Agenda item

The Chairman considered two related petitions from residents requesting traffic calming measures and resurfacing in Kingsend, Pembroke Road and West End Road, Ruislip. 

The lead petitioner for both petitions was in attendance and addressed the Cabinet Member. Key points highlighted included:

·       A presentation had been prepared by the lead petitioner a copy of which had been circulated to the Cabinet Member;

·       The one mile stretch of road from Ruislip Manor to the White Bear Pub was heavily used and had now degraded to such a point that his house shook when HGVs passed along the road;

·       Vehicles travelled at considerable speed along the long stretch of road and there was nothing to remind them of the speed restrictions.

The Cabinet Member listened to the concerns of the petitioner and invited officers to comment further.

The Head of Transportation confirmed that TfL would be requested to explore the efficiency of the junction in question.

The Head of Highways stated that a site inspection had been carried out in this location. Condition data was routinely collected every two years and was considered along with other factors to inform the forward plan. Monthly inspections were also carried out. It was confirmed that the road in question was not considered a high priority at this stage but would continue to be monitored regularly.

The Cabinet Member noted that speed cameras did not fall within the remit of the Council. It was suggested that vehicle activated signs could help as they reminded people to slow down in accordance with the 30mph speed limit.

Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood was in attendance and addressed the Cabinet Member commenting that he would not welcome raised tables in this location, nor would he recommend the re-routing of buses. However, he supported the idea of speed surveys which could be undertaken prior to installing signs then again at a later stage to establish if the signs were making a difference. Councillor Smallwood confirmed that he would continue to push for resurfacing in the location in question.

Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne was also in attendance and observed that there were issues with drain capacity in the area in question which gave rise to flooding – this could negatively impact on the condition of the road. 

The Cabinet Member confirmed that he was happy for speed surveys to be undertaken and recommended that locations be agreed between the Head of Transportation and the lead petitioner. Subject to the results of the surveys, vehicle activated signs could be an option – cameras and humps would not be feasible. The Cabinet Member noted that the condition of the road would continue to be monitored but the Council had to prioritise those roads that were most in need of repair.

The lead petitioner confirmed that he would welcome vehicle activated signs and confirmed that cameras and humps were not being requested.  He acknowledged that the current pot holes did not violate standards but asked that the quality of the road be considered in the context of the tolerance required given the heavy HGV use. The Head of Highways confirmed that such matters were factored in, and inspections were risk-based. In respect of the drainage issues, it was confirmed that Thames Water would hopefully be addressing this matter in the near future. The lead petitioner highlighted an area at the back of Waitrose where the drain regularly erupted – it was agreed that further details would be provided to the Head of Highways outside the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1.    With regard to the first petition (traffic calming):

a.    met with petitioners and listened to their request for traffic calming measures on Kingsend, Pembroke Road and West End Road, Ruislip;

b.    noted the request for the provision of ‘speed cameras’ – more formally ‘road safety cameras’ and informed residents that these were not under the jurisdiction of the Council;

c.    invited petitioners to consider whether they had alternative suggestions to be considered to address their concerns over speeding vehicles;

d.    instructed officers to consider the undertaking of 24/7 speed and vehicle classification surveys and asked petitioners to liaise with the Head of Transportation to identify locations for these); and

e.    subject to the outcome of the surveys, instructed officers to undertake further investigations and report back; and

2.    With regard to the second petition, seeking road resurfacing at the same junction:

a.    noted the letter sent to the lead petitioner by the Head of Highways, details of which had been included within the report;

b.    subject to the above, listened to the testimony of the petitioners on the subject of resurfacing and further clarification from the Head of Highways on the Council’s resurfacing prioritisation regime. Highways officers to investigate the flooding concerns at the junction; and

c.    welcomed the offer from TfL to explore the efficiency of the junction in question.