Agenda and minutes

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.

Councillor Darren Wise disclosed a personal interest on the matter relating to Agenda Item 9 TPC813/4 – Wednesbury Road and Cambourne Avenue area as he was a local resident in the consulted area.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 March 2016, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The report before Members outlined responses received to the proposals to introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions and free parking bays in Berther Road and recommended a further course of action.

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

The Committee noted that based on the responses received to the informal consultation, a formal consultation was undertaken. Following this,  a further consultation was carried out directly with residents’ representatives with consideration given to alternative proposals.

The proposals had been designed to prevent loading and unloading immediately at the junction of Butts Green Road and to keep the access to the flats clear, whilst retaining an area fronting the restaurant where loading and unloading could take place.  Free parking bays had been snaked along the road to ensure access for larger vehicles so vehicles would not obstruct residential driveways. The restricted period would also allow for trades to service the residential properties in the morning and overall the proposals would limit any displacement into adjoining roads. 

In officers’ view, given the positive responses received to the proposals, it was recommended to the Committee that all of the proposals be implemented as advertised.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by a resident who was in favour of the proposed scheme.

The resident stated that he had resided in the area for 14 years and that local residents had been enduring an increased level of parking and accessibility issues caused by individuals parking indiscriminately in the area. The Committee was also informed of other issues including noise from car traffic; the inability of emergency vehicles to access the road; and damage to the road.

During the debate Members commended residents and officers on reaching agreement on the design of a suitable scheme.

A Member sought clarification as to the number of parking bays which would be available for customers of a local restaurant. The Committee was informed that free parking bays had been provided within the scheme to meet the needs of customers of the restaurant.

In response to a comment that this scheme would just displace the parking problems to other roads, officers stated that all options had been considered and that the proposal before the Committee was the most appropriate option for the road.

Having considered the report and the representations made it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that;

(a)          the proposals to introduce waiting and loading restrictions and free parking bays, be implemented as advertised; and

(b)          the effects of any implemented proposals be monitored.

Members noted that the estimated cost of the scheme was £1500, which would be met from the 2016/17 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The report before Members outlined responses received to the informal parking consultation of the Lowshoe Lane Area controlled parking zone and recommended a further course of action.

The proposals to introduce a controlled parking zone or waiting restrictions in Lowshoe Lane and the surrounding roads followed a petition from local residents and requests from Councillors for action to be taken regarding inconsiderate or obstructive parking in the area.

The proposal was to install either a controlled parking zone or waiting restrictions with the intention to reduce the amount of non-residential parking and improve the accessibility of the carriageway.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by a resident who was objecting to the scheme with a response given by officers.

The resident stated that he had resided in the area for 40 years and that there were no parking issues in Rodney Way. The resident informed the Committee that the responses received in favour of the proposal related to the areas with the parking problem. The resident accepted that there were parking and accessibility issues caused by the increased amount of traffic drawn to the area in the morning and afternoon due to parents dropping and picking up children at St Patrick’s Catholic Primary school, and at weekends by people who attended Corpus Christi Catholic Church.

With its agreement Councillor Ray Best addressed the Committee.

Councillor Best commented that there had always been a major problem with parking and traffic along Lowshoe Lane. Councillor Best questioned whether it would be best for the road to be converted to operate ‘one way’ traffic. Councillor Best stated that much of the available parking in the road was being utiliased by a local car dealership. 

During the debate Members noted that there had been parking and accessibility issues caused by the increased amount of traffic drawn to the area and the activities of a car dealership.

A Member stated that the figures in the consultation did not indicate that local residents were in favour of a controlled parking zone; it was suggested that the questions in the survey were misleading.

Members of the Committee noted that ward councillors were in favour of the proposed scheme and that if the scheme were to be implemented it would be monitored.

Following a motion to extend the consultation to include proposals for the implementation of an all day waiting restriction and split waiting restrictions covering periods in the morning and afternoon it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that:

a)            The area identified on the drawing titled Lowshoe Lane CPZ (reference: CPZ Option 3) detailed in Appendix D to the report be formally consulted re the introduction of a residents’ parking scheme and the introduction of pay and display parking in suitable locations;

b)            The consultation provides residents with the option of an all day restriction and split restrictions covering periods in the morning and afternoon;

c)            Following the formal consultation a further report detailing the responses received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented:

1.            Proposed location of road closure - Park End Road, Romford, southern end– the proposed road closure situated at a point 59 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb line of Church Lane as shown on drawing nos.  QL040-045-04 and QL040-045-05 of the report

2.            For clarification purposes the following vehicular categories would be exempted from the prohibition:

i)          Pedal cycles to gain access to the cycle parking outside the library, maintain through journey etc.

ii)         Fire Brigade, Police and ambulance vehicles being used in an emergency;

iii)       A vehicle being used in service of a local authority whilst undertaking a statutory power of duty such as highway maintenance, street cleansing etc.

iv)       Any vehicle for the purpose of loading or unloading goods from premises in or adjacent to the prescribed length of street (essentially Romford Library).

Members noted that the estimated cost for implementation was £1,000 and wouldbe met from the Council’s 2016/17 Revenue Budget for Minor Safety Improvements for Borough Roads.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

a.               To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the proposed additional residents’ parking area along the flank wall of No. 62 Mill Park Avenue and the ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions across the vehicular access of No.60 Mill Park Avenue, be implemented as advertised;

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

Members noted that the estimated cost for the proposals, as set out in this report was £800, and would be met from the 2016/17 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

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

a.               the detailed design for the Wednesbury Gardens and the revised Cambourne Avenue area parking zone (as shown on the drawing in Appendix H of the report) be commenced and for the proposals to go out to formal consultation as soon as possible.

Members noted that the estimated cost for the current proposal - detailed consultation in the Wednesbury Road area as set out in the report was £10000, which would be met from the Capital Parking Strategy Investment Allocation.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

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

a.               The proposed ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions, as shown on the plan appended to the report as Appendix B, be implemented in Orchis Way and at its junction with Petersfield Avenue.

Members noted that the estimated cost for the proposals in Orchis Way as set out in the report was £900, which would be met from the 2016/17 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

1     To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the detailed design for the St Andrews Avenue parking zone (as shown on the drawing at Appendix D of the report) be commenced and for the proposals to proceed to a formal consultation as soon as possible thereafter.

Members noted that the estimated cost of the fully implemented proposals, including all physical measures and advertising costs, should a scheme be implemented was £3000 which would be funded from the Capital Parking Strategy Investment Allocation.

The Committee considered the report noting the representations made and RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the proposed scheme be abandoned.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED:

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

a.            The proposal to convert the existing Disc Parking Bays fronting 75A, into Limited Waiting Bay(s) as shown on the drawing (Ref: TPC817, Willow Street) appended to the report be implemented as advertised;

b.            The effects of any implemented proposals be monitored.

Members noted that the estimated cost of the scheme was £1000, which would be funded from 2016/17 Minor Parking Schemes Budget.

The report before Members outlined the responses received to the formal consultation to introduce further ‘residents’ parking’ bays in Fitzilian Avenue, Ronald Road & Ethelburga Road.

The report detailed that following a request from a ward councillor for additional residents’ parking bays in the Fitzilian Avenue area, the proposals had been designed with the intention to provide further parking spaces and also to limit potential commuter parking.

The proposals were to install 7 new resident parking bays; one in Ethelburga Road along the side wall of 16 Fitzilian Avenue, four in Fitzilian Avenue outside numbers 20-22, 24-26, 23-25 and 28-36, one on Woodlands Road outside 1-3 and  extending the existing bay in Ronald Road along the side wall of 36 Fitzilian Avenue. The proposals also would replace the existing Monday to Friday, 10:30am to 11:30am waiting restrictions.

At the close of public consultation on 26 February 2016, 9 responses had been received, 2 responses in favour of the proposal, 2 responses partly in favour of the scheme and 5 responses against the proposals.

A Member questioned whether the parking bays  would be free spaces. In response officers confirmed that  the proposal was to make the parking bays resident parking only in order to limit the potential of commuter and business parking.

The Committee noted that Ward Councillors were in support of the proposals.

Having considered the report and the representations made it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that:

a.               the proposals to introduce new residents bays as shown on the plan appended to the report as Appendix B, be implemented as advertised; and

b.               the effect of any agreed proposals be monitored.

Members noted that the estimated cost for the proposals was £900, and would be met from the 2016/17 Minor Parking Schemes budget.

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.

The following items were raised under urgent business by members of the Committee:

1.    A Member requested for a width restriction be installed in Linley Crescent, near Hainault Road like the one at Faircross Avenue. In reply, the Member was advised to approach the Cabinet Member for Environment as was the case with Faircross Avenue. Alternatively, a scheme request made to staff for comment on its practicality.

2.    A Member suggested for the Committee’s remit be extended to deal with maintenance issues, such as pavements. In reply the Committee was reminded that the committee had been set up to deal with traffic and parking scheme matters, highway maintenance was subject to Environment O&S Committee. Officers added that maintenance work was undertaken on a need basis and any change would leave the council weak in defending its position.

3.    A Member sought appropriate action be considered to reduce speeding vehicles on Kingsley Gardens.