Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: That all items be considered in public.

Councillors Carol Melvin and John Morgan attended the meeting as Ward Councillors.

Concerns and suggestions raised by petitioners included the following:

• Vehicles travelled at great speed up and down Townsend Way
• Townsend Way had cars parked on both sides of the road which made the thoroughfare narrow
• There have been several accidents with one major shunt which the petitioners presented photographs of   
• Hillside Junior and Infant School created a lot of difficulties with parents dropping off and picking up their children at school
• On parts of Townsend Way there were visibility problems caused by high sided vehicles parking on bends and at junctions
• The introduction of waiting restrictions on bends and at junctions would improve the visibility for traffic
• Motorcycles travelled at great speed down the road which was dangerous for pedestrians, particularly young children
• Emergency vehicles would have difficulty accessing the road with the narrow access
• Reference was made to uneven pavements on Townsend Way which were difficult for the elderly to walk on
• Reference was made to the junction of Townsend Way and High Street which was a particularly bad ‘blind spot’

Councillors Carol Melvin and John Morgan attended the meeting as Ward Councillors and spoke in support of the petitioners and raised the following issues:

·           The problem on Townsend Way had been exacerbated with the bridge repair works which were taking place in the area

·           The road was very narrow and the Council’s refuge vehicles had difficulty getting down the road

·           The top end of Townsend Way was a particular ‘hotspot’ for speeding vehicles

·           Consideration should be given to parking restrictions as well as traffic calming measures to alleviate the problems on Townsend Way

·           The possible introduction of a one-way system could solve the problem of two way traffic on this narrow road

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of petitioners and responded to the points raised. 

• Officers would speak to Hillside Junior & Infant School regarding the problems caused by parents dropping off and picking up their children from school
• Often the introduction of one way systems increased the speed of vehicles
• Officers would be asked to contact the Police about the accident history of the road
• Officers would be asked to investigate whether the Council’s refuge vehicles had difficulties with access on the road
• Statistically the Borough had more cars per household than any other Borough in London
• The petitioners were invited to mark on a copy of the plan as appended to the report their preferred location for the proposed 24 hour 7 days a week traffic surveys (two locations indicated)

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet Member:

1. Met and discussed with petitioners their concerns in detail and explored potential options to address the issues that would be acceptable to local residents.

2. Asks officers to conduct further investigations into possible traffic calming measures under the Road Safety Programme.

3. Asks officers to undertake 24 hour 7 days a week traffic surveys to establish the volumes and speeds of traffic in Townsend Way.

4. Asks officers to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Councillor Carol Melvin attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor.

Concerns and suggestion raised by the petitioners at the meeting included the following:

• Langland Court was a cul-de-sac and parking on both sides of the road made it difficult for vehicles to navigate down the road
• There had been problems with minor damage to parked vehicles
• Concern was expressed with regard to Emergency Services vehicles accessing the road
• A pavement parking scheme would create easier access for vehicles accessing the road, including Emergency Service vehicles 

Councillor Carol Melvin attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor and supported the petitioners’ views.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of petitioners and responded to the points raised.

• Langland Court conformed with the Council’s criteria for footway parking because there would be sufficient flexibility for residents and there would be access for emergency and delivery vehicles
• Parking enforcement would be suspended immediately this decision was published until the Footway Parking Scheme was implemented.

RESOLVED - That the Cabinet Member:

1.        Met with the petitioners to discuss their request for footway parking in Langland Court, Northwood

2.        Asks officers to add Langland Court to the programme for Footway Parking Exemption Schemes so that design, feasibility and subsequent consultation with residents can be undertaken when resources permit.

3.     Delegates authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director for Planning, Environment, Education & Community Services in consultation with himself to suspend parking enforcement in Langland Court until the Footway Parking Scheme is implemented.

Reasons for recommendation

 It would appear it has been common practice for vehicles to park on the footway in Langland Court due to the width of the carriageway. Officers will investigate if the layout of Langland Court will allow footway parking to take place in accordance with the Council’s criteria.

Alternative options considered/risk management

 None as the petitioners made a specific request to park on the footway.

Councillor Carol Melvin attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor.

Concerns and suggestion raised by the petitioners at the meeting included the following:

• The petition had been signed by every household on High Street, apart from two households
• There was a problem of speeding vehicles along High Street, Northwood
• High Street was used by Children and speeding vehicles posed a safety risk
• Children had difficulty crossing the road and consideration needed to be given to introducing crossings on the road
• Physical traffic calming measures were required to stop speeding vehicles
• There was a problem of speeding motorcycles along High Street   
• Heavy Good Vehicles used High Street as early as 5.00am in the mornings. The introduction of a London Lorry Control system on this road should be considered
• Pedestrian safety was compromised as the pavements were narrow on High Street

Councillor Carol Melvin attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor and supported the petitioners’ views.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised:

• The introduction of Vehicle Activated Signs had proved to be successful in slowing traffic down if the signs were installed at key sites, left in place for three months and then moved to another site
• The Council was in regular communication with the Police Safer Neighbourhoods Team regarding issues of community concern
• Traffic survey information would be shared with Ward Councillors
• The petitioners were invited to mark on a copy of the plan as appended to the report their preferred location for the proposed 24 hour 7 days a week traffic surveys (two locations indicated)

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet Member:

1. Met and discussed with petitioners their concerns in detail and explored potential options to address the issues that would be acceptable to local residents and businesses

2.      Asks officers to conduct further investigations into possible traffic calming measures under the Council’s Road Safety Programme.

3.      Asks officers to undertake 24 hour 7 days a week traffic surveys to establish the volumes and speeds of traffic in Church Road and High Street, Northwood.

4.      Asks officers to liaise with the local Safer Neighbourhoods Team.

Reasons for recommendation

Traffic calming measures are largely successful if they are acceptable to local residents and businesses. These can be identified with petitioners for further detailed investigation by officers within the Road Safety Programme.

Alternative options considered

These can be identified from the discussions with the petitioners.

Councillor Brian Crowe attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor.

Concerns and suggestions raised by the petitioners at the meeting included the following:

• The road surface of Seaford Close had deteriorated over the last few years and was now in a poor condition
• The road was very bumpy in places and service trenches had sunk at a number of locations
• Pot holes had developed in the road and residents had received punctured tyres 
• Children and elderly people had suffered slight personal injuries on the road
• Remedial work on the surface had had a minimal impact on the surface as the road surface was now beyond repair and further remedial work was not the most economic solution
• There was also a problem with the condition of the pavements of Seaford Close and these needed improving by the Council

Councillor Brian Crowe attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor and supported the petitioners’ views.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns and responded to the points raised:

• Reference was made to the results of the recent United Kingdom Pavement System structural condition surveys which were carried out on all Borough roads between January and March 2010 which had Seaford Close high on the advised priority list for future treatment
• Officers considered that this road was a high priority on ‘serviceability’ criteria such as appearance, ride quality etc. At the time of the assessment there was no fretting in evidence greater than 40mm, the minimum intervention level for immediate repair of dangerous defects
• A possible solution could be the new road surfacing practise of  “rhino patches” which this Council now used for road surfacing. This procedure re-heated the existing tarmac and was more cost effective than a complete resurface. The finished resurface lasted for a further 20 years
• Officers would be asked to inspect the pavements in the area of Seaford Close and report back to the Cabinet Member

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet Member:

1. Met and discussed with petitioners in detail their concerns regarding the condition of the carriageway surface.

2. Instructs officers to place Seaford Close on to the list for roads being considered for treatment in a future resurfacing programme.

3. Asks officers to inspect pavements in the area of Seaford Close and report back to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling.

Reasons for recommendation

The existing carriageway surface has deteriorated to the extent that shallow fretting has taken place in isolated areas of the carriageway. This is due to the natural ageing of the surface and the surface dressing that has been applied over the original layer. Past patching has filled some of the worst fretting but only as medium term measure. The road profile is “bumpy” in places and service trenches have sunk at a number of locations. In areas the surface has worn away resulting in shallow ruts and general unevenness.  Resurfacing would improve the visual appearance of the road and improve the ride quality.

Alternative options considered

Further patching works: However this option has been discounted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Councillor Janet Duncan attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor.

Concerns and suggestions raised by the petitioner at the meeting included the following:

• The footpath was between two properties (7 & 8 Airdrie Close) and had joined Airdrie Close with West Quay Drive. The footpath had been blocked off by residents and disused for the past 14 years
• The footpath previously had been an area where anti-social behaviour had taken place and which was used as access for burglars
• Reference was made to an incident where an attempted child abduction had taken place on the footpath
• The opening up of access of the footpath would increase anti-social behaviour and crime and would not be in the best interest of residents
• There had been an approval to the blocking off of the footpath by means of a letter to the occupants  in the summer of 1998
• In response to the officer observation in the report that there had been no evidence of anti-social behaviour, this had been because the footpath had been closed off
• A resident who had not signed the petition, but who agreed that the footpath should be ‘stopped up’ was opposed to any sale of the land which incorporated the footpath, to the resident adjacent to the footpath

Councillor Janet Duncan attended the meeting as a Ward Councillor and supported the petitioners’ views. She raised the following points:

·        Years ago residents had formally applied to have the footpath ‘stopped up’

·        Since the footpath had been blocked off there had been no incidents of anti-social behaviour

·        The footpath would not be easy for pedestrians to use as it was overgrown

·        The opening up of the footpath would necessitate the Council to undertake maintenance works, which they did not do at the present time

·        There had been an earlier petition which had requested a footpath along West Quay Drive to assist residents accessing the Marina

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns and responded to the points raised:

• The advice of the Borough Solicitor was that legally the footpath had to be opened up as the Council had a legal obligation as the Highway Authority to protect the rights of the public to use the adopted public highway
• There was no documentary evidence to suggest that approval had been given by the Council to allow residents to ‘stop up’ the footpath
• No decision could be taken on this petition until officers had fully investigated the background to the petitioners’ claims that a formal request had been made to ‘stop up’ the footpath in 1998.

Reasons for recommendation

The recommendation meets the Council’s legal obligation as the Highway Authority to protect the rights of the public to use the adopted public highway.

Alternative options considered

There are no alternatives to consider as there is not a more commodious alternative route and to stop up the adopted public highway would prevent the public’s use and enjoyment of the highway.

RESOLVED That the Cabinet Member:

1.    Met and discussed with petitioners their request  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.