Agenda and minutes

It was confirmed that the meeting would take place in public.

Councillors Mary O’Connor, Beulah East and Neil Fyfe attended the meeting and spoke as Ward Councillors.

Concerns and suggestions raised by petitioners included the following:

• 85% of traffic was travelling above the speed limit as stated in the officer’s report.
• There was an issue of speeding along the road with drivers using the route as a rat run.
• Traffic needed to be reduced and slowed down.

All three Ward Councillors spoke in support of the petitioners’ request and raised the following issues:

• The whole of Park Lane had to be investigated.
• That traffic would be displaced onto Derwent Drive which had recently been resurfaced.
• Park Lane was a busy road and traffic calming was needed.
• Speeding took place on the length of Park Lane which led up to a pedestrian crossing used by children attending Hayes Park School.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of petitioners and responded to the points raised.  He advised petitioners that the speed surveys produced the results that were expected.  Councillor Burrows was keen to progress the southern part of Park Lane which had recently been consulted on traffic calming measures.  However, he explained that to ensure there was no delay progressing measures developed in the southern part of Park Lane that the petitioners’ request would be investigated as a second phase of the scheme.  Councillor Burrows assured petitioners that Ward Councillors and residents would be consulted on any proposals. 

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Member:

1.  Met and discussed with petitioners their request for traffic calming measures in Park Lane. 

2. Instructs officers to add the request to the Road Safety Programme for further investigation into possible traffic calming measures when resources permit.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The petitioners were concerned with the speed of vehicles in their road. The recommendations will explore the extent of their concerns and possible solutions to mitigate these concerns.  

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED / RISK MANAGEMENT

No other options had been considered, as the recommendations asked officers to gather further information before considering feasible solutions.

Councillors Mary O’Connor, Beulah East and Neil Fyfe attended the meeting and spoke as Ward Councillors.

Concerns and suggestions raised by petitioners included the following:

• Chesil Way was a narrow cul-de-sac. 
• The majority of residents were either elderly or disabled and had lived there for many years.
• Heavy vehicles frequently used the road to park.
• Double yellow lines had been implemented on the junction with Lansbury Drive but were often ignored and not enforced.
• Access to the garages was often blocked as well as access to the back of the shops.
• A car had been dumped which had no insurance and no action had been taken to remove it.
• Some people that parked their car on the road would leave litter.
• In the event of an emergency residents access would be blocked due to inconsiderate parking.
• Some of the activity that took place on Chesil Way was associated with the local pub.

All three Ward Councillors spoke in support of the petitioners’ request and raised the following issues:

•  Parking on the pavement was an issue with the potential of manhole covers being broken.
• Enforcement was needed as people were ignoring the double yellow lines on the junction.
• A Members enquiry has been made in regards to the uninsured vehicle.
• There was concern about whether emergency services would be able to access the road in the event of an emergency.
• Shop keepers from Kingshill Avenue would often park on Chesil Way.

Councillor Burrows listened to the concerns of petitioners and responded to the points raised.  He explained that residents’ parking schemes were not generally considered for individual roads; however, Ward Councillors’ views would be sought on a viable area to consult on parking proposals.

Councillor Burrows suggested that the views of the London Fire Brigade would be sought in relation to access issues.

The Cabinet Member advised that he would add two more recommendations to the officers’ report regarding enforcement and untaxed vehicles.

RESOLVED: That the Cabinet Member:

1. Met and discussed with petitioners their request for residential parking in Chesil Way. 

2. Asked officers to add the request to the Council’s overall parking programme so subsequent investigations can be carried out when resources permit.

3.  Instructed officers to follow up the untaxed vehicle that has been reported by residents and Ward Councillors.

4.  Instructed officers to ensure enforcement officers are aware of the issue.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The petition hearing provided a valuable opportunity to hear petitioners’ concerns and suggestions. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED / RISK MANAGEMENT

These were discussed in greater detail with petitioners.

This petition was withdrawn by the lead petitioner.

Concerns and suggestions raised by petitioners included the following:

• There was no need for yellow lines.
• There were no issues with access and visibility as it was a wide junction.
• Residents with no off-street parking relied on the available spaces.
• Original proposals in 2007 were very restrictive.
• Dorchester Waye and Cranbourne Waye should have a one-way system.
• Available parking used by customers of local restaurant.

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

The Cabinet Member informed petitioners that all road users have to abide by the Highway Code which stated that a vehicle should not be parked within 10 metres of a junction.  The police can take action against someone who parks in contravention of the Highway Code, even if in practice this is not common practice due to police resources. The proposals to introduce yellow lines on the junction of Brookside Road and Cranborne Waye had come from the basis of requests from other residents.  Previous proposals were in line with the Highway Code it was not unreasonable to take them forward.

The petitioners argued that they would personally be inconvenienced as their properties did not have a direct parking frontage as they were set behind a semi-circular area of grass at the junction.  Petitioners acknowledged that they did benefit from rear access to garages, which they chose not to use.

Councillor Burrows agreed that the previous proposals consulted upon in 2007 were more restrictive. 

Councillor Burrows advised petitioners that officers would write a report which would take into consideration the petitioners’ concerns and all other relevant responses received during the consultation, together with the views of local Ward Members if any.  Councillor Burrows also advised that emergency services including the police would be consulted on parking proposals.

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Member:

1. Met and discussed with petitioners their concerns with the proposed waiting restrictions on the junction of Brookside Road with Cranborne Waye. 

2. Asked officers to take the petition into account including relevant points raised by the petitioners at the petition evening together with all other representations from the public in the forthcoming report on the consultation results for the proposed waiting restrictions.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Council had given public notice of the proposals for waiting restrictions in Brookside Road, Hayes. It was a requirement that all objections must be considered by the Council before making a final decision on proposals. The petitioners’ objections should be considered along with all other representations submitted to the Council before the Council made a final decision.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED / RISK MANAGEMENT

The Cabinet Member when considering the report outlining all other objections could decide to either approve the scheme or modify it or take no further action.