Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 November 2013, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 12 November 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee is to note the revised membership of the Committee

The Chairman announced a revision to the membership of the Committee: Councillor Jeffery Brace to replace Councillor Billy Taylor. Members noted the revised Committee membership.

Report attached

The Committee considered a report that detailed responses to a consultation for the provision of fully accessible bus stops along Corbets Tey Road and Ockendon Road.

The report explained to the Committee that people with mobility problems, the elderly and people travelling with young children found it difficult to board or alight from buses, unless the vehicle is able to pull in close to the kerb (within 200mm).

The improvements to the bus stop environment such as raising kerbs, relaying footway surfaces, providing short footway links to stops and (in exceptional circumstances) providing pedestrian crossing facilities would help make bus stops fully accessible to all people.

The report also informed the Committee that the introduction of bus stop clearways improved the accessibility of bus stops by providing sufficient space for buses to pull in close to the kerb. That it had become even more important with the provision of buses that are fully wheelchair accessible, because the benefits of low-floor and “kneeling” buses are considerably reduced (if not removed) if the bus cannot be positioned next to the kerb.

That funding for Bus Stop Accessibility works would be met from the Transport for London Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

The report detailed proposals for accessibility improvements developed for various existing bus stops along Corbets Tey Road and Ockendon Road.

At the close of consultation, 9 responses were received which were summarised in Appendix 1 of the report.

Three respondents raised objections to various aspects of the scheme. With regard to the proposals outside 1-6 Ockendon Road (QM016-OF401A), the Metropolitan Police questioned the length of proposed clearway as it extended to the front of the general parking bay. The second was in relation to the southbound stop outside 249-251 Corbets Tey Road (Drawing QM016-OF-54A) whereby an objection was made in relocating the bus stop and shelter outside a listed building (No.251).

            The third was in relation to the northbound stop outside 130-134 Corbets Tey Road (Drawing QM016-OF-51&52A) where the resident of No.132 raised concern that the scheme would prevent the widening of the existing vehicle crossing in to his premises.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by the resident at 251 CorbetsTey Road who spoke against the relocation of the bus stop to the front of his property in line with his objection as set out in the report.

During the general debate members noted the concerns of the speaker in relation to the bus stop relocation to outside 249/251 Corbets Tey Road. Members had particular concerns over children crowding in the vicinity of the bus stop.

A Member raised concerns over the number of long clearways being installed in the borough and sought clarification on whether there were any statutory obligations to continue to install clearways. Officers clarified the duty under the Equalities Act to make bus stops accessible to all.

Another Member raised concerns about the pair of stops at the Ockendon Road shops being opposite each other presenting  a potential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Report attached

The report before the committee detailed responses to a consultation for the provision of fully accessible bus stops along Ardleigh Green Road, Butts Green Road, Billet Lane and North Street.

The report detailed that people with mobility problems, the elderly and people travelling with young children found it difficult to board or alight from buses, unless the vehicle was able to pull in close to the kerb (within 200mm). The difficulty of gaining kerbside access was often caused by indiscriminately parked vehicles, or lack of high kerb space adjacent to stops.

That the improvements to the bus stop environment such as raising kerbs, relaying footway surfaces, providing short footway links to stops and (in exceptional circumstances) providing pedestrian crossing facilities could help with making bus stops fully accessible to all people. It was also suggested that in some situations, it may be appropriate to build the footway out into the road to provide an accessible bus stop, although this would only be appropriate where carriageways were very wide.

The introduction of bus stop clearways improved the accessibility of bus stops by providing sufficient space for buses to pull in close to the kerb.

The funding for Bus Stop Accessibility works mainly come from the Transport for London Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

Proposals for accessibility improvements had been developed for various existing bus stops along Ardleigh Green Road, Butts Green Road, Billet Lane and North Street were set out in the report.

At the close of consultation, 10 responses were received which were summarised in Appendix 1 of the report.

With regard to the proposed bus stop clearway at 75 to 83 Ardleigh Green Road, the northbound stop shown on Drawing QM016-OF-205A, a proposal to relocate the bus stop to another location was under consultation. A separate report would be presented early in 2014.

The two options for the relocation of the bus stop at 87 to 89 North Street (Drawing QM016-OF-212A) and outside Menthone Place, North Street (Drawing QM016-OF-212-2A), had both support and opposition for the scheme.

The report stated that the Police preferred for the stop to be moved because of reduced conflict with vehicles accessing the business premises at No.87. This relocation was also supported by the resident at No.89 who was affected by the current location.

The report also outlined that the managing agent of Menthone Place raised opposition to the scheme in terms of its impact on the residents of Menthone Place, plus a resident immediately opposite the alternative location objected and suggested an alternative location in a completely different location.

During general debate, Members of the Committee discussed and sought clarification of the following matters:

·         Whether the footway in North Street was sufficiently wide for the installation of a bus shelter Officers clarified that the footway was wide enough to accommodate a shelter and not impede pedestrian traffic.

·          The extent of Transport for London’s (TfL) powers to install in bus stop flags and shelters. Officers clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1.      To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the measures are approved for implementation as detailed in the report and shown on drawing QM022/OB/01.B.

2. That it be noted the estimated cost of carrying out the works was £12,700 (plus a further possible cost payable to BT of up to £14,408 to relocate a telegraph pole). This would be met from the 2013/14 Transport for London Local Implementation Plan allocation for School Travel Plans Implementation.

The vote for the proposal was 8 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

Councillor Taylor voted against the scheme and Councillor Durant abstained from the vote.

Report attached

The report before the committee detailed the outcome of a second consultation on the provision of pedestrian improvements in Harwood Hall Lane, outside the Oakfields Montessori School, Upminster.

The report informed Members that the school was the only school in the borough not served by a footway up to its pedestrian entrance.

Harwood Hall Lane starts at its junction with Corbets Tey Road and runs south west for 630m to Aveley Road. It was subject to a 30mph speed limit and a 7.5 tonne weight restriction along its entire length. The road was also rural in nature. The only substantial footway runs on the north side from the junction with Corbets Tey Road up to the Corbets Tey School for children with complex learning needs, which lies opposite the Montessori School.

The vehicular entrance to the school was 100 metres south west of the entrance to Corbets Tey School. The report explained that for a number of years the school had a strong desire from parents for a dedicated pedestrian access to the school, something which the school had placed in its travel plan and had been campaigning for.

In order to provide a safe pedestrian crossing facility into the school there was a need for the crossing to be segregated from the vehicle entrance. Visibility requirements, Conservation Area restrictions and Tree Preservation Orders prevented a footway been constructed within the school boundary. Hence this proposal maintained the build out from the original plan modified to accommodate the large school buses exiting Corbets Tey School. The build out would provide pedestrians a large enough area to enter and leave the school and wait to cross the road.

The report also stated that the pedestrian facility would be used by both schools when they had a critical incident evacuation, a drill for which they have once a year when one school evacuated to the other.

The build out would act as a traffic calming feature with vehicles leaving Upminster having to give way to oncoming traffic. The existing pinch point would be removed and replaced with a round top hump. An additional lamp column would be provided in advance of this hump. This hump will be mirrored with another hump near the eastern boundary of Corbets Tey School. The humps would maintain calmed traffic outside both schools.

The report further detailed that the 30mph terminal signs located at the mini roundabout would be moved further into Harwood Hall Lane to ensure they were more visible to drivers and that ‘30’ roundels could be provided in addition to the 30mph repeater signs.

CorbetsTey School were concerned about the impact the build out would have on the large Havering coaches exiting their school. The shape of the build out had been revised following the last consultation. Staff were satisfied that there was satisfactory room for the manoeuvre.

Fifteen responses to the consultation were appended to the report.

The ward councillors and parents of Oakfields  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Report attached

The report before the Committee detailed responses to a consultation for the Brentwood Road/Heath Park Road/Salisbury Road. The Romford Accident Reduction Programme was one of the schemes approved by Transport for London for funding.

A feasibility study had been carried out to identify accident remedial measures in the area. The feasibility study looked at ways of reducing accidents and recommended the following safety improvements to reduce vehicle speed and minimise accidents.

·                Brentwood Road between The Drill Roundabout and Clive Road

(Drawing Nos:QM001/L, QM001/1, QM001/2R, QM001/3, QM001/4 and QM001/5)

-       20mph speed limit.

-       Coloured surfacing with 20/30 roundels road markings and road signs.

-       Speed table.

-       School Keep Clear road markings Monday-Friday, 8.00am-5.00pm.

-       Humped pelican crossing.

-       Speed table

-       20mph roundels.

·                Heath Park Road between The Drill Roundabout and Margaret Road   (Drawing Nos:QM001/L,  QM001/7 and QM001/8)

-       20mph speed limit.

-       Speed table.

-       Humped zebra crossing with illuminated zebra posts.

-       ‘Gateway measures with 20/30mph roundels, coloured surfacing and road signs.

·                Salisbury Road (Drawing Nos:QM001/L and QM001/6)

-       20mph speed limit.

-       Speed control humps

-       20mph roundels road markings.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by a local resident who spoke against the relocation of the southbound bus stop to a location outside his property  in line with his objection set out in the report.

During general debate, Members discussed whether the scheme would actually improve safety. A member commented that the roads in the area were already congested and that the scheme was not needed. Another member stated that the scheme would not deal with the issues and should be rejected with the funding allocated to other schemes. A number of members questioned the estimated cost of the scheme.

Officers confirmed that funding for the scheme would end in March 2014.

A motion to recommend rejection of the scheme was proposed by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor Kelly. The motion was carried by 9 votes for to 1 against.

Councillor Thompson voted in favour of the scheme.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED:

1. To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the improvement works to the junction of A12 Eastern Avenue, North Street and Havering Road be approved for implementation as detailed in the report and shown on the following drawing:

·         QL051/PC/01

2.  That it be noted that the estimated cost of £250,000 woiuld be met by agreed funding from the 2013/14 Transport for London (TFL) - Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

Report attached

The proposal before the Committee detailed the results of a public consultation for the provision of a 7.5 tonne weight limit in Geoffrey Avenue as part of measures to prevent the road being used by commercial vehicles often servicing the Church Road industrial estates. 

The report informed Members that it had been observed that on occasion commercial through-traffic uses the street in both directions. Concerns about larger commercial vehicles using the street had been raised by residents and was highlighted to the Council in the form of 69 signature petition which was considered by the Highways Advisory Committee at its meeting of 11 December 2012.  

A 7 day traffic survey (24 hours a day) was undertaken from Monday 8 July 2013 which recorded that out of 881 vehicles,123 were heavy goods (over 3.5 tonnes) travelling southbound compared to 49 out of 684 travelling northbound for the period.

The results showed that approximately 99% of the HGV’s entering Geoffrey Avenue from the A12 were classified as rigid 2 axle heavy good vehicles and therefore it was difficult to ascertain if these vehicles were above 7.5 tonne gross vehicle weight (GVW) as HGVs are classed as being vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.

Further analysis of the survey indicated that there was 30% more traffic (all vehicles) in general travelling southbound at average speeds 21.6 mph compared with 18.5 mph for northbound traffic.

A proposal to introduce a 7.5 tonne weight limit (with exemption for vehicles serving the street, such as refuse vehicles) was advertised with site notices placed and 68 letters delivered by hand to residents of the street with comments to be received in writing by 8 November 2013. At the close of consultation, 5 responses had been received with 3 from residents, 1 from the police and 1 from a Member of the committee.

The police objected to the proposals as it dealt with one road in isolation which would transfer the problem to parallel streets. The police suggested that the HGV route should be positively signed from the A12.

A resident gave full support to the proposals. One resident stated that the street should be “no entry” from the A12. One resident objected on the basis that the limit would not be enforced and would not deal with non-residential through traffic, especially where the A12 was congested and suggested that traffic be prevented from leaving the A12.

With the agreement of the Committee, the Chairman read a letter of support for the scheme from Councillor Pam Light.

In response to questions from members on the results of the traffic survey officers clarified that themajority of HGVs recorded using Geoffrey Avenue were 2 axle lorries and therefore, it was difficult to establish if these lorries were within the 7.5 tonne limit. Officers clarified that enforcement of the 7.5 tonne limit would lie with the Metropolitan Police as the Council had not taken on powers to enforce moving traffic offences.

During general debate, Members  noted that there had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

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 considered and made individual decisions on the schedule that detailed the applications.

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

Engineering Services, Highways – StreetCare

Highway Schemes Applications Schedule    10 December 2013

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