Agenda and minutes

Councillors Beulah East and Neil Fyfe were in attendance as Ward Councillors.

Concerns and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• The lead petitioner gave a brief history of Hayes End over the last 11 years, since the Hayes Park complex was built.
• In 1999 residents lost at least four parking spaces, residents reported that they then got permission to park on the verge.
• Two housing developments have resulted in more people parking in Hayes End Road. This parking issue had been going on for the last 10 years.
• Residents were receiving numerous parking tickets for parking on verges and these tickets were appealed, all successfully.
• John McDonnell MP had been helping with residents’ problems with parking and residents said that he was surprised this issue was still on-going.
• The petitioners felt that over the years they had not received adequate support or help from the Council, and that they were continuously fighting with the Council over this. 
• The petitioners questioned why the Council erected bollards on land that they did not own.
• The petitioners stated that they were not consulted by the Council before the bollards were erected.
• The issue with speeding on the road was noted.
• The residents just wanted somewhere to park their cars; they suggested that instead of bollards the Council could replace this with a few parking spaces.
• A lot of residents had spent money on having drives and dropped kerbs put into their homes to have somewhere to park.
• The parking problems were getting worse.
• People were parking beside the bollards which meant the road was narrowing, which made visibility on the road worse.
• Petitioners explored the idea of extending the double yellow lines with the Cabinet Member.
• Petitioners asked if they could have the details of the land owners so that they could contact them themselves.

The Ward Councillors had no comment.

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

• There was a request from local residents about their concern for speeding vehicles in the area.
• The actual siting of the bollards was on the approach to a mini-roundabout and double yellow lines.
• The Cabinet Member explained to petitioners that the Council could look into extending the double yellow lines if this was a road safety issue.
• The Cabinet Member suggested that if obstructed parking had become a problem then double yellow lines may be required.  
• Noted that a recent letter from John McDonnell MP regarding this issue not been seen by The Cabinet Member or officers but the contents of the letter were noted.
• This was an unusual situation where the adoption of the land was never completed, and the bollards were erected in good faith but as it transpired on land that was not owned by the Council. The Cabinet Member noted that lessons had been learned and that this situation should not happen again.
• Before removing the bollards legally the Council must now request permission from the owners of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Councillors Tim Barker and Pat Jackson were in attendance and spoke as Ward Councillors.

Concerns and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• The lead petitioner distributed photographs of the area (showing issues of concern) to officers and the Cabinet Member.
• The lead petitioner told the Cabinet Member how Parkfield Ave was used as a cut through for people driving in the area. This included parents who were dropping their children off at nearby schools.
• The photographs highlighted the parking issues that residents encountered.
• People were parking on single yellow lines.
• Cars for sale were being parked on the road by the garages there. This could be an obstruction of highway. 
• They were also test driving the cars on the roads at high speeds.
• Petitioners felt that with the current situation it was near impossible to have a safe road. 
• There were issues with people parking in front of driveways. 
• Petitioners questioned whether it would take for someone to get hurt before something was done about the speeding on the road.
• That traffic wardens drove there but people from the garage would move their cars when they saw the traffic wardens’ car, and then move the cars back on the road when they left. 
• The residents felt dictated to by the garages on where they could park their own cars in their own street.
• The residents would come home and there were no available parking spaces.
• The garages had so many cars they could not store them on their premises so parked on the street.
• There was no consideration for resident parking. 
• The garage owners had a bad attitude against residents who tackled them about street parking. 
• The speeding occurred all day. 

The Ward Councillors commented on the petition:

• Councillor Barker spoke on behalf of all 3 Ward Councillors. 
• The Ward Councillors were in full support of the petition and agreed with what the lead petition had to say. 
• They highlighted the speeding concern and how this effected the residents.

• A speeding consultation was suggested by the Ward Councillors.

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

• A person’s perception of speed could be different to what the speed the vehicle is travelling in actually is. Therefore a speed survey could be of benefit here.
• The parking issue was not acceptable for residents. 
• That the traffic wardens were playing a cat and mouse game to try and catch people parking illegally but this was noted and would be highlighted to Parking Services. 
• There was case law on how to undertake a consultation and this had to be followed. The surrounding roads would need to be consulted on any parking schemes that could be implemented in the area.
• Once plans were drawn up the Cabinet Member agreed to send this to traffic order to advertise and to see if there are any objections. If objections came in the Cabinet Member would receive another report and then it would be for him to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

There were no Ward Councillors or petitioners present at the meeting. The petition was therefore heard in their absence and with officer advice.

DECISION

That the Cabinet Member

1.                  Considered the request for an additional parking place outside No. 67 Sedley Grove. This request was not feasible because of the Council’s policy for footway parking schemes.

2.                  Asked officers to investigate if additional parking can be created by making amendments to the existing footway parking scheme in Sedley Grove.

Reasons for Recommendation:

To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss with petitioners in detail their request and to explore opportunities to increase the parking for residents in Sedley Grove.

Alternative Options Considered:

There were no other options that could be considered in this case.

Relevant Wards:

Harefield

Councillor David Routledge was in attendance and spoke as a Ward Councillor.

Concerns and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• The lead petition had noted the points in the report from officers.
• The lead petitioner had been living in the area since 1981 and over the years parking availability had shrunk. 
• There was a dense population in the area and Waterloo Road was a residential street. 
• Parking restrictions were brought into protect residents parking.
• If crucial parking was taken away it would put even more pressure on the parking. 
• There was lots of space for vehicles in Swan Wharf, including during the day.
• Residents were concerned that the short amount of parking space available would be taken away. 
• There was competition for parking amongst neighbours which  it was alleged could at times become quite hostile, with notes being left on windscreens and cars being vandalised. 
• The 3 spaces that were being proposed to be taken away were valuable parking spaces. 
• It was important that residents could park near their homes; otherwise it could mean that had to move their cars in the mornings when they had not intended to use them. 

The Ward Councillor commented on the petition:

• Councillor Routledge stated that they had fought for a long time to get parking for residents in Waterloo Road. 
• The Council had sold Uxbridge Trading Estate. 
• The Council would have no control over who buys the parking area. 
• By re-introducing business parking it would be going against Council policy, it would provide a limit on parking requirements. 
• That it would be an error to put commercial parking in these bays. 
• And that it would be better to increase parking numbers. 

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

• The report now would be produced by an officer which would refer to the outcome of this petition for the Cabinet Member.
• The report would also set out the views of the Ward Councillors. 
• A Cabinet Member Decision used the individual authority and power to make decisions.
• The Cabinet Member could not prejudge the subsequent report which would be subject to the democratic process, including the possibility of call-in.
• He was very mindful of the area and what residents had fought for, what the petition had said, and the developments in the area. 
• He gave his full assurance that in making this subsequent decision he would be mindful of the history of the area and the views of Ward Councillors.  

DECISION

That the Cabinet Member

1. Met and discussed with the petitioners their concerns with the loss of parking in the southern end of Waterloo Road where a business permit parking place is being proposed.

2. Asked officers to take the petition into consideration when preparing the formal report on representations received to the statutory consultation on the proposals, which will be submitted to the Cabinet Member for a decision on whether the proposals proceed to implementation.

Reasons for Recommendation:

The Council was required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Councillors Andrew Retter, Jonathan Bianco and John Morgan were in attendance and spoke as Ward Councillors.

Councillor John Nickolay from LB Harrow was also in attendance. 

Concerns and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• The lead petitioner advised that she was speaking on behalf of all the petitioners from Harrow and Hillingdon.
• They wished to make the road safe for residents. 
• They had a letter of support from the head teachers of the surrounding schools. 
• A traffic survey carried out showed that 85% of vehicles that drive there did an average of 39mph. 
• Homes in the area kept accident response kits indoors as they regularly had to attend accidents outside their homes. 
• An 18 year old was killed in an accident in May 2010. 
• Petitioners wished for drivers to be forced to observe the 30mph speed limit. Physical means could be used to force them such as check points, speed tables, rumble strips or average speed camera. 
• Petitioners wanted a safe place for pedestrians to cross the road. In some parts there was not a paved area on both sides of the road. 
• Petitioners requested a preference for a zebra crossing or at least a crossing island. 
• They wanted to prevent heavy/large vehicles from using the road; and petitioners suggested a width restriction being put on the road. 
• There was no room for error on the road, a little slip up caused accidents. 
• It was too important an issue to let geographical boundaries (i.e. borough boundaries) prevent anything going forward to improve the safety.
• This issue had been discussed at many lengths in many forums. 

The Ward Councillors commented on the petition:

• Councillor Retter spoke to support the petitioners and on behalf of his Ward Councillor colleagues. 
• It was a priority issue for the Ward Councillors. 
• It was a very unusual road; the road was used to link Pinner and Ruislip. 
• There had been an increase in traffic over the years in the area. 
• Some drivers drove faster than 40/50mph on the 30mph road. 
• That a tragedy would happen again if nothing was done. 
• They needed to find a way to force drivers to slow down. 
• They needed to look at way to reducing the speed limit on the road. Possibly consider a 25mph zone. 
• A safe place with high visibility was required for crossing point. 
• Speed cameras would assist in reducing the speeds of cars. An average speed camera would be more sufficient than a normal one, which would also be of use. 
• A letter could be sent from the Cabinet Member to support the request for speed cameras to TFL. 

• Cllr Bianco also spoke to explain that he shared the concerns of the residents. 
• He encouraged officers to look at all options available. 
• The Ward Councillor questioned the budget on road safety and whether the Council would have the money to do anything that was required. 
• He questioned how much dependence was placed on Harrow Council. 
• He also asked officers what timings the residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.