Agenda and minutes

The Chairman will announce details of the arrangements in case of fire or other events that might require the meeting room or building’s evacuation.

The Chairman will also announce the following:

The Committee is reminded that the design work undertaken by Staff falls under the requirements of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015. Those Staff undertaking design work are appropriately trained, experienced and qualified to do so and can demonstrate competence under the Regulations. They also have specific legal duties associated with their work.

For the purposes of the Regulations, a Designer can include an organisation or individual that prepares or modifies a design for any part of a construction project, including the design of temporary works, or arranges or instructs someone else to do it.

While the Committee is of course free to make suggestions for Staff to review, it should not make design decisions as this would mean that the Committee takes on part or all of the Designer's responsibilities under the Regulations.

The Chairman gave details of arrangements in the event of fire or other event that may require the evacuation of the meeting room. 

The Committee was also informed that Agenda Item 8 TPC510 – Petersfield Avenue – Pay and Display Parking Bays had been withdrawn in order for Ward Councillors and Officers to give further consideration to the detail of the proposed scheme. 

An apology was received from Councillor Joshua Chapman (Councillor Wendy Brice-Thompson substituting). 

Members are invited to disclose any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting. 

Members may still disclose any interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

There was no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2016 were agreed, subject to the an amendment  to the title of Minute Number 85 to read Rainham and not Elm Park, as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The report before Members set out responses to a consultation on the proposals to improve traffic flow and upgrading the existing cycle facilities in Angel Way, Romford. 

The report informed the Committee of the following measures to improve traffic in the area:

·                Proposal for ‘At Any time’ Waiting and Loading restrictions - At present there were temporary ‘At Any time’ waiting and loading restrictions in Angel Way between High Street and the Trinity Methodist Church, Romford. These were mainly to keep the road clear from inconsiderate parking. Temporary restrictions were only valid for up to eighteen months. The temporary measures would soon expire and it was proposed to make the restrictions permanent. 

·                Proposal for freight loading bays in Angel Way, Romford - There were loading bays at the back of the shops in High Street, Romford between property nos. 18 to 46. However, there were no loading bays for businesses in Angel Way by the multi-storey car park.  The lack of on-street loading facilities had been raised by local shopkeepers and businesses in Angel Way and High Street that received deliveries throughout the day.  At present, delivery vehicles parked at various locations in the road, which obstructed the general flow of traffic.

The proposed loading bays would allow free parking for maximum 30 minutes with no return within 1 hour. The loading bays would operate from 06:00am to 09:00pm, Mondays to Saturdays inclusive; the same as other loading bays in the close vicinity.

·                Proposal to upgrade the existing cycle route - Following the various developments in the Town Centre, it was considered necessary to view the direction of travel of the traffic in relation to upgrading the existing cycle route in the area.

·                Proposal for a speed table; to raise the carriage level of Angel Way (between the High Street, Romford and the entrance to the car park of Trinity Methodist Church) to be level with the existing footway which will have a similar effect to a speed table.

At the close of consultation, 5 responses were received. The Metropolitan Police, Salvation Army and Havering branch of the London Cycle Campaign were in support of the proposed measures.  A resident of Leyland Court had objected to the proposals stating lack of parking for the residents of Leyland Court, and the Trinity Methodist Church had objected to making the temporary restrictions permanent, between High Street, Romford and the private car park owned by the Church. 

The Committee was informed of representaions made by the Cabinet Member for Environment asking for consideration to be given to a relaxation of the operational times of the parking restrictions. In response to Members questions officers confirmed that it was not currently financially viable to open the Angel Way multi-storey car park on Sundays, but that this would be kept under review. 

During a brief debate, Members discussed the operational times of the traffic restrictions, use of the loading bays and received information on future development in the vicinity of Angel way which would effect future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the proposals for the taxi ranks set detailed in the report and shown on the following drawing Q013/08/01.A Hilldene Shopping Centre be implemented;

2.         That it be noted that the estimated cost of £8,500for implementation would be met by Transport for London through the 2016/17 Taxi Rank Provision Review.

The report before the Committee detailed responses to a consultation for improvements to the highway for pedestrians on Squirrels Heath Lane.

The Committee noted that the following improvements were proposed:

·         Pedestrian refuge - east of Dreywood Court (including road widening),

·         Hardley Crescent junction reduction,

·         Elvet Avenue junction reduction,

·         Northumberland Avenue junction reduction,

·         Westmoreland Avenue junction reduction,

·         Pedestrian refuge at the mini roundabout (including removal of pedestrian guardrail around the roundabout).

·         Double yellow line restrictions at the above locations except near the roundabout.

The proposal intended that all arms of the roundabout would have a form of pedestrian crossing in order to encourage pedestrians to cross where appropriate.

A Member sought clarification as to whether the refuge island on Squirrels Heath Lane, by the mini-roundabout, could be set back as it presented a hazard in its current position. Officers confirmed that the new refuge island was being set further back than the existing island.

A Member asked if the new refuge would an issue for cyclists if vehicles attempted to pass near the refuge. Officers explained that in general it meant that cyclist had to ‘take the lane’ but cyclists on Squirrels Heath Lane were presently  coping with  such conditions.

Following the brief debate it was RESOLVED;

1.            To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the proposals for the Squirrels Heath Lane set out in the report and shown on the following drawings be implemented as advertised.

·         Proposed Pedestrian Refuge at Brentwood Road and Junction Reduction - QO027/01.B

o   Refuge at mini roundabout

o   Junction reductions at Westmoreland Avenue, Elvet Avenue and Northumberland Avenue

·         Proposed Pedestrian Refuge at Dreywood Court and Junction Reduction - QO027/02.B

o   Refuge outside Dreywood Court and junction reduction at Hardley Crescent

o   Double yellow lines at Dreywood Court

2.            That it be noted the scheme would be phased. The Pedestrian refuges, Hardley Crescent and Westmoreland Avenue would form Phase I and Elvet Avenue and Northumberland Avenue would form Phase II. Phase II would be entirely dependent on the final cost of Phase I and may not be completed at all or only in part. The double yellow line restrictions would be installed regardless, as the cost was insignificant.

3.            That it be noted that the estimated costs, including contingencies, for implementation of Phase I was £45,500 and Phase II was £18,300. The works undertaken would be met from the S106 contribution of £49,128.44 connected with Planning Consent Reference P0086.11. Therefore, final costs were subject to change but would not exceed the S106 Contribution of £49,128.

As earlier stated; the item had been withdrawn in order for Ward Councillors and Officers to give further consideration to the detail of the proposed scheme.

The report before the Committee detailed responses to a consultation to introduce Pay & Display parking bays in Whitchurch Road.

The Committee noted that the Pay & Display parking bays were designed to help with parking provisions for local businesses, while preventing long term non-residential parking and ensuring a turnover of parking spaces.

Following a consultation, all six responses received raised objections to the proposals. Due to the negative response to the consultation, a site visit was arranged by Streetcare officers, Ward Councillors and business owners.

At the meeting, officers were able gauge the business owners views and the reasons for the opinions that nature of their work would be detrimental to their businesses if the Pay & Display parking provisions were installed.

Members also noted that a 511 signature petition was received from several businesses within this shopping parade, which also reinforced the strong views the businesses and their customers had against the proposals.

Officers clarified that the scheme was proposed for Monday to Saturday, 8:30am to 6:30pm.

A Member requested that any further review of the area be undertaken in consultation with Ward Councillors.

Following the brief debate it was RESOLVED;

To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that:

a.            the proposals to introduce Pay & Display parking bays fronting the shops in Whitchurch be abandoned

The report before Members set out responses to an informal parking consultation undertaken in the Margaret, Lawrence and Clive Road Area.

 Following reports from local residents regarding inconsiderate and obstructive parking in the area, the Committee at its meeting in November 2015 recommended the implementation of ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on junctions and apexes of the bends in the area. As a result of the introduction of the scheme, it was also agreed for an informal consultation to be undertaken as residents had commented on the reduction of parking space and commuter parking in the area.

The Committee noted that an informal consultation was undertaken between 18 December 2015 and 15 January 2016, to gauge the views of residents on the current parking situation in the area.

At the close of the consultation, from the 281 properties that were consulted, 100 responses were received.  There were higher responses from the following four roads: - Catherine Road, Hamilton Road, Margaret Road & Margaret Close.  Within the area, the general consensus were that there was a need for parking controls, with the majority of respondents electing for a resident parking scheme operational Monday to Friday 8am - 6.30pm. 

The Committee noted that it was clear from the responses to the consultation that there was non-residential parking taking place in the area, this was due to the close proximity to Gidea Park Station and the ease of access to the Station via the alleyway at the end of Balmoral Road.

During a brief debate, a Member stated the responses to the consultation were not overwhelmingly in favour of the implementation of all day restrictions and a limited time restriction would be more appropriate.

A Member suggested that the proposal to consult should include the implementation of a one hour restriction.

Another member suggested the implementation of two one hour restrictions at different times of the day. Officers suggested that such a restriction would be difficult to enforce.

A member stated that clear signage would assist with the self-policing of the restriction. 

Following a motion to extend the consultation to include proposals for the implementation of limited time restrictions (to include a one hour restriction and a two hour split restriction) it was RESOLVED: 

·         To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the proposals to introduce a residents parking scheme operational between Monday to Friday 8am and 6.30pm inclusive with the related ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions and the proposal to introduce limited time restrictions (to include a one hour restriction and a two hour split restriction) be publicly advertised with a further report on the responses received to the formal consultation be reported back to the Committee to agree a further course of action.

·           That it be noted that the estimated cost for the current proposal for the detailed consultation in the Margaret, Lawrence and Clive Road area, was £5000, and this would be met from the 2016/17  Revenue budget for Minor Traffic and Parking.

The report before Members detailed responses to a formal consultation to extend the boundary of the Hornchurch Controlled Parking Zone to the end of Kenilworth Gardens.

The Committee noted that following reports of excessive commuter parking in the unrestricted area of Kenilworth Gardens, these proposals have been designed with the intention of preventing obstructive parking, improving traffic flow and limiting commuter parking.

The proposals were to extend the existing single yellow lines in Kenilworth Gardens, operational from Monday to Friday 10:30am to 11:30am, to cover the wider section of the road and to restrict the junctions of Belmont Road, Chiltern Gardens and the narrow section of Kenilworth Gardens fronting Nos. 137-149 with ‘At Any time’ waiting restrictions.

At the close of public consultation on 15 January 2016, 18 responses were received to the proposals, 14 responses being in favour, 2 responses were not in favour whilst 2 were partly in favour of the proposals.

In officers’ view the proposals had been designed to ensure that commuter parking in the area was limited, prevent obstructive parking and improve traffic flow. The report also informed the Committee that with the majority of Kenilworth Gardens already restricted from Monday to Friday 10.30 am to 11.30am, the unrestricted area appears to be a magnet for long term non-residential parking.

During a brief debate, a Member noted that the road was not busy and asked for clarification on whether there would be a loss of parking. Officers confirmed that the scheme would result in a loss of parking. Another member questioned the need for implimitation of an all-day parking restriction. Members questioned the extent of the junction protection receiving clarification that 10 meters was the recommended minimum standard.

Following a motion to replace the proposed ‘At Any Time’ parking restriction with a limited restriction operational Monday to Friday 10:30am to 11:30am and limit all junction protection to 10 meters it was RESOLVED: 

1.                To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the proposals to extend the boundary of the Hornchurch Controlled Parking Zone in Kenilworth Gardens, single yellow line  Monday to Friday 10.30 am to 11.30am waiting restrictions with associated 10 meter junction protection be implemented;

a.               That the effect of any agreed proposals be monitored.

2.               That it be noted that the estimated cost for the proposals in Kenilworth Gardens, was £1350, which would be met from the 2015/16 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The report before the Committee detailed responses received to the formal consultation to introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions in Eastern Road, which were designed to improving road safety, traffic flow and prevent obstructive parking.

The proposals were to extend the existing double yellow lines in Eastern Road, from its junction with Chandlers Way to the existing ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions at the junction of Mercury Gardens, excluding the loading and Disabled parking bays in the area.  The proposals would replace the existing Monday to Saturday, 8:30am to 6:30pm waiting restrictions.

The proposals were subsequently designed and publicly advertised. At the close of public consultation on 6 November 2015, 24 responses had been received, 1 response in favour of the proposals and 23 responses against. Out of the 23 responses against the proposals 22 responses were in relation to the Romford Synagogue.

The Committee noted that having received many responses in relation to the Romford Synagogue; all expressing concerns at the potential impact the proposed scheme might have on the synagogue, a meeting was held between representatives of the Council and the Synagogue.  It was decided that the proposed ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions should be reduced at the western boundary of 23 Eastern Road. The revised scheme was shown on the drawing in the report. It was agreed that the remainder of the north-western side of the road should be considered for Pay and Display parking provision to help visitors of the Synagogue and that this provision should be dealt with as a separate item.

During the debate members received confirmation that there were existing restrictions in the road and that the proposals were aimed at preventing obstructive parking and improve traffic flow.

A Member noted that the synagogue was now in support of the proposals following the meeting and revision of the scheme.

Following the debate it was RESOLVED;

To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the amended proposals to extend the existing double yellow lines in Eastern Road, from its junction with Chandlers Way to the existing ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions at the junction of Mercury Gardens, excluding the loading and Disabled parking bays in the area as shown on the plan in appendix B to be implemented

·      That the effect of the proposals be monitored.

·      That it be noted the estimated cost for the proposals in Eastern Road was £700, which would be met from the 2015/16 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The vote was carried by 10 votes with 1 abstention.

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

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 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 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.