further to an approval by the Committee for the Head of Streetcare to proceed with a design and consultation of suitable measures (HAC July 2010, Request No.8). on a request from a Councillor for a yellow box to be considered at the junction of A125 Upper Rainham Road and Elm Park Avenue following complaints from residents that south-bound traffic queues are preventing right turns from Elm Park Avenue at peak times.

The report outlined that the use of yellow box markings does not require any traffic orders, but are subject to rules of use. A yellow box may be placed across the side arm of a traffic signal-controlled junction, such as Upper Rainham Road and Elm Park Avenue. Such a junction would become known as a “yellow box junction”.

The report informed the Committee that officers had visited the site at different times and concluded that at peak times, some drivers were blocking the Elm Park Avenue arm of the junction and that a yellow box would assist with traffic flow.

The report stated that before a Highway Authority made a decision on the implementation of a yellow box junction, they were required to consult with the police because the contravention of the marking was an offence. In London, there were civil enforcement powers available for Councils to enforce such “moving traffic” offences, but Havering had not taken these on. Therefore, the enforcement of yellow box junctions remained with the Metropolitan Police.

The report detailed that the Metropolitan Police had been consulted on the proposal and had made the following comments:

§         That they would support the proposed as outlined. The original complaint mentioned southbound traffic so this proposal would suit.

§         That they would remind the consultee that this road marking was one of the decriminalised signs and they do not normally enforce those signs now covered as a civil offence. 

§         That they acknowledged, for the time being Havering Police are still enforcing the civil signs until such time that Havering undertook that responsibility.

In summary, the Police stated that, any offence would not routinely be enforced by the local police. That if a pattern of offending did occur any enforcement would be undertaken after balancing the needs of the local community with other policing responsibilities.

During the debate of the proposals, a member of the Committee stated that he did not feel there was a problem and so spending the proposed money would be a waste. He questioned the set back stop line and felt the signals should simply be rephrased.

The Principal Engineer explained that the set back was to allow buses to make the left turn into Elm Park Avenue. In addition it was mentioned that there were plans for a widening scheme which thus far had not been funded.

The Committee was informed that for any given situation, a junction would have an optimum cycle time within which each arm gets some green time. To favour one arm over the other would create  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.