Agenda item

The report before the Committee detailed responses to a consultation for the experimental closure of Cedar Road which was implemented to prevent the use of the street by through motorists and sought a recommendation on whether or not the restriction should be made permanent.

Following the implementation of the scheme on an experimental basis to enable the proposal to be tested and for residents and other highway users to provide comments on a ‘live’ scheme officers provided details of the outcome.

The report informed the Committee that officers’ recommended the position of the closure be just southwest of the junction with Chesham Close in order that those driving to the industrial area could clearly see the closure.

The Committee also noted that the restriction did not apply to cycles and arrangements were made for the London Fire Brigade to gain access through the closure (via a removable bollard or similar with a fire brigade lock) in the event of emergency. Officers informed that there was the potential for traffic reassignment to take place, but this would be onto the A12, North Street or Mawney Road which were more appropriate for the use.

The report informed that during public consultation 495 letters were sent on 18 February 2016 to residents and businesses in the local area who could potentially be affected by the experiment. The information was also sent to the standard consultees (Emergency Services, London Buses, special interest groups etc.), Ward Councillors and Committee Members. The experimental Order was published and site notices also placed.

Automatic traffic counts were undertaken on Cedar Road at the beginning of February 2016, before the experiment came into force and late May 2016 when the experiment was in force, so that changes in traffic flow could be measured.  The summary of the data was appended to the report.

It was noted that during the experiment, feedback was received on the traffic signs advising of the restriction and the Fire Brigade bollard being removed by unauthorised persons. Additional signage was provided to advise that there was no though route for motor traffic and positive signage was provided to guide commercial drivers to the Chesham Close industrial estate.

Further to the receipt of objections and a petition against the closure, Officers’ wrote to residents and businesses within the consultation area to explain that the Council proposed to end the experiment early and therefore any other views were required.

In response to the communication dated 23 May 2016, many responses in support of the scheme and a second petition from residents of Cedar Road were received. The petition contained a majority in support, but with some against the scheme.

The report informed that officers’  were instructed to write to those in the consultation area advising that the experiment would continue and the revised date for comments would be 28^th October 2016 to ensure that a full six-months for comments would be provided. The letter also explained that there had been a change in cabinet responsibilities (now Cabinet Member for Environment, Regulatory Services and Community Safety) and confirmed the date when the matter would be discussed by the Highways Advisory Committee.

By the close of the consultation, 164 responses had been received (multiple replies from the same person were recorded as a single response). Havering Cyclists supported the scheme, the Metropolitan Police Roads & Transport Policing Command raised concerns about the potential for an unobservant driver or motorcyclist colliding with the Fire brigade bollard, but noted the experimental nature of the scheme.

Three respondents made comments in relation to the traffic signs associated with the scheme, but did not go further to offer a view either way.

64 respondents supported the scheme and 95 respondents objected to the scheme; (40% in favour and 60% against).

The petition in objection to the scheme was received in early May 2016 and contained 183 signatures.

The second petition (from Cedar Road) was received in early June. 64 people signed in support of the scheme, 14 against the scheme, 2 did not give a view and 19 not responding.

A traffic survey point was established on Cedar Road to the north-east of the junction with Willow Street.

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^th and 12^th February 2016. A subsequent survey was undertaken between 20^th and 26^th May 2016 to measure conditions after the restriction had been installed and with some time allowed for traffic patterns to adapt. The Committee noted that although seasonal variations in traffic flow can take place, this is less likely in urban areas and so officers were confident that the data provided a reasonable indication of change. Details of the traffic data was contained in the Appendix to the report.

In terms of casualty data, in the 5 years to 2015 (currently available data), there was one collision at the junction of Cedar Road and Mawney Road involving an HGV and a car. An occupant of the car was slightly injured.

In officers’ view, the experiment had proved unpopular with 60% of those responding. Many considered that a traffic calming scheme of some description would have been preferable. Many also considered that the scheme had made it harder to drive for both local and longer distance journeys. Many people considered that the experiment had led to people using Willow Street and other streets to bypass Mawney Road which they considered had become more congested. Some people felt that Cedar Road should be available as a cut-through. The issues raised by the Police would be considered in the event a permanent scheme was recommended.

The Committee noted that 40% of those responding were in favour of the scheme being made permanent. Many considered that the street was now safer, especially for children. Many considered that the street was quieter, that driver speeds had reduced and that a drug dealing issue had been dealt with. Some people felt that it wasn’t an issue to get into/ out of the estate and that people against the closure wanted to cut-through, rather than use the main roads.

The traffic data associated with the experiment demonstrated a significant reduction in traffic for the closed end of Cedar Road, including a similarly significant reduction in commercial vehicles. The data also indicated a modest reduction in driver speeds. The traffic flow before the experiment commenced was beyond what officers’ consider to be reasonable for a residential street and it was clear that the street was being used as a cut-through.

The report also informed the Committee that the data collected for Mawney Road and North Street suggested that motorists may have diverted to North Street. However, without a dense network of traffic count points, it was not possible to be conclusive and the Committee could bear this in mind.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by a local resident. The resident stated that he lived on Cedar Road and that he along with the majority of residents living on the road were in favour  of making the closure permanent. He stated that the residents of the road did not want speed humps due to noise, vibration and their failure to deter speeding. The resident stated that the petition data, as set out in the report, was not reflective of the number of residents of Cedar Road that were in favour of the scheme. More people were in favour of the scheme than reported. The resident stated that the majority of those objecting to the scheme were not resident in Cedar Road. The resident commented that prior to the implementation of the scheme traffic flow in Cedar Road was beyond what staff consider reasonable for a residential road.

With the permission of the Chairman a statement from Councillor Benham was presented to Members. The statement supported the position of the speaker and the retention of the closure. 

During a debate, a Member raised concerns over the displacement of traffic and the effect on  traffic flows in Mawney Road and North Street.

A Member spoke against the closure stating that the Council ought to consider alternative methods of dealing with traffic flows on the road other than through its closure.

Another Member expressed concerns about the knock-on effects of the scheme on other roads and suggested a width restriction to reduce the number of commercial vehicles using the road.

A Member stated that the bus lane enforcement on North Street would make congestion worse in the area, that mitigation was needed for a wider area.

Another Member speaking in favour of making the closure permanent stated that the area was plagued by inconsiderate drivers who ignored local residents. The Member stated that priority should be given to the children of the area and relief to residents being put at risk of motorist using the area as a cut though. The Member was of the view that the Council had an obligation to keep children and elderly people safe through the retention of the scheme.

A Member suggested that traffic calming should be considered for the area.

Following the debate, the Committee RESOLVED to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment Regulatory Services and Community Safety that the closure to through motor traffic as detailed on Drawing QL040/59/01 be made permanent and the existing temporary concrete block system be replaced with a permanent layout utilising kerbed islands and appropriate bollards.

Members noted that the cost of the scheme was estimated at £7,000 which would be met by the Council’s capital allocation for Minor Highway Improvements.

The voting in favour of the proposal was 8 votes to 3 against.