Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2015, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2015 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The report before Members set out the responses to the public consultation on the proposals to introduce a residents parking scheme in Mill Park Avenue and Pay & Display parking bays in Mavis Grove and associated waiting restrictions in both roads.

The report informed the Committee that the provision of Pay & Display parking bays in the area was more user friendly and accessible to the public and the introduction of residents parking would deter long term parking and provide more parking for residents living in the area.

The Committee noted that approximately 174 letters were delivered in the area with twenty-five responses received, a 14.4% return. All of the responses were summarised with staff comments in the appendix to the report.

Officers indicated that, from the responses received, it seemed clear that there were parking problems in both these roads, which needed to be addressed. The proposed Pay and Display parking provisions in Mavis Grove would provide parking spaces for the restaurants and businesses in Station Lane and help to reduce shorter term parking in Mill Park Avenue. The proposed residents parking provision would limit the longer term parking in Mill Park Avenue and give residents and their visitors somewhere to park within the restricted period.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by a member of the public who was in support of the proposals. The speaker informed the Committee that the introduction of parking charges in the area had led to an associated rise in commuter parking. The speaker described instances of obstructive parking including the regular blocking of driveways. The speaker stated that residents only parking permits were required and that four of the eleven objections to the scheme were all from one local business. 

During a brief debate, a Member sought clarification as to whether business users in the area would benefit from the proposed permits. Members of the Committee were of the view that only residents should be entitled to the permits. Officers confirmed that businesses would not be allowed to apply for the permits.

A Member argued that the introduction of parking permits was not the solution to the issues in the area. The Member suggested that if commuter parking was the issue, a one hour parking restriction would resolve the matter.  

The Committee RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment;

(a)          that the proposals shown on the drawing (Ref: TPC481, Mill Park Avenue & Mavis Grove) of the report be implemented;

(b)          the extension of the residents parking scheme to include those residents of No’s 5 to 19, 6 & 8 Mavis Grove; all residents of Mill Park Avenue and No. 25 Ravenscourt Grove;

(c)          the extension of the residents parking scheme in Mill Park Avenue along the side wall of No. 25 Ravenscourt Grove;

(d)          that the effects of any implemented proposals be monitored.

2.            To note that the estimated cost of the scheme was £7000, which would be funded from the capital allocation and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The report before Members set out the responses to a consultation for the provision of fully accessible bus stops on Avelon Road, Highfield Road and Gobions Avenue and sought a recommendation that the proposals be implemented.

The report stated that officers had developed these proposals for accessibility improvements for various bus stops as set out in the report.

The Committee noted that 39 letters had been delivered to those potentially affected and in addition key stakeholders were consulted such as London Buses, the emergency services and Ward Councillors. Comments from eight respondents, seven objecting and one in support of various parts of the schemes, were summarised in the appendix of the report.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by a member of the public who spoke against the proposals for Avelon Road as shown on drawing QO001-OF-A252-A. Speaking in favour of the bus stop being moved completely from its current location the speaker raised safety concerns over access and egress from his drive way and over the noise, rubbish and anti social behaviour that the bus stop attracted.

A Member commented that he was familiar with the location and had witnessed the issues raised by the speaker. The Member was of the view that the stop should be relocated southward to a location just outside the care home. In response, officers stated the suggestion could be consulted on but it could elicit objections from other residents.

Following the debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to recommend approval of the proposals as set out in the report save for those as outlined on drawing QO001-OF-A252-A which should be rejected to enable further consultation on the location of the bus stop

It was RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop accessibility improvements on Avelon Road, Highfield Road and Gobions Avenue set out in the report and shown on the following drawings be implemented;

·       QO001-OF-A251-A

·       QO001-OF-A253-A

·       QO001-OF-A254-/2-A (Option 2)

·       QO001-OF-A255-A

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

The report before the Committee detailed responses to a consultation for the provision of a new, fully accessible, northbound bus stop on Wingletye Lane in three possible locations and sought a recommendation that one proposal be implemented from the options consulted on.

The Committee noted that seventeen letters were delivered to those potentially affected by the scheme and in addition to key stakeholders were consulted including London Buses, the emergency services and Ward Councillors., The thirteen responses received at the close of the consultation were summarised in the appendix of the report.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by a member of the public who spoke against the proposals listed as Option 2 and detailed on drawing number QN008-OF-A257.2 A.   The speaker raised various safety concerns stating that he had witnessed major crashes on Wingletye Lane resulting from speeding vehicles.   The speaker also raised concerns over congestion; the impact on the zebra crossing and anti-social behaviour and gave these as reasons not to provide the stop at the location. It was also suggested that a hail and ride bus service would be better on the route.

A Member raised similar safety issues to the speaker. The Member stated that the road can be extremely busy and the implementation of Option 2 would likely result in traffic queuing through the zebra crossing and mini-roundabout. The Member also raised concerns over the curve in the road and the ability of drivers to safely overtake a stationary bus. 

A Member stated that Option 1 was previously rejected because of safety issues. The Member stated that people currently stayed on the bus which loops at the County Park Estate and then alight at the existing southbound stop opposite number 213. The Member proposed that all three options should be recommended for rejection but the proposed dropped kerbs opposite and outside nos. 213/215 should be installed to assist passengers.

A Member questioned whether the proposals would have any practical benefit for school children as they would have left the bus at the previous stop. 

A  Member sought clarification on the frequency of the buses in the area. 

Following the debate a motion was put forward and seconded that the recommendations in the report be recommended for rejection save for the installation of the dropped kerbs outside and opposite No 213/215. Officers were asked to investigate the possibility of the introduction of a hail and ride service with Transport for London.

By a vote of 10 in favour to 1 against the Committee RESOLVED:

To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the proposals in the report be rejected save for the installation of dropped kerbs outside and opposite No 213/215 which should be implemented.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

·         To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the provision of a cycle bypass at the existing emergency access in Queens Park Road to provide access for pedal cycles.

·         To note that the proposal would prohibit all vehicles, except pedal cycles and emergency vehicles (fire brigade, police and ambulance being used in an emergency) from proceeding through the existing road closure in Queens Park Road.

·         To note that the estimated cost for implementation was £3,500 which wouldbe met from the Council’s 2015/16 Revenue Budget for Minor Safety Improvements for Borough Roads.

The report before Members set out the responses to the re-consultation for the relocation of a bus stop on Mungo Park Road and sought a recommendation that the proposals be implemented.

The report detailed that one resident had objected to the proposals stating that parking should be prevented in the location more generally with double yellow lines or that residents should have off street parking. The resident  also stated that the scheme would not deal with congestion in the area and that the bus route should be made “hail and ride”.

A Member commended the scheme and suggested it be recommended for approval.

Having considered the report and representations it was RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop on Mungo Park Road, adjacent to 40A Wood Lane, be moved approximately 5 metres north, together with bus stop accessibility improvements as set out in the report and shown on drawing QO001-OF-A183-B ;

2.         To note that the estimated cost of £2,000 for implementation would be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Bus Stop Accessibility.

The report before Members set out responses to a re-consultation for the provision of fully accessible bus stops on Straight Road and sought a recommendation that the proposals be implemented.

During a brief debate Members discussed the re-location of the bus stop to the front of the dentist practice along Straight Road.  A Member was of the opinion that the new location for the northbound stop would be dangerous and asked why it needed to be relocated. Officers clarified that the current site could not be made accessible for the 2-door bus operation.

A Member commented that the relocation of the stop would make it difficult to manoeuvre a vehicle on and off the forecourt of the dental surgery. Officers confirmed that it may be possible to widen the vehicle crossing (subject to investigation).

A Member added that he used the dental surgery and had some concerns about the bus shelter which would need to be set back and not have end panels otherwise visibility would be an issue at the premises driveway.

Following debate it was RESOLVED;

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop accessibility improvements on Straight Road shown on drawing QN008-OF-A225-A227-A be implemented subject to the widening of the vehicle crossing at the dental surgery (where possible).

2.         To note that the estimated cost of £10,000 for implementation 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 the representations and without debate RESOLVED:

1.            To Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the bus stop currently near 255 Collier Row Lane be relocated to a position approximately 106 metres north, together with making the bus stop fully accessible in the proposed location and with the relocation of a pedestrian refuge, as detailed on drawing QO001-OF-A10-A  be implemented;

2.         To note that the estimated cost of £10,000 for implementation would be met by Transport for London through the 2015/16 Local Implementation Plan allocation for Bus Stop Accessibility.

The report before Members set out the responses to a consultation to introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions around the junctions and apexes of bends around the Scott’s School site and to change the hours of the existing School Keep Clear marking to operate from 8am to 5 pm Monday to Friday inclusive and sought a recommendation that the proposals be implemented.

During debate Members sought clarification as to whether the restriction applied during term time only and if there had been parking issues in the area as the proposal would reduce parking spaces.

In response officers clarified that the school was in support of the proposal as it improved safety and traffic flow in the area.

The Committee also noted that due to varying school calendars the phrase “term time” was no longer applicable.

Having considered the report and representations it was RESOLVED:

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

a)     the operational (term time) hours of the existing School Keep Clear marking in Bonnington Road be changed from 8:15 to 9:15am and 3:00 to 4:15pm Monday to Friday inclusive, to 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday inclusive;

b)     the implementation of ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions in Swanbourne Drive, Veny Crescent and Bonnington Road.

c)      a review of the parking restrictions be undertaken in roads around the other school entrance in the Maybank Avenue area;

d)     the effects of any agreed proposals be monitored.

2.    To note that the estimated cost of the scheme was £1000, which would be funded from the 2015/16 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The Committee considered the report and the representations and without debate RESOLVED to:

a)    Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment the proposals to introduce waiting restrictions in Camborne Avenue operational between 10:30am and 11:30am Monday to Friday be implemented as advertised.

b)    Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

c)    Note that the estimated cost of the scheme as set out in the report was £800 and would be funded from the 2015/16 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The report before Members set out the responses received to the consultation and the subsequent advertised proposals to introduce Pay & Display parking bays in Butts Green Road and Walden Road.

Following clarification that parking charges were subject to the first thirty minutes free and that two machines would be installed in the area,

it was RESOLVED:

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

(a)  the proposals to introduce ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions in Walden Road and Butts Green Road, be implemented as advertised;

(b)  the proposals to introduce pay and display parking in Walden Road and Butts Green Road, be implemented as advertised;

(c)  The effects of any implemented proposals be monitored.

2.    To note that the estimated cost of the scheme was £8500, of which £7000 would be funded from the capital allocation and the remaining £1500 be met from the 2015/16 Minor Parking Schemes budget

The Committee considered a report showing 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 are appended to the minutes.

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 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 are appended to the minutes.