Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 November 2012, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The agreement of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 November 2012 were deferred to next meeting of the Committee as page 5 of the minute was omitted in the printing of the agenda.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and, without debate, RESOLVED:

1.         To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the junction alterations, pinch point, speed table and ‘at any time’ parking restrictions be approved for implementation as detailed in the report and shown on drawing: QL022/OB/01.A

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of the scheme will be £15,000 which would be met from the 2012/13 Transport for London Local Implementation Plan allocation for School Travel Plans Implementation.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.         To accept the contents of the report and recommend a response for the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment to be relayed back to Transport for London with regard to the proposed camera removals as set out in Appendix III.

2.         To note the contents of the report relating to the future of safety camera provision in London.

3.         That it be noted that in the event of a new camera scheme being proposed in the future, capital funding would have to be provided by the Council and an annual maintenance charge would be payable.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the bus stop accessibility improvements set out in the report and shown on the following drawings be implemented:

·         QL010-OF-101A

·         QL010-OF-103A

·         QL010-OF-104A

·         QL010-OF-105A

·         QL010-OF-106A

·         QL010-OF-107A

·         QL010-OF-108A

·         QL010-OF-109A

·         QL010-OF-110A

·         QL010-OF-111A

·         QL010-OF-112A

·         QL010-OF-113A

2.            That it be noted that the estimated cost of £50,000 for implementation         would be met by Transport for London through the 2012/13 Local Implementation Plan allocations for Bus Stop Accessibility for R248.

Report attached

The report before Members sets out a proposals to improve bus stop accessibility, the walking environment and the public realm at the Harold Wood Station bus interchange.

With its agreement, Councillor Lesley Kelly addressed the Committee. Councillor Kelly commended the scheme and the proposed drop-off bay. She felt the extra footway space would be of assistance to pedestrians.

A member of the Committee was of the view that the footway widening by the station corner was especially helpful.

Another member sought and got confirmation that the island was being cut back to allow buses to turn and pass.

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.         To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community            Empowerment that the bus stop accessibility, walking           environment and     public realm proposals be implemented as detailed on drawing QL007-100A.

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £70,000 would be met from the 2012/13 Transport for London Local Implementation Plan allocation for Gooshays Drive & Gubbins Lane Highway Improvements.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the bus stop accessibility improvements set out in the report and shown on the following drawings are implemented;

·         QL020-OF-201A

·         QL020-OF-202A

·         QL020-OF-203A

2.            That it be noted that the estimated cost of £30,000 for implementation         would be met by Transport for London through the 2012/13 Local Implementation Plan allocations for Bus Stop Accessibility for R294, Whitchurch Road.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and Councillor Steven Kelly asked whether it was possible to extend the proposals to Dycourts. Officers explained that that proposed extension to Dycorts had been examined but that the funding for the proposals was not sufficient to incorporate the extension to Dycorts, The Committee RESOLVED:

1.         To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the 20mph Zone and speed table, with repaving and surfacing in Settle Road be approved for implementation as detailed in the report            and shown on drawings QL017/100 and QL017/101.

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £90,000 for implementation would be met by Transport for London through the 2012/13 Local Implementation Plan allocations for the Learning Village Access Improvements.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.         To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community            Empowerment that the following measures detailed in the report be implemented along with making the relevant Traffic Regulation Orders as shown on drawings QK039/PR03 and QK039/PR04A.

2.         That it be noted that the cost of the works involved are contained within the existing contract with Breheny Ltd to deliver the Traffic Management Scheme and would be met from the Rainham Traffic Management Grant Funded Capital Budget.

Report attached

The Committee RESOLVED: to withdrawn the report from its consideration at this meeting as it was noted that the consultation was not due to end until 28 December 2012.

Report attached

The report before the Committee detailed  comments received in response to a public consultation on proposals to provide a loading and parking bay outside 77/79 Butts Green Road and a bus stop clearway outside 69/75 Butts Green Road in support of the implementation of a development at 77/79 Butts Green Road and sought a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the measures either be implemented or the Head of Streetcare proceeds with the design and consultation on an alternative layout.

Several members of the Committee were of the opinion that they should declare an interest as they were also members of Regulatory Services Committee that rejected the scheme.

The Legal Advisor explained the relevance of the Powergen case and advised that the quorum for the committee was 4..Councillor Breading raised a motion seconded by Councillor Kelly for the matter to be deferred to the subsequent meeting as the number of members who were part of the decision making process at Regulatory Services Committee formed a significant proportion of the Highways Advisory Committee

The Committee RESOLVED to defer this matter to the next meeting.

The vote for the motion was passed by 7 votes to 1 against with 1 abstention. Councillor Thompson voted against the motion whilst Councillor Taylor abstained from voting.

Report attached

The Committee considered a report that detailed schemes approved by Transport for London for funding. A feasibility study had recently been carried out to identify safety improvements along Noak Hill Road.

A public consultation had been carried out and the report detailed the finding of the feasibility study, public consultation and recommends the installation of vehicle activated sign along Noak Hill Road. 

          The report detailed that since the pinch point was installed along Noak Hill Road in 2005, the Havering Council has received numerous complaints. A number of incidents also occurred in the vicinity of pinch point. Some incidents were reported to Police and others were not reported to the Police because they were due to driver error. On several occasions, the bollards, lighting units and road signs in the pinch point were replaced at this location.

         In the four-year period to July 2012, 3 personal injury accidents (PIAs) were recorded along Noak Hill Road between Kyance Close and Taunton Road including Kyance Close and Taunton Road junctions. Of these 3 PIAs, 2 were serious and one was slight injury. 1 PIA occurred in the vicinity of pinch point. Before the installation of pinch point, 5 PIAs were recorded along Noak Hill Road between Kyance Close and Taunton Road over four year period to June 2004. All 5 PIAs occurred at the Noak Hill Road / Taunton Road junction. Of these 5 PIAs, 1 was serious and 4 were slight injuries. 

         The proposal in the report was to provide a vehicle activated sign along Noak Hill Road in the vicinity of pinch point. From the public consultation results, majority of respondents felt the vehicle activated sign would help to reduce vehicle speeds and improve road safety in the area.

Seven responses were received from London Buses, Local Member and residents from the 50 letters distributed. Six 6 opposed and raised concern to the removal of pinch point proposal and 1 had no objections to the scheme.

          Staff therefore are recommending that only the vehicle activated sign proposal be approved for implementation. 

Councillor Denis O’Flynn addressed the committee expressing concern if the pinch point was removed. Councillor O'Flynn made mention of a 200+ signature petition from residents to keep pinch point.

During debate a member of the Committee felt that the pinch point had reduced casualties, but he does not agree to the need for the VA sign.

The Committee unanimously RESOLVED:

1.      To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that a vehicle activated sign along Noak Hill Road between Taunton Road and Kynance Close as shown on Drawing No. QL005/N/1 be implemented.

2.      That the Committee having considered the representations from the  public consultation results, recommends to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the proposal to remove the pinch point along Noak Hill Road between Taunton Road and Kynance Close be omitted from the original proposals.

3.      That, it be noted that the estimated cost of £5,000 would be met from the Transport for London’s (TfL) 2012/13  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Report attached

The report before the Committee detailed a feasibility study that had been carried out to identify safety improvements along Hilldene Avenue as part of the Harold Hill Accident Reduction Programme with funding approval by Transport for London.

A public consultation had been carried out and the report outlined the findings of the feasibility study and public consultation and recommended the installation of a humped pelican crossing. 

The report stated that in the four-year period to December 2011, 9 personal injury accidents were recorded along Hilldene Avenue between Westdene Avenue and Eastdene Avenue. Of these 9 PIAs, 4 were serious, 5 were slight injuries and 3 involved pedestrians.

The proposal was to provide a humped pelican crossing along Hilldene Avenue between Westdene Avenue and Eastdene Avenue as shown on drawing No: QL002/H/1. These proposals would reduce vehicle speeds and improve road safety in the area.

Following Highways Advisory Committee approval for a public consultation in January 2012, letters describing the proposals were delivered to local residents / occupiers along Hilldene Avenue. Emergency Services, bus companies and cycling representatives were also consulted on the proposals.  Approximately, 170 letters were delivered by hand to premises in the area affected by the proposals. Two written responses were received from London Buses and London Bus Infrastructure. Both indicated that the scheme should not affect them.

The view of Council officers was that the proposed humped pelican crossing would improve pedestrian facility, lower vehicle speeds and reduce accidents in the area. No respondents objected to the proposal. It was therefore recommended that the proposed measures in the recommendation should be approved for implementation.

During the debate members discussed issues concerning the cost of the scheme. A member sought clarity on the collisions in the area.

A motion to recommend rejection of the scheme was proposed by Councillor Kelly and seconded by Councillor Oddy. The vote to recommend rejection was lost by 4 votes to 5.

The Committee then voted on the recommendation in the report, the vote to recommend implementation of the proposed scheme was lost 3 votes to 6. As such this resulted in a non-decision. The report will therefore be re-presented at the next meeting of the Committee.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.      To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that a pedestrian refuge and centreline hatch road markings along Ravenscourt Grove by Ravenscourt Drive as shown on drawing No. QL005/R/1R be implemented.

2.      That, it be noted that the estimated cost of £12,000 would be met from the Transport for London’s (TfL) 2012/13 financial year allocation to Havering for Accident Reduction Programme.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.      To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that a speed table along Junction Road between Western Road and Carlton Road as shown on drawing No. QL005/2 be implemented.

2.      That, it be noted that the estimated cost of £15,000 would be met from the Transport for London’s (TfL) 2012/13 financial year allocation to Havering for Accident Reduction Programme.

The vote for the recommendation was passed by 8 votes to 1.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.           To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the cycle track on the eastern side of Rainham Road between Ingrebourne Hill and Dover’s Corner be approved for implementation as detailed and shown on the following drawings: QL011/1001A; QL011/1002A; QL011/1003A; QL011/1004A

2.           That it be noted that the estimated cost of the whole Sustrans Connect2 scheme was estimated to be £1,558,000.

3.           That it be noted that the estimated cost of the highway elements of the       scheme set out within this report is £65,000 would be funded through the 2012/13 Transport for London Local Implementation Plan allocations for the Ingrebourne Valley Sustrans Connect 2 project and the Big Lottery Sustrans Connect 2 allocation. Management procedures were in place to ensure completion within the financial year.

The vote for the recommendation was passed by 8 votes to 1.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.           To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community            Empowerment that the various elements detailed in the report be implemented as shown on drawing QJ047/01/05

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £500 would be met from the        2012/13 revenue allocation for Borough Roads Minor Improvements.

Report to follow if available

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment:

a.    the proposals to extend the ‘At any time’ Waiting Restrictions on the eastern kerb-line of Haynes Road to the northern boundary of No.1 Haynes Road, as shown on drawing Ref: Haynes Road/Squirrels Heath Lane, be implemented as advertised.

b.    the effect of the scheme be monitored;

c.    Members note that the estimated cost of this scheme as set out in this report is £250 and can be funded from the 2012/13 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The vote for the proposal was passed by 8 votes to 1 against.

Report to follow if available

The Committee considered the report that detailed the responses received to the advertised proposals for waiting restrictions in Little Gaynes Lane and recommended a further course of action.

The proposals were to introduce ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions for 15 metres on all of the Corbets Tey Road junction with Little Gaynes Lane, introduce 7.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday waiting restrictions on the eastern side of Little Gaynes Lane from a point 15 metres north of the northern kerbline of Corbets Tey Road, to the common boundary of nos. 10 and 12 and on the western side and to introduce 7.00am to 8.30am Monday to Friday waiting restriction, from a point 15 metres north of the northern kerbline of Corbets Tey Road, to a point opposite the common boundary of nos. 10 and 12.

The report set out the responses received to the advertised proposals. Eighteen statutory bodies and 61 residents were consulted on the proposals. Twelve responses had been received to the proposals giving a 20% response rate.

Nine residents supported the proposals, with some wanting further restrictions around and opposite the junction of Little Gaynes Gardens. The residents that commented against the proposals were mainly concerned over the displacement of parked vehicles into other areas. 

Staff monitored the effects of any changes to parking controls, to ensure that parking problems could be kept to a minimum and if it was considered that further controls were necessary, the issue would be reported back to the Committee and a further course of action could be agreed.

Officers had considered each of the consultation responses and had tried to minimise the potential negative impact arising from these proposals in terms of improving accessibility, safety and convenience for local residents and businesses.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by a local resident who expressed his views in support of the scheme.

During the debate, members discussed issues concerning the proposed waiting restriction. They were of the view that the proposed time restrictions were not consistent with other restrictions in the borough. A member felt that the proposed 7.00am to 8.30am Monday to Friday restrictions on the doctors side of the road would not keep commuters away and would affect patients visiting the surgery. It was also stated that the proposed 7.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday restriction on the even numbered side of the road went too far and should terminate above the word proposed i.e. the common boundary of Nos. 4 & 6.

The Committee RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that:

a. ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions for 15 metres on all of the Corbets Tey Road junction with Little Gaynes Lane, be introduced as shown on the Plan annexed to the report at Appendix A and further implemention of an 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday waiting restrictions on the even numbered side of the road from the end of the at any time waiting restriction at the junction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Report to follow if available

The Committee considered a report that detailed the responses received to the advertised proposals for waiting restrictions in Cherry Walk.

The scheme proposals were to extend the existing ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions in Cherry Walk, on its south-eastern side, from a point 15 metres south-west of the south-western kerbline of Rainham Road, to the north-eastern flank wall of No. 1 Faray Terrace, Cherry Walk, and on the north-western side, from a point 13.5 metres south-west of the south-western kerbline of Rainham Road, to a point 15 metres south-west of the south-western kerbline of Rainham Road.

The proposals were advertised in the Romford Recorder and London Gazette, 18 statutory bodies and 4 residents were consulted on the proposals. One response was received to the proposals.

Parking was at a premium in Cherry Walk and as such the scheme had been designed so that on-street parking was maximised with the long term safety and access of the road user in mind.

The proposals were to extend the waiting restrictions on the side of the road where vehicles mainly parked for a distance of 1.5 metres. 

Staff had considered the response and had tried to minimise the potential negative impact arising from these proposals in terms of improving accessibility, safety and convenience for local residents and businesses.

Staff would monitor the effects of these proposals and report back to the Committee if further action was necessary.

During the debate, a member outlined that he felt the proposals went too far into the road and that the resident that responded should not have a bay allocated to them.

A motion to reject the proposal was raised by Councillor Kelly and seconded by Councillor Oddy.

The Committee RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment rejection of the scheme proposed in the report to extend the at any time waiting restrictions in Cherry Walk, on the south-eastern side, from a point south-west of the south-western kerbline of Rainham Road, to the north-eastern flank wall of No. 1 Faray Terrace, Cherry Walk, and on the north-western side, from a point 13.5 metre south-west of the south-western kerbline of Rainham Road, to a point 15 metres south-west of the south-western kerbline of Rainham Road, shown on drawing reference TPC158 Cherry Walk annexed to the report..

The vote for the motion was passed by 5 votes to 2 against and 2 abstentions. Councillors Breading and Wood voted against the motion whilst Councillors Durant and Thompson abstained from voting.

The Committee is requested to consider the report relating to work in progress and applications - Report attached

The report presented Members with all new highway scheme requests in order for a decision to be made on whether the scheme should be processed 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’s decisions and votes thereon are noted against each request:

The Committee is requested to consider the report relating to minor traffic and parking schemes - Report attached

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: