Agenda and minutes

Please note that individual petitions may overrun their time slots.  Although individual petitions may start later than advertised, they will not start any earlier than the advertised time.

The petitioner addressed the meeting making the following points:-

·        The petition contained 30 signatures but 13 had been disregarded as the people had printed their names and not put their signature.

·        The lead petitioner stated that she had lived in the area for 34 years and was the neighbourhood watch co-ordinator. 

·        Safety was the main concerns for raising the petition.

·        The photographs provided with the report made the road look wider than it was.

·        A majority of pedestrians that use Closemead Close do not use the footpaths.

·        Residents were unhappy that they are now being penalised by parking enforcement officers, for parking two wheels on the footpath.

·        When parking by a dropped kerb it was difficult to park without having a small part of the wheel on the pavement, which had resulted in a penalty notices being issued.

·        Parking fully on the road meant that refuse and emergency vehicles had difficulty in accessing the Closemead Close.  This had resulted in some vehicles being scratched and wing mirrors broken.

·        Due to the limited parking there had been occasions when access to driveways had been blocked.

·        Residents had discussed parking permits but it was not felt this was a good idea.

·        Parking was difficult for visitors and family as each property now had more than 1 car.

·        There were concerns about safety on the estate as mopeds and cars often speed around the estate. 

·        The footpaths in the Close lead nowhere except for driveway, carports and an alleyway leading to Rickmansworth Road.

·        The tarmac footpaths are not used pedestrians as they seem to prefer to walk on the roadway. 

·        One side of the Close was used for parking more than the other with pavement parking occurring outside nos. 29 - 31 Closemead Close.

Officers felt that it was possible that the reason why parking enforcement was now taking place may be due to a complaint being received in relation to the footway being obstructed.

In answer to an issue raised by the petitioners in regard to the land shown hatched on the plan circulated with the report, officers stated that this was private land and cars parked in these areas were not liable for parking enforcement.

The Cabinet Member informed the petitioners that he was aware of the issues around school drop off and pick up times.  In regard to a Parking Management Scheme (PMS), as there was no PMS in the immediate vicinity the Council was unable to introduce this type of scheme for just one road.  These schemes required there to be at least  50% of residents in the road concerned in support before being implemented.  The implementation of a PMS in any area was often responsible for moving the problem to another area.  The issue that had been raised in relation to speeding mopeds and cars on the estate was something that could be raised by officers with the Police. 

The Cabinet Member advised the petitioners that he felt that the way forward would be for officers to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.