Agenda and minutes

The Cabinet Member considered a petition from residents requesting traffic calming on Ivy House Road and Almond Avenue, Ickenham.

The Lead Petitioner was in attendance and raised a number of points, including:

• Residents were extremely concerned about pedestrian and road safety.
• He had lived at the junction between Ivy House Road and Almond Avenue for a long period and a fundamental change to the traffic congestion had only occurred recently.
• Traffic congestion could be originating from Swakeleys Road and Long Lane T junction. HGVs were also involved, which might have increased in prominence due to HS2 developments nearby.
• There were new ‘rat runs’ in the vicinity.
• This increase in HGV usage of Ivy House Road and Almond Avenue (a residential area) was putting elderly and disabled residents as well as young families at risk.
• Two unreported collisions had taken place earlier in the year – evidence to support this was displayed to the panel.
• The lead petitioner made reference to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents’ (RoSPA) findings on speed tables.
• The report however also highlighted the fact that speed tables can have unintended consequences such as noise caused by vehicles passing over them.
• In light of the issues raised, it was requested that traffic calming measures be implemented to combat these.

Councillor Martin Goddard, Ward Councillor for Ickenham & South Harefield, affirmed his support for the petitioners stating that:

• He had experienced the problems presented and the junction between Swakeleys Road and Long Lane was a known pressure point which could be the root of the rat run as well as increased congestion turning into Almond Avenue and down Ivy House Road.
• The residential streets in the area had not been designed for the current volume of traffic.

The Chairman requested the recently attained survey results conducted in the area.

Officers passed a copy of the recently completed survey results to the Lead Petitioner for referral. These surveys had been carried out over a 7-day period and had not found evidence of any excessive speeding. It was proposed that the volume of traffic as opposed to increased speeding might have been the fundamental change that the Lead Petitioner had referred to. Officers noted the Lead Petitioner’s concerns over HGV movements, which he felt likely to have resulted from ongoing HS2 works; officers added that the Council had regular dialogue with HS2 and their contractors concerning traffic associated with their work, and further discussion would be had with them regarding the roads of present concern.

The Lead Petitioner confirmed the propositions about the increased volume of traffic but, in reference to the speed surveys, highlighted that serious accidents could occur below 30mph.

The Chairman accepted the concerns of petitioners and asked whether the problem was mostly one way or in both directions, perhaps linked to wider patterns of commuter and school traffic. The Lead Petitioner felt that the traffic was coming from Swakeleys Road and turning into Almond Avenue or straight down Ivy House Road. It was agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Chairman considered a petition from residents requesting traffic calming measures on Austin's Lane, Ickenham

The Lead Petitioner was in attendance and made a number of points, including:

• Highlighted Austin’s Lane as unusual due to there being no footpath, caused by the Transport for London (TfL) bridge over the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines. Also cited no streetlighting and a small stream alongside.
• The narrow section of road which caused issues for drivers when two vehicles were travelling in opposite directions. Additionally, many different access points, namely from The Growing Tree Nursery and Glebe Primary School had contributed to complexities.
• There was no street lighting because of the aforementioned restrictions surrounding the absence of a footpath. Insufficient lighting had increased the danger due to lack of visibility for pedestrians.
• Austin’s Lane was being used as a ‘rat run’ by motorists, trying to circumvent the traffic on Long Lane who entered in through the Glebe Estate past Ickenham Train Station, and then left through Austin’s Lane. This had enabled high speeds down Austin’s Lane; for example, parents rushing to drop their children off at school. 
• It was acknowledged that an existing traffic warning sign displayed the fact that there may be pedestrians walking in the road, but regrettably this was ineffective at slowing down motorists - a stronger and clearer deterrent was required to combat this.
• The Lead Petitioner felt that physical measures such as traffic calming were needed to force a reduction in traffic speeds.
• An existing group on social media included numerous comments from residents that had similarly complained about the issues mentioned.

In response to his request for clarification, the Chairman was informed that these problems occurred throughout the day but AM and PM rush hours exhibited the worst incidents, due to the aforementioned attempts by motorists to avoid the traffic on Long Lane. The Lead Petitioner felt that the problem was most acute in the mornings, but that it was a matter of concern at all times. They also confirmed that the speeding occurred away from the residential part of Austin’s Lane, which was where the road narrowed (section of particular concern). A blind spot caused by the brow of the TfL bridge had increased the danger for motorists in this area.

Councillor Eddie Lavery, Ward Councillor for Ickenham & South Harefield reaffirmed his support (and that of Councillor Banerjee) for the petitioners stating that:

• He shared the Lead Petitioner’s concerns regarding the absence of a footpath for pedestrians which had caused serious worries for children walking to and from nearby schools and nurseries.
• He echoed the Lead Petitioner’s remarks on ‘rat running’ in this locality.
• Concluded that improved safety for residents was what was desired and suggested that guidance from the speed surveys pledged in the officer’s report could provide guidance to achieving this.

The Chairman confirmed that an incremental approach was best suited to this particular situation. Speed surveys, as referenced by Councillor Lavery, were supported by the Chairman.

Petitioners were requested to identify appropriate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition from residents requesting to change the layout of the junction of St Andrews Road and Churchill Road to a Mini Roundabout.

The Lead Petitioner was present and made a number of points, including:

• The junction in question topographically ought to be a T junction.
• Drivers coming from Chippendale Waye roundabout went straight over the junction instead of turning left causing danger to residents, amplified by the fact that it was a high-density area with nearby schools and a newly constructed residential home.
• The developer for the estate had had discussions with the Council on this issue.

Officers informed the Lead Petitioner that discussions with the developer were ongoing and disclosed that a mini roundabout, as requested by the Petitioners, might be achievable, although this remained subject to further agreement and an independent technical assessment.

Councillor Adam Bennett, Ward Councillor for Hillingdon West, made a number of points in support of the petition including:

• He had personal experience of the locality.
• It was a very poorly designed road junction. Furthermore, there was no road signage to indicate to drivers that they must give way and road markings were barely visible.
• The situation may have come about by accident; possibly because Churchill Road had been constructed from the South and had met with St Andrew’s Road at the junction from this direction. Councillor Bennett informed the Chairman that the initial plan was that Churchill Road would run all the way through from Park Road, to the Greenway (evidence of this presently at Park Road junction). However, this plan had not been pursued due to ‘rat run’ concerns.
• There were two significant problems with the junction at St Andrews Road and Churchill Road - firstly, motorists coming from Park Road roundabout were not aware that they must give way to the left. This had been worsened recently by the construction of the nearby retirement complex, which had consequently reduced visibility down St Andrews Road as a result. Secondly, it was not clear to motorists that they must give way to the right when coming north onto Churchill Road.

The Chairman recommended further negotiations with the developer in order to provide a solution to the issues mentioned. Additionally, the Chairman observed that, if a mini roundabout was unattainable, other solutions would be explored.

RESOLVED: That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)    Met and discussed with petitioners their request to make changes at the junction at St Andrews Road and Churchill Road;

2)    Noted that dialogue was already under way with the developer of the St Andrews Park site to seek ways of improving the road layout at this location;

3)    Asked officers to continue negotiations with the developer of St Andrews Park with a view to delivery of a mini roundabout, as requested by petitioners, if at all possible, and furthermore asked officers to report back as soon as this possibility had been established; and,

4)    Asked officers to consider the testimony of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition from residents requesting a safe pedestrian crossing at the junction of Rickmansworth Road and Green Lane, Northwood.

The Lead Petitioner was present and made a number of points, including:

• There was considerable concern over children’s safety.
• There were 9 schools and nurseries in the locality, and it was a popular cycling and walking route.
• To take children to school, this junction often had to be crossed.
• Additional walking had been necessary, in order to complete the journeys safely, due to poor facilities in place for pedestrians. This was evidenced by lack of traffic lighting, pedestrian guard rails and the refuge islands not being sufficient in terms of space.

The Chairman accepted the concerns of petitioners but stated that evidence had suggested low use by pedestrians at the junction of Rickmansworth Road and Green Lane. Moreover, due to road junctions, expense and lack of use, new pedestrian crossings were not favoured in most circumstances. Furthermore, the Chairman declared that TfL held jurisdiction over traffic light instalment and maintenance, not the Council. Officers were instructed to engage with TfL on the matter.

It was confirmed that this issue had been examined by the Council before, as detailed in paragraph 7 of the officer report.

RESOLVED: That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)    Met and discussed with petitioners their request to provide a pedestrian Pelican crossing at the junction of Rickmansworth Road and Green Lane, Northwood;

2)    Noted that previous independently collected pedestrian crossing data at the

junction of Rickmansworth Road and Green Lane showed relatively low pedestrian flows;

3)    Noted that only one police recorded accident with slight injury was noted in the vicinity at the junction of Rickmansworth Road and Green Lane during the last five years;

4)    Further noted that changes to the traffic signals of any crossing in the manner suggested would need the support of Transport for London, the body responsible for all traffic signals across Greater London; and,

5)    Instructed officers to engage with Transport for London on this matter, which would provide for the study of a possible pedestrian stage.

Reasons for recommendations:

The Petition Hearing provided a valuable opportunity to hear directly from the petitioners of their concerns and suggestions.

Alternative options considered / risk management:

None at this stage.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition from residents requesting a residents parking scheme at Coldharbour Lane, Hayes.

The Lead Petitioner was present and made a number of points, including:

• The area had become significantly busier over the last 6-10 years.
• Parking meters installed in Hayes town centre as a part of the ‘Stop and Shop’ arrangements had transferred problems on to the nearby residential areas.
• One of the main issues was the severe influx of cars and vans which often appeared to be illegally on sale on the public highway, which had taken away parking spaces from residents and sometimes made personal driveways inaccessible. Council-issued notices were being ignored by the traders and a significant number of these vehicles were being left without tax or insurance, which contravened legislation. Moreover, the few spaces left by traders were being taken up by large company vehicles and Uber taxi drivers proliferating from Hayes town centre.
• Some of the larger vehicles, such as minibuses, caused severe visibility issues for those residents who benefitted from off-road parking, as when these vehicles were parked very close to driveways, it often made it difficult for those residents to emerge into Coldharbour Lane.
• The Petitioner had been in contact with the anti-social behaviour team at the Council regarding this problem and traders had been prosecuted as a result of this.

Councillor Janet Gardner, Ward Councillor for Hayes Town, informed the Chairman of her support for the Petitioners and mentioned personal experience of the issues raised, which a resident parking scheme could help combat.

The Chairman noted that the proposed resident parking scheme would not, in all likelihood, completely remedy the situation. It was known to often result in a net-loss of available spaces but, most noticeably, transferred the issues onto other nearby areas. The Chairman acknowledged that this factor was a significant contributor to the existing problem experienced by Petitioners (parking scheme in Hayes town centre transferring issues onto surrounding areas, as evidenced on Coldharbour Lane). Furthermore, the Chairman highlighted that a residents’ parking zone required a substantial area, as opposed to one linear road. It was also confirmed by the Chairman that continued collaboration with the anti-social behaviour team would be necessary to resolve the situation.

Another resident and co-petitioner was invited to speak by the Chairman and reiterated the point that signage issued by the Council was being destroyed and largely disregarded by the affiliated traders.

Officers made the following points:

• They understood the impact associated in part with the influx of non-residents and unwelcome motorists and people allegedly selling vehicles illegally.
• A residents parking zone or PMS (Parking Management Scheme) would help return the street to the residents but, if installed, would adversely affect the number of spaces available and could also transfer the problems elsewhere; however, as the influx of outsiders parking had been severe, the net gain for residents would clearly be an improvement compared to the status quo.
• In reference to the Chairman’s statement surrounding the size of the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.