Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 February 2013, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 February 2013 was approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Report attached

The Committee considered a report in response to a public consultation on proposals to provide a new residents parking zone in Caxton Way, Dickens Way and Brunel Close.  The consultation followed the adoption of these roads as highway maintained at the public expense.

The report detailed that prior to the proposals being formally advertised, discussions were held with the local residents’ association regarding the requirements for and the appropriate level of parking restrictions.  This discussion informed on the type of restriction to be taken forward and its hours of operation. 

A parking permit zone was proposed to be operational between 8:30am – 6:30pm Monday to Saturday inclusive to include all areas of Dickens Way, Caxton Way and Brunel Close other than those areas covered by yellow lines.  The proposal was that only residents of these roads may apply for residential permits. 

The report outlined that a methodology where parking permit zones do not include lining was a new approach made possible by the amendments to the Traffic Signs, Regulations and General Directions.  Lines were no longer required and signs would be erected at the zone entrance with repeater signs on lamp columns.  This would reduce the level of maintenance required and allows residents a level of flexibility that markings do not.  

Fifty letters were hand delivered to residents potentially affected by the scheme and the immediate area with a closing date of 1 February 2013 for comments.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by two local resident of the area with one expressing his views for the scheme stating that residents had undertaken their own ballot which showed even more support for the scheme than the formal council consultation. The other speaker expressed his view against the scheme stating that that the proposed double yellow lines should be more extensive as any parking on the street would cause problems for traffic trying to pass and that there was plenty of off-street parking in the estate. The objector would like the double yellow line extended past Brunel Close.

Councillor Andrew Curtin also addressed the Committee expressing his support for the scheme. He added that due to the estate’s proximity to Romford Town centre, parking controls were needed.

During general debate a member of the committee was of the view that the parking scheme sought to privatise the roads for the exclusive use of residents. It was suggested that a one-hour parking restriction was adequate to deter non-resident commuter parking.

Another member considered the roads to form a self-contained area for which the scheme was appropriate.

The Committee RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the proposal be implemented as detailed in the report and shown on drawing QL062-OF-101-A Final Parking Restrictions.

2.  That it be noted that the estimated cost of £4,000 for implementation           would be met by Taylor Wimpey North Thames Limited secured by an Agreement made under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980.

The vote for the recommendation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Report attached

The Committee considered a report that detailed responses to a public consultation for making changes to the pinch point traffic calming features on Orange Tree Hill and North Road to improve conditions and safety for bicycle users.

The original scheme was installed in early 2003 based on a casualty study reviewing rates for the 4 years to 2000. In that period, there were 54 injury collisions along North Road/ Orange Tree Hill and of these, 5 were fatalities and 11 involving serious injury.

The 2010 scheme was based on a review of the 4 years to December 2009 where 15 injury collisions were recorded and of these, 4 were serious.

The report informed the Committee that the current scheme was completed in early 2011 but officers would not draw any conclusions as to the efficacy of the scheme until there was at least a 3 years’ of casualty data available.

The proposed changes to the existing layout were also intended to reduce the risks and concerns expressed by cycle users, but it was recognised that this would not address the concerns of horse riders. There would be a risk with sections of shared-use cycle track but it would be for the cycle user to consider the prevailing conditions and behave accordingly.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by a local resident who spoke in support of the scheme, he stated that the proposed scheme along Orange Tree Hill and North Road was an important route for cyclists and that the previous traffic calming scheme was popular.

Councillor Sandra Binion spoke against the scheme. She was of the opinion that something was needed for horse riders who were catered for in the original scheme. Councillor Binion expressed  a view against the use of the footways by cyclists and was also concerned about the safety of cyclists re-joining the carriageway afterward. Councillor Binion suggested that the proposal be deferred for further consideration to include the suggested implementation of an off-set arrangement for pinch points.

During general debate Members of the Committee discussed:

·         Why certain footways had been identified for cycle use and some not, as shown on Drawing 101. In response officers explained that cyclists would use the footway while going uphill as it would be difficult for them to match traffic speed. Cyclists proceeding downhill would be more likely to match traffic speed. 

·         The possibility of widening the footways. Officers explained that there were constraints on highway space which would prevent widening the footways..

·         The difficulties presented in trying to accommodate the different highway users in such a small space. 

Councillor Kelly moved a motion to the matter until the 3 years’ accident data was available for consideration the motion was seconded by Councillor Alexander.

The Committee RESOLVED to defer this matter until the 3 years’ accident data was available.

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 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 Street Care 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 en bloc.

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