Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 April  2015, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 April 2015 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a report that set out the responses to the advertised proposals to change the existing meter parking bays to Pay & Display parking bays in Gilbert Road. 

The report detailed that at the close of public consultation on 9 January 2015, two responses were received to the proposals. One response was in favour and one was against the proposed scheme.

The report informed the committee that the installation of Pay & Display in Gilbert Road would see an improvement of the parking infrastructure and reduction of street furniture. The existing meters would be reused elsewhere.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by a local resident who spoke against the scheme. The speaker informed the committee that he lived at number 5 Gilbert Road and that the proposed parking bay would hinder his ability to enter and leave his driveway. The speaker raised concerns over line of sight and the use of the proposed parking spaces by taxi drivers.

During a brief debate, Members received clarification of the exact location of 5 Gilbert Close and the proposed parking bays. Officers confirmed that the proposed bays would not be in the vicinity of 5 Gilbert Close. The Committee received clarification that the number of parking bays would remain the same with the introduction of new machines including updated technology and  greater efficiencies for revenue collection that include telephone payment.

The Committee RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a)    to change existing meter parking bays to Pay and Display parking bays in Gilbert Road (Romford) as shown on this report as Appendix 1

(b)    that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.    That the estimated cost of Pay & Display parking in Gilbert Road as set out in the report was £4,000 and would be funded from the capital

The report before Members detailed the outcome to the advertised proposals to change the use of the existing Free Parking Bays located inAvon Road/Front Lane/Moor Lane/Marlborough Gardens/ Moultrie Way to paid for parking facilities.

The report detailed that throughout the borough there was a general trend for the Council to receive requests to change the existing free parking bays to Pay and Display parking bays and limited waiting bays, which were now considered to be more convenient and user friendly for visitors and shoppers.

A public consultation was carried out from 15 February 2015, 227 residents and business holders who were perceived to be affected by the proposals were advised of them by letter and plan. Eighteen statutory bodies were also consulted and site notices were placed at the location.

During the consultation period there was a change in policy with regards to Pay and Display parking. Vehicles were to be given a free parking period, as well as there being a change to the tariff prices. With all these changes taking place it was decided that the consultation should be launched detailing these changes.

The re-launched consultation was carried out from 4 March 2015. By the close of the consultation on 27 March 2015, there were twenty-eight responses received to the proposals, 27 against and one for. A further two  petitions were received, one was in the form of 165 signed photocopied letters outlining four points of objection to the proposals.

With its agreement Councillor Clarence Barrett addressed the Committee.

Councillor Barrett stated that the current arrangement that afforded car users 90 minutes free parking worked well. Councillor Barrett stated that the report was deficient in information. He questioned the cost of four new machines at £5000 each and challenged the estimated income figures, stating that this was not value for money. Councillor Barrett stated that the scheme, if implemented, would result in the vehicles using the unrestricted parking in Moultrie Way. Councillor Barrett was also of the view that the cashless phone machine proposed for Marlborough Gardens that required an account to be set-up would only penalise the large elderly population.

During a brief debate, a Member stated that the scheme was a pointless and expensive exercise. Another member questioned whether the new machines would ever re-coup the investment. Another member felt the proposed scheme would have a detrimental effect on the shops in the area.

The report recommended that the proposal be implemented, however following a motion to reject the scheme which was carried, it was RESOLVED that the proposal to change free parking bays to Pay & display parking bays inAvon Road/Front Lane/Moor Lane/Marlborough Gardens/ Moultrie Way be recommended to the Cabinet Member for Environment to be Rejected.

The vote for the proposal to reject was carried by ten votes in favour with one against. Councillor Wulverton voted against the proposal.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop accessibility improvements on Noak Hill Road set out in the report and shown on the following drawings (contained within Appendix I) be implemented;

·         QN008-OF-A233 & A234-A

·         QN008-OF-A235-A

·         QN008-OF-A236-A

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £24,000 for implementation (all sites) would be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Bus Stop Accessibility.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop accessibility improvements on Lower Bedfords Road set out in the report and shown on the following drawing (contained within Appendix I) be implemented

·         QN008-OF-A231 & A232-A

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £8,000 for implementation (all sites) would be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Bus Stop Accessibility.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop accessibility improvements on Havering Road set out in the report and shown on the following drawings (contained within Appendix I) are implemented

·         QN008-OF-A190A

·         QN008-OF-A191A

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £22,000 for implementation (all sites) will be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Bus Stop Accessibility.

The vote for the proposal was carried by ten votes in favour with and one abstention. Councillor Durant abstained from voting.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop accessibility improvements on Lodge Lane set out in the report and shown on the following drawings (contained within Appendix I) be implemented

·         QN008-OF-A177&178-A

·         QN008-OF-A179-A

·         QN008-OF-A180-A

·         QN008-OF-A181-A

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £19,000 for implementation (all sites) would be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Bus Stop Accessibility.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop accessibility improvements on Orange Tree Hill set out in the  report and shown on the following drawings (contained within Appendix I) are implemented

·         QN008-OF-A192A & A193A

·         QN008-OF-A194A & A195A

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £20,000 for implementation (all sites) would be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Bus Stop Accessibility.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1. To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be advertised:

a.    The introduction of ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions between the Pay and Display parking bays and the common boundary of numbers 2 and 4, as shown on the drawing in Appendix A of the report

b.    That the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.    That the cost of the scheme would be funded from the 2015/16 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a)  Proposed Pay and Display parking bays in Albert Road as shown on the drawing in Appendix 1 of the report

(b)  that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.   That the estimated cost of Pay & Display parking in Albert Road as set out in the report was £4,000 and would be funded from the Streetcare  capital budget.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a) Proposed Pay and Display parking bays in Craigdale Road as shown on the drawing in Appendix 1 of the report

(b)  that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.   That the estimated cost of Pay & Display parking in Craigdale Road as set out in the report was £4,000 and would be funded from the Streetcare Capital Budget.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a) to change existing meter parking bays to Pay and Display parking bays in Marks Road (Romford) as shown on the report as Appendix 1

(b) that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.   That Members note that the estimated cost of Pay & Display parking in Marks Road as set out in the report was £4,000 and would be funded from the capital allocation;

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a)  to change existing meter parking bays to Pay and Display parking bays in Linden Street as shown on the drawing in Appendix 1 of the report

(b)  that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.   That the estimated cost of Pay & Display parking in Linden Street as set out in the report was £4,000 and would be funded from the Streetcare capital budget;

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a)  to change existing meter parking bays to Pay and Display parking bays in Olive Street (Romford) as shown on the drawing in Appendix 1 of the report

(b)  that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.   That the estimated cost of Pay & Display parking in Olive Street as set out in the report was £4,000 and would be funded from the Streetcare  capital budget.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.    To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a)  to change existing disc parking bays to Pay and Display parking bays in Douglas  Road as shown on the drawing in Appendix 1 of the report:

(b)  that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2.   That the estimated cost of Pay & Display parking in Douglas Road as set out in the report was £4,000 and would be funded from the capital allocation.

At its last meeting the Committee decided to defer a decision on the proposal in order to enable officers to provide further clarification on issues relating to the entitlement of parking permits.

The Committee received confirmation that where businesses share a premises each business would receive a separate allocation of business and visitor permits. A Member also requested that officers reconsider the location of the proposed disabled parking bay. The committee received confirmation that the relocation of the disabled bay could be considered under the delegated authority of the Head of Service.

Following this clarification, the Committee RESOLVED:

1. To recommends to the Cabinet Member for the Environment that:

a.    The proposals to change the use of the existing Disc parking facilities in Tadworth and Station Parades to Paid for parking and Residents Parking be implemented as advertised.

b.      The proposals for loading facilities within both parades be implemented as advertised.

c.    The proposed waiting restrictions within the both parades, including the proposed ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions at the junctions, be implemented as advertised.

d.      the effect of any agreed proposals be monitored.

2.      That the estimated cost of this scheme in Station Parade and Tadworth Parade as set out in the report was £14,000, which would  be funded from the capital allocation and the remaining £2,500 would be met from the 2014/15 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

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

The Committee had considered a report with all the new highway scheme 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 had considered and agreed in principle the schedule that detailed the applications received by the service.

The Committee’s decisions were noted as against each request and appended to the minutes.

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

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

The Committee’s decisions were noted as against each request and appended to the minutes.