Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: That all items be considered in public.

Councillors Carol Melvin and Scott Seaman-Digby attended as Ward Councillors in support of the petition.  It was noted that Councillor Seaman-Digby was the petition organiser for this item. 

Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• Residents, particularly the elderly ones, were concerned about the speed of vehicles travelling along Green Lane and had requested the installation of a zebra crossing and an extension to the existing 20mph zone;
• It was believed that a crossing would slow the traffic down;
• It was suggested that undertaking a feasibility study would be the best scenario for residents; and
• The Ward Councillors suggested that the crossing should be situated between The Glen and Dell Court but that it should avoid the bus stop and the college and not be positioned too close to the crossing outside Santander.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of those present and responded to the points raised.  He agreed that the installation of a crossing would have an effect on slowing the traffic in Green Lane. 

It was noted that a feasibility study would be best undertaken during a school term and could be funded from either the Transport for London funded programme or from the Road Safety Budget.  Although the installation of a crossing could be completed fairly quickly (subject to fulfilling certain criteria), the extension of the 20mph zone would take a little longer.  As such, it was agreed that the two strands work would be undertaken independently but with a common feasibility study. 

A traffic survey had been completed in Green Lane some time ago.  Officers would investigate whether or not the data from this survey could be used for the crossing and 20mph extension.  However, it was thought prudent to ensure that the information available was as current as possible.  As such, it was possible that a new survey would need to be undertaken. 

Officers advised that they could start the design process in the next few weeks and that the work could be completed within this financial year.

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Member:

1. considered the petitioners’ request and discussed with them in detail their request for a zebra crossing and the extension to the existing 20mph zone.

2. asked officers to undertake a feasibility study for the possible installation of a pedestrian crossing and a 20 mph speed limit under the Road Safety Programme, and report back to the Cabinet Member.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss in detail with petitioners.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

These can be identified from the discussions with the petitioners.

Councillors Carol Melvin and Scott Seaman-Digby attended as Ward Councillors.  Councillor Seaman-Digby also spoke on behalf of the third Ward Councillor, Councillor Richard Lewis, who was unable to attend the meeting. 

Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• It was noted that the petition was supported by the Residents’ Association;
• Although residents did not object to the traffic lights, they were finding them confusing.  Drivers and pedestrians had been taking risks with regard to crossing at the lights as there was a lot of uncertainty as to when each had right of way; 
• There were a number of local authorities elsewhere that had removed traffic lights in their towns and this had resulted in improved safety;
• Because of the close proximity to the station, commuters had been seen ignoring the red light and rushing across the road to catch a train;
• There had been instances where drivers had pulled out into the middle of the road and then been left stranded as the lights had changed and they were unsure whether or not they should go forward or stay where they were;
• The lights had been installed too close to the roundabout which meant that the area was regularly congested with traffic;
• Vehicles parked on the north side of the bridge also brought traffic to a halt;
• There were a number of parking spaces lost when the lights were installed and this had impacted on the trade of the shops;
• Residents would have preferred a zebra crossing to the installation of these lights;
• Soon after they were originally installed, the phasing of the lights was altered to make them safer;
• It was the opinion of the petitioners that it was impossible to say that the fatality that occurred at the junction prior to the installation of the lights might not have happened if the lights had been there;
• It was noted that the Ward Councillors were supportive of some elements of the petition, but that they had only received 5 letters from residents complaining about the lights.  They acknowledged that the lights had slowed the traffic but advised that this was the purpose of installing the lights in the first place.  However, they were aware that the lights had also impeded the roundabout;
• Ward Councillors believed that the junction needed some form of traffic control but that the situation did need improving; and
• It was suggested that the lights be altered so that they were button controlled.  Alternatively, it was suggested that hoods be installed over the lights to resolve the issue.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised.  The report had included the comments of the Metropolitan Police Traffic Division and the local Police Safer Neighbourhood team, both of which held a lot of weight.  The Police believed that road safety for vulnerable road users crossing the road had improved with the installation of traffic lights at the junction.  

The Cabinet Member advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Councillor Carol Melvin attended as a Ward Councillor in support of the petition. 

Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• Residents were concerned that, particularly over the last 12 months, there was an increasing number of non residents parking in Merrows Close which was making it difficult for residents to park;
• Furthermore, it was noted that non-residents were parking inconsiderately and often parked over driveways and on the corners of the Close, making it difficult to see oncoming traffic;
• Residents had been verbally abused and spat at when they had spoken to drivers that had parked their vehicles inconsiderately.  It was believed that one of these drivers worked at Holy Trinity primary school which was opposite the end of the Close.  Residents had contacted the school on a number of occasions about the behaviour of its staff but there had been no improvement;
• Parents of children at Holy Trinity school often parked in Merrows Close to wait for their children to finish school.  One parent had refused to move her car to let a resident off his driveway to go to a hospital appointment; 
• If there was an event on at Holy Trinity Church in Rickmansworth Road, the parking problems in Merrows Close worsened;
• Concern was expressed that Merrows Close was quite narrow and emergency services vehicles would find it difficult to get down the road when vehicles were parked down both sides.  This also caused problems for residents when they were expecting deliveries as the drivers could often not get near the property they were delivering to;
• Car parking charges at Mount Vernon Hospital had recently increased and there had been a subsequent increase in the number of patients parking in the Close;
• Since a residents’ parking scheme had been implemented in Thirlmere Gardens, parking problems had been transferred to the surrounding roads, including Merrows Close; and
• Residents had taken photographs of the parking problem which they passed to the Cabinet Member.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised.  He noted that Councillor Lewis had been instrumental in supporting this petition.  The photographs provided by residents illustrated the genuine problems that were being experienced by residents regarding parking. 

Residents were advised that, whilst vehicles that were taxed and insured had every right to park in the Close, the drivers did not have the right to: park over residents’ driveways (thereby preventing them accessing their properties); to verbally abuse them; or spit at them. 

It was agreed that the Merrows Close would be added to the work programme and those present were advised that the informal consultation would be sent out to residents with an explanation of the options that were available.  If there was support for a scheme, a formal consultation would be undertaken and anyone could object to the proposals at this stage.  If there were any objections, a report would need to be written for consideration by the Cabinet Member.  It was noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Councillors David Benson and Sukhpal Brar attended as Ward Councillors in support of the petition. 

Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• The problems experienced by residents in Chestnut Close and Doghurst Drive had been ongoing for years.  These roads were used as a waiting area by private hire vehicles who were going to pick up travellers from Heathrow Airport;
• The private hire vehicle drivers used the area as a toilet and frequently dropped their litter on the ground; 
• There were a number of residents that were shift workers and they often came home to find that they could not park anywhere near their properties;
• Residents were concerned that there was a increasing number of homeowners moving out of the road and the area was becoming predominantly rental;
• Effort had been made in the past to get CCTV cameras installed but to no avail;
• The Police had worked with Civil Enforcement Officers in July 2010 to resolve the problem.  This had worked for a while but had since reverted back; and
• It was suggested that the Residents’ Parking Scheme be effective from 9am to 12am (rather than 9am to 5pm) in Doghurst Drive and Chestnut Close.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised.  It was agreed that Doghurst Drive and Chestnut Close be treated separately to the other roads in the scheme as the issues being experienced were not affecting the other roads.  Officers advised that, although informal consultation would not be needed for changing the scheme’s operational times, formal consultation would still need to be undertaken.  It was agreed that work on the formal consultation process be started after the Easter break and that, if a change was subsequently implemented, it be reviewed after 6 months to see if it had resolved the problems experienced by residents. 

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling noted the petition and:

1. considered the petitioners’ request for increased operational hours of the existing Resident Permit Parking Scheme.

2. asked officers to seek advice from local Ward Councillors to determine a suitable area over which residents could be asked for views on longer operational times.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

To consider the request along with other representations that may be received from residents of other roads in the Heathrow Parking Scheme, who may have views on the operational period.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

These will be considered as part of the review.

Councillors Tim Barker, Wayne Bridges and Pat Jackson had contacted Councillor Burrows to advise that they were unable to attend the meeting as Ward Councillors but that they were in support of the petition. 

Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• Residents were concerned that drivers often parked in front of their driveways, stopping them from getting on or off of them.  One resident had even had someone park on her driveway;
• Parents often parked in Denziloe Avenue when they were dropping their children off or picking them up from Hillingdon Primary School.  Residents had, on occasion, been verbally abused by these parents when they had been challenged for parking over a driveway;
• One resident pulled up outside his home to find that someone had parked over his driveway.  While he was stationary in the middle of the carriageway surveying the scene, another vehicle hit his car from behind and the driver then proceeded to verbally abuse him;
• It was believed that the owners of the flats over the shops were supposed to provide parking spaces for their tenants at the back of the building;
• A local car salesroom frequently parked its cars in Denziloe Avenue and residents had counted 20 of these cars on the road that evening.  Some of these cars would be parked there for four or five weeks and the salesroom staff would have to jump start some of them when their batteries died;
• It was noted that the salesroom cars were not marked as being for sale and were taxed so could legitimately park in the street;
• There were two corner shops nearby.  As cars were regularly parked for long periods of time on the corners outside the shops, there was often nowhere for customers to park; 
• Concern was expressed that drivers often parked over the entrance to the alleyway which would prevent emergency vehicles from gaining access;
• It was suggested that double yellow lines be put down on the corner outside the shop and on one side by the alleyway so that it improved visibility for drivers; and
• The petition organiser advised that his daughter lived in an area of the Borough with a residents’ parking scheme and that he would welcome a similar scheme in Denziloe Avenue.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised.  Residents were advised that double yellow lines would take parking spaces away from residents so needed to be used with caution. 

Consideration was given to options available to the residents: double yellow lines; single yellow lines; and a parking management scheme.  The options available would be explained in the informal consultation document that would be sent out to residents to gauge what support there was for change.  Residents were advised that it was important to complete and return the consultation document as this would determine the subsequent course of action.  If there was sufficient support for a parking management scheme (PMS), a formal consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.