Agenda item

To consider any other item in respect of which the Chairman is of the opinion, by reason of special circumstances which shall be specified in the minutes, that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

Further to an approval by the Committee for the Head of Streetcare to proceed with a design and consultation of suitable measures (HAC July 2010, Request No.8). on a request from a Councillor for a yellow box to be considered at the junction of A125 Upper Rainham Road and Elm Park Avenue following complaints from residents that south-bound traffic queues are preventing right turns from Elm Park Avenue at peak times.

The report outlined that the use of yellow box markings does not require any traffic orders, but are subject to rules of use. A yellow box may be placed across the side arm of a traffic signal-controlled junction, such as Upper Rainham Road and Elm Park Avenue. Such a junction would become known as a “yellow box junction”.

The report informed the Committee that officers had visited the site at different times and concluded that at peak times, some drivers were blocking the Elm Park Avenue arm of the junction and that a yellow box would assist with traffic flow.

The report stated that before a Highway Authority made a decision on the implementation of a yellow box junction, they were required to consult with the police because the contravention of the marking was an offence. In London, there were civil enforcement powers available for Councils to enforce such “moving traffic” offences, but Havering had not taken these on. Therefore, the enforcement of yellow box junctions remained with the Metropolitan Police.

The report detailed that the Metropolitan Police had been consulted on the proposal and had made the following comments:

§         That they would support the proposed as outlined. The original complaint mentioned southbound traffic so this proposal would suit.

§         That they would remind the consultee that this road marking was one of the decriminalised signs and they do not normally enforce those signs now covered as a civil offence. 

§         That they acknowledged, for the time being Havering Police are still enforcing the civil signs until such time that Havering undertook that responsibility.

In summary, the Police stated that, any offence would not routinely be enforced by the local police. That if a pattern of offending did occur any enforcement would be undertaken after balancing the needs of the local community with other policing responsibilities.

During the debate of the proposals, a member of the Committee stated that he did not feel there was a problem and so spending the proposed money would be a waste. He questioned the set back stop line and felt the signals should simply be rephrased.

The Principal Engineer explained that the set back was to allow buses to make the left turn into Elm Park Avenue. In addition it was mentioned that there were plans for a widening scheme which thus far had not been funded.

The Committee was informed that for any given situation, a junction would have an optimum cycle time within which each arm gets some green time. To favour one arm over the other would create congestion on the other arm. To increase the cycle time means that the junction is not optimised and all arms end up with increasing queues – perhaps I need to give a presentation on how signals work.

A member asked when it was thought the worst congestion occurred. In reply the Committee was informed that it was felt that the am peak period created the issue.

Cllr S Kelly proposed a refusal on the grounds that there was no compelling evidence that the proposed measures would be effective and that they were not cost effective, this was seconded by Cllr Oddy.

The Committee RESOLVED to reject the scheme.