Agenda item

The report before the Committee detailed responses to a consultation for the provision of a two metre width restriction in Faircross Avenue which had been implemented on an experimental basis and the Committee was now beeing asked to consider whether or not the restriction should be made permanent.

At its meeting in August 2015, the Committee had considered a request for implementation of a width restriction in Faircross Avenue. The request was made by Councillor Best supported by a 62 signature petition from local residents.

Funding had been made available for the implementation of the scheme on an experimental basis in order for the proposal to be tested and for residents and highway users to provide comments on a ‘live’ scheme. The experimental process had been a matter delegated to the then Cabinet Member for Environment.

The report detailed that Staff recommended that a 2 metre (6 feet, 6 inches) width restriction would physically prevent passage of all HGV traffic along Faircross Avenue. The regulations surrounding width restrictions required that the actual space available should be 150 millimetres (6 inches) wider than the posted restriction.

The report informed the Committee that traffic counts were undertaken on Faircross Avenue, Lawns Way and Gobions Avenue at the beginning of February 2016 just before the experiment came into force and late May 2016 when the experiment was in force, so that any issues of traffic reassignment to parallel roads could be ascertained.  A summary of the data was provided as an appendix to the report.

By the close of consultation, 60 responses had been received and summarised in the Appendix to the report. Nine respondents indicated support for the restriction to be made permanent and 48 respondents objected.

A petition signed by 95 people requested that the council take steps to reduce the size and volume of vehicles using Lawns Way which had significantly increased since the installation of the width restriction in Faircross Avenue in February 2016, thus causing increased noise and pollution in their road.

A ward councillor made comment about the temporary road layout and also suggested that a more extensive scheme was needed with a restriction at each end of Faircross Avenue. Havering Cyclists indicated support for the restriction. The Metropolitan Police made no comments, but indicated that other emergency services may have issues.

Those in favour of a permanent width restriction mainly commented that the restriction had dealt with the lorry issue in Faircross Avenue. Other comments detailed that the restriction should be at each end of the street, more signs were suggested and that houses no longer shook. The report summarised other issues in the appendix.

Those objecting to the scheme raised a wide variety of issues. The significant concern was that traffic had reassigned to other streets in the area, especially HGVs and vans. There was concern about speeding; an increase in noise, pollution and vibration in those streets where traffic had been reassigned; the safety of children and other people accessing Lawns Park, that the width restriction was too narrow and difficult to use and that other roads were unsuitable for heavy traffic.

Three traffic survey points were established in order to monitor the impacts of the scheme on Faircross Avenue north of The Drive, one was on Lawns Way south of The Drive and one was on Gobions Avenue south of Chelmsford Avenue. A more comprehensive spread of survey points would have provided more extensive data, but funding was not available for the collection and analysis of such.

The surveys were undertaken by automatic traffic counters which measured speed, traffic volume and vehicle class. The data collected before the restriction was installed was collected between 8 to 12 February 2016. A subsequent survey was undertaken between 20 to 26 May 2016 to measure conditions after the restriction had been installed with some time allowed for traffic patterns to adapt.

In officers’ view, the experimental restriction had proved unpopular with a significant majority of people who had responded to the consultation, including some people within Faircross Avenue itself. A major concern had been the traffic reassignment which had led to numerous complaints about an increase in van and lorry traffic in the area. There were also complaints that drivers were choosing to speed and that noise and pollution had increased on adjacent streets.

Those indicating support were content that the amount of traffic had reduced in Faircross Avenue and that the noise and vibration associated with heavy vehicles had also reduced.

The report informed the Committee that from the traffic data, there were indication that traffic reassignment had taken place and in broad terms, the reduction in traffic from Faircross Avenue was similar to the sum of the increase measured in Lawns Way and Gobions Avenue. The traffic data indicated that traffic speeds at all three count points were generally the same for average and 85^th percentile speeds.

The Committee noted that many of the respondent against the scheme were of the opinion that the area should be treated as a whole with different or additional restrictions or traffic calming.

With its agreement Councillors Ray Best, Ron Ower and Linda Trew addressed the Committee.

Councillor Best commented that it had taken a long time to get the scheme installed following requests from local residents who had wanted action following many years of problems in Faircross Avenue. Councillor Best recognised that the scheme had been unsuccessful but stated that there needed to be an alternative option to alievate the problems in the road. Councillor Best stated that the main failing of the current scheme was the position of the width restriction. . He suggested that the remaining 12-months of the experimental order timeframe could be used to improve the existing situation. The Committee was urged to defer a recommendation in order to allow further discussion and consideration to take place.

Councillor Trew addressed the Committee stating the council had a duty of care to all residents and to proceed with the scheme was not the way forward as making the scheme permanent would benefit some people to the detriment of others and a decision should be deferred to allow officers to explore other alternative to manage the traffic in the area.

Councillor Ower stated that the scheme had a knock-on effect on surrounding roads and although people in Faircross Avenue wanted the scheme, it was having an adverse effect as shown by the petition from residents of Lawns Way. Councillor Ower also stated that residents of Gobions Avenue were also not happy with the scheme. He suggested that current restriction be retained and officers consider other solutions for the wider area with specific focus on Lawns Way and Gobions Avenue.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector. The objector a local resident spoke against the proposal to make the restriction permanent. The resident outlined that there had been an increase in traffic by 6% along Lawns Way. The traffic in the street was higher than the others roads in the area, about thirty-two thousands vehicle now used the road along with HGVs. The Committee was informed that residents now had issues with noise, vibration and danger from HGVs along Lawns Way. The objector questioned the data from the traffic count stating that the counts were undertaken in the wrong place. The objector stated that the whole area should be considered and that there were objections from more people than those in favour. The Committee was informed that residents in the other roads should be considered and as such the restriction should be removed.

During a brief debate a Member proposed that the decision be deferred in order to allow officers to look at an alternative scheme that considers the area as a whole.

A second Member speaking in favour of a deferral stated that alternative options would need to be presented to the committee quickly.

Officers’ informed the committee that it would not be possible to provide a timescale for the formulation of new proposals as the additional work was not resourced.

In response to a Member asking if it would be possible to place width restrictions in the other affected roads officers stated that Gobions Avenue was a bus route so such a restriction would not be possible. 

A Member stated that residents wanted large vehicles restricted and this should be at both ends or at the Chase Cross Road end of Faircross Avenue and Lawns Way.

Another Member suggested that Faircross Avenue had the lowest level of traffic before the scheme and so the scheme was to deal with the road that had the least problems.

A Member was of the view that the adverse effect on neighbouring roads was not fair and that the restrictions should be removed.

Another Member stated that he had seen the area change over the years with traffic increasing and that the Council should be working to satisfy everyone. He highlighted the Councils objectives at the start of the report which said “people would be safe, in their homes and in the community” and so he supported deferral to allow in-depth community discussion.

A Member of the committee agreed that the decision on the proposal should be deferred and that Members need to get together for a discussion.

A Member felt there was no basis for a deferral, that the deferral would keep the scheme in place and would put off a decision.

A Member stated that residents in the three roads were unhappy and consultation would take some time. It was suggested that the matter be delegated.

In response, officers’ informed the Committee that the Cabinet Member had delegated powers to install experimental schemes and as such a new scheme would be the quickest way forward but the indication was that there was a general disaffection with traffic in the area, with no clarity as to what residents wanted.  Officers were in support of the suggestion that a discussion that involved residents and Ward councillors had to be the way forward. The result of such a consultation could then inform a discussion with the Cabinet Member and senior management in order to make funding available.

Following a Motion to Defer the Committee resolved to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Regulatory Services and Community Safety that the decision on width restriction in Faircross Avenue be deferred to allow Ward Councillors, residents and officers to discuss a way forward.

The vote for the proposal to defer was carried by 9 votes to 2 against.