Agenda item

Councillors Janet Duncan and Dominic Gilham attended the meeting and spoke as Ward Councillors.

The lead petitioner was invited to attend the petition hearing but failed to attend or send a representative to the meeting.

Cllr Burrows explained that the petition hearing had already been deferred from 18 February 2015 meeting at the request of the petitioner and as a considerable amount of correspondence had ensued between the petitioner and the Council, he had decided to consider the petition at the meeting.

Councillor Burrows exercised his discretion and allowed both the Ward Councillors in attendance to each speak well in excess of their allotted 3 minutes.

Councillor Duncan supported the petitioners' views and summarised their concerns as follows:

• The petitioner had chosen not to attend because they had raised 10 points of concern regarding Swan Road and sent these into the Council in December 2014 which had not been included in the officer report.
• The petitioner considered that the report was inaccurate as paragraph 15 of the report stated that in relation to finding a productive and practicalway forward "none has been found which meets with the support of the lead petitioner" . However, in the petitioner's view, no ways forward were suggested to him to signal his support to.
• The petitioner also stated through their Ward Councillor, that it appeared as though the local Police, whom petitioners had spoken to, would favour a reduction in speed and measures to make the road safer but that the Council had not contacted the Police.

• The petition requested a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph.
• The traffic in Swan Road was exceeding the speed limit.
• A raised table installed at the top of Swan Road had exacerbated this problem.
• Excess speeding was particularly severe in the evenings, night mornings and weekends when there were fewer cars parked on the road.

As Councillor Jan Sweeting had a conflicting commitment and was unable to attend the meeting, she submitted a written statement in support of the petitioner for the Cabinet Member to consider. This was extensively referred to at the meeting and the main points were as follows:

• Swan Road, West Drayton was a road with many hazards.
• The road was winding and undulating, with narrow as well as wide stretches.
• The road was always very busy during the day. This included heavy lorries going to and from the car breakers yard in Donkey Lane and buses manoeuvring past stationary vehicles and oncoming traffic.
• Heavy vehicles would be used on Swan Road to access the Bardons work in Thorney Mill Road in Bucks, just along from Swan Road.  This site would soon be used for heavy industrial use again with the consequential effect on traffic profiles using Swan Road.
• The whole stretch of the road was an obstacle race.
• Where speeds did indeed slow, to the speeds shown by the surveys conducted on behalf of the Council, it was still a dangerous stretch of road.
• Residents which had parked on the road, had suffered vehicle damage including losing wing mirrors and incurring scratches.
• The lead petitioner had provided further evidence to support the Petitioners’ request for a 20 mph speed limit. 
• Many other Councils in London had adopted 20 mph limits on their roads.
• Swan Road should be viewed as a ‘Special Case’ which could nor should not be assessed on standardised criteria. 

Councillor Gilham raised the following points:

• He did not support the petitioners' requests for a 20 mph speed limit.
• He did not view Swan Road as a particularly problematic stretch of road.
• The Council had conducted on going repairs and had used the proprietary 'Rhino patch' system for repairs in places to improve the condition of the road surface.
• Referring to the Police accident data cited in the report, he explained that the accidents had been caused by the behaviour of the motorists involved rather than excessive speed.
• He commended the intelligent intervention approach adopted by officers and highlighted the meeting which took place between the lead petitioner, local residents, the three local ward councillors and officers which took place in October 2014 in an attempt to move matters forward.
• It was his view that there was insufficient evidence from either the Police or Council officers to justify a reduction to the speed limit to 20 mph.

Having considered the contents of the officer report and listened to the views and concerns raised by Ward Councillors, the Cabinet Member agreed the recommendations in the report.

Resolved - That the Cabinet Member:

1. Notes the Council has to date commissioned four separate sets of independent traffic surveys in Swan Road, undertaken in November 2008, July 2011, January 2014 and July 2014, the results of which are set out in this report and none of which support the case for traffic calming;

2. Notes the efforts by officers to try to address the petitioners' concerns through the 'intelligent intervention' before the petitioners  meet formally with the Cabinet Member;

3. Notes the meeting which took place on 23rd October 2014 between the lead petitioner, all three Ward Members and two officers with a view to understanding and taking forward the petitioners' concerns;

4. Considered that further studies were not justified on the basis of any detailed evidence which the petitioners had provided.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The petition hearing will provide a valuable opportunity to hear directly from the petitioners of their concerns and suggestions. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED / RISK MANAGEMENT

None at this stage.