Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 June 2015, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2015 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a report that outlined the responses received to the proposals to introduce various waiting restrictions along Berther Road.

The report informed the Committee that following a request from Ward Councillors and a petition received from residents of Berther Road to deal with the increasing level of parking and its duration. Members agreed in principle for officers to undertake an informal consultation in the area, to gauge residents feeling about the parking situation

Following an informal consultation, a scheme was designed consisting of ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions on the northern side of the road, that extended to the southern side of the road to cover residential accesses, while the remainder of the southern side of the road would remain restricted by the existing Monday to Friday 8:30am to 9:30am waiting restrictions. The proposed ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions also extended into Nelmes Road, on its western side, for 10 metres either side of the junction.

The report informed the Committee that by the close of the consultation on 19 June 2015, eight responses were received to the advertised proposals, of which six were from residents who outlined their support for the scheme, one respondent was concerned about displaced parking and a petition signed by 38 residents of Berther Road requested for a residents parking scheme to be operational twice a day.  All of the responses were summarised and appended to the report.

In officer’s view, the proposed ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions were designed to deal with the increasing levels of parking taking place in the road that was related to a local successful restaurant, pub and bar, which operated late into the evening. The ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions on the northern side of the road would ensure traffic flowed, while on the southern side it would ensure that residents’ driveways were not blocked. The Monday to Friday 8:30am to 9:30am waiting restrictions on the southern side of the road would continue to limit all day commuter parking, while providing valuable parking for the local residents and businesses but would have a limited traffic calming effect.

The report detailed that any agreed restrictions would be implemented as soon as possible in order for an efficient improvement to the current parking situation in the area. It was also agreed to extend the hours of enforcement operations, with enforcement officers undertaking specific late evening patrols.

With its agreement Councillors Roger Ramsey and Ron Ower addressed the Committee.

Councillor Ramsey stated that there were problems in the area caused primarily by commuters and patrons of a local restaurant. He stated that action was required but there was no obvious that would suit everyone. Councillor Ramsey acknowledged that the purpose of the proposed scheme was to bring immediate relief to the road but noted the concerns raised by many residents over the effect of the scheme. Councillor Ramsey questioned whether a wider review of the area would, in itself, have the necessary focus to adequately deal with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The report before the Committee detailed the outcome of a consultation for the provision of pedestrian crossing improvements, a 20 mph zone and traffic calming in Harwood Hall Lane outside the Montessori School, Upminster.

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

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

The report detailed that a vehicular entrance to the school was 100 metres south west of the entrance to Corbets Tey School. It was mentioned 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 this to be implemented.

The report informed the Committee that the current proposal sought the removal of the pinch point west of Corbets Tey School. The installation of a build-out outside the proposed Oakfield School pedestrian entrance as in previous schemes. Officers were of the view that without this build-out, no uncontrolled pedestrian crossing was possible.

The proposal also included plans for Harwood Hall Lane to become a 20 mph zone road from the junction with Corbets Tey Road and just west of Oakfield School vehicular entrance. Three speed humps were proposed west of Bear Block Cottages, and between Corbets Tey School and Oakfield School entrances.

Four responses to the consultation were appended to the report.

In officers’ view, the school had done everything to facilitate active travel within its school travel plan and the only way to develop this further was with physical changes to Harwood Hall Lane. A pedestrian access to the school would enable pupils to lead more active lives and learn to become independent before their transition to secondary school, as well as reducing traffic impact on Harwood Hall Lane at school travel times.

A resident of Corbets Tey Road had raised concern that the scheme would cause a queue of traffic up to Corbets Tey Road, affecting commuters’ journeys but officers did not consider that the scheme would have a significant impact on commuters driving through Harwood Hall Lane and also felt it would have a positive effect on driver behaviour in a location fronted by two schools and residential properties.

The report detailed concerns about visibility being impeded by pedestrians waiting to cross. In officers’ view the visibility required when travelling at 20mph was less than at 30mph and should visibility be limited, the onus was on the driver to proceed according to the prevailing road conditions.

The Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The report before Members detailed the proposals to introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions in Brentwood Road, in the vicinity of The Drill Public House.

The report stated that following reports of obstructive parking taking place in Brentwood Road around The Drill Public House, Tesco and Ginger Spice, the Committee agreed at its meeting in April 2015 in principle to introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions in the area to prevent obstructive parking and improve traffic flow.

The proposals were subsequently designed and publicly advertised to all those perceived to be affected by the proposals. Eighteen statutory bodies were also consulted and site notices were placed at the location.

At the close of the consultation on 15 May 2015, seventeen responses were received. The report summarised all the responses in the table appended to as the report Appendix B.

The respondents had raised the following points:

·         Concern about parking being displaced to outside their property or further down Brentwood Road. It was suggested that double yellow lines be extended to Slewins Lane from the roundabout to the bus stop outside No. 11.

·         A resident from Hazelmere Gardens was concerned about enforcing the longer duration restrictions, making the layby area into individual spaces and make it into a short term parking bay. The resident suggested the installation of   bollards to prevent vehicle parking on the footway, reducing the width of the layby to prevent echelon style parking in the bay, or removing the layby and install bike racks.

·         A business which was situated in the immediate area of the proposals had suggested a number of changes to the proposals, which were outlined on their amended plan that was appended to the report as Appendix C.

·         All comments from residents of Brentwood Road stated they were in favour of the proposals but were concerned about displacement, enforcement of any new restrictions and the suggested further extension of the double yellow lines. These varied from up to Squirrels Heath School entrance, on the odd numbered side, to Salisbury Road on one side

·         There were also requests for the layby outside Tesco to be made into a short term parking facility. Other parking issues related to the parade of shops between Nos. 364 and 376 Brentwood Road.

In officers’ view, due to the amount of obstructive parking in the Brentwood Road area, it was considered that the proposals should be implemented as advertised. The report informed the Committee that the layby fronting Tesco, was created as part of the planning conditions for the site and was intended for loading. A member of staff from Tesco had advised that deliveries could take place at any time between 8:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Saturday. The entire frontage of the Tesco and Ginger Spice site was covered by the layby and vehicle crossovers which led to an off-street parking provision for the flats above Tesco and the forecourt to Ginger Spice. It noted that it would not be possible to provide any form of parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Following clarification that the out of Town Centre parking bays provided for free parking for the first ninety minutes, the Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

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

a.    The proposals to covert the existing Disc Parking Bays to Pay and Display parking bays in Minster Way, Highfield Crescent and Upminster Road, as shown on the plan (ref: Upminster Bridge – Disc to P&D) be implemented as advertised;

b.    The effect of the scheme be monitored.

2. The estimated cost of this scheme as set in the report was £7000 which would be funded from the capital allocation and the remaining £1500 would be met from the 2015/16 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

Following clarification that the cost of the proposal was mainly to cover the statutory arrangements and would be funded by Transport for London, the Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

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

a.         The proposals to implement the loading bay in High Street, (as shown on plan QN010_HSTMO_001) be implemented as advertised;

b.         The effect of any agreed proposals be monitored.

2.            The estimated cost of the scheme in High Street as set out in the report was £1,000 and would be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Freight Loading Facilities.

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

The Committee 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.

At the June meeting of the Highways Advisory Committee Members raised concerns over the quality of road lining on the boroughs roads. Members had requested and officers had agreed to produce a schedule detailing the programme of works for the relining (white lines) of road markings on the boroughs roads. The schedule was to be presented to Members during the July meeting of the Highways Advisory Committee. As the schedule had not been presented to Members within the agreed timescale Members requested an update from officers on the likely timescale for receipt of the requested information.