Agenda item

The Cabinet Member introduced the petition to be heard. A written representation had been received from the Lead Petitioner which was read out for the consideration of the Cabinet Member. Key points highlighted included:

·         There were three main areas of concern in Elm Avenue and Park Way which related to speed limit, weight limit and lack of pedestrian refuge island;

·         Speed limit - it was recognised that the Council had no speed enforcement powers and was not responsible for safety cameras. However, the Council could work with TfL to request a review of speed limits and speed cameras which would ensure the 30 mph speed limit was adhered to. Proactive safety measures were vital rather than waiting for an accident to happen;

·         Weight limit – the number of HGVs using Elm Avenue and Park Way had increased significantly. The Council was asked to enforce restrictions for these HGVs as they caused noise and vibrations which disturbed residents. The traffic surveys suggested in the report would be welcomed as they could lead to traffic calming measures. The petitioner would be happy to recommend locations for the survey equipment to be installed. The proposal to enforce and upgrade traffic restrictions in place on Chelston Road would also be welcomed; and

·         Lack of Pedestrian Refuge Island – the Council was asked to explore the possibility of pedestrian refuge islands which were already present on other smaller roads in Hillingdon.

Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne was in attendance and addressed the Cabinet Member confirming that there had been a fatality in Elm Avenue some years previously and the road had been widened as a result. It was noted that the enforcement of a 20mph speed limit was a matter for the Police not for the Council. Traffic surveys were supported to establish the extent of the issue.

Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood was also in attendance. He did not fully support the introduction of a 20mph speed limit and raised some concerns regarding raised tables. However, Councillor Smallwood supported the idea of road traffic surveys noting that it was important to gather evidence. He also believed signage could be a useful deterrent.

The Cabinet Member noted that he would only support the idea of a 20mph speed limit adjacent to a school as such speed limits were difficult to enforce.

The Cabinet Member was minded to take forward the petitioners’ request for further investigation by officers. It was noted that a pedestrian crossing would be challenging but weight limit restrictions and a refuge island would be explored further. It was agreed that, following the meeting, the Traffic, Parking, Road Safety, School Manager would liaise with the Lead Petitioner on potential locations for the speed survey equipment.

That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)    Met with petitioners and listened to their request for traffic calming and safety measures in Elm Avenue and Park Way, Ruislip;

2)    Noted petitioners’ concerns over vehicle speeds and level of HGVs on Elm Avenue and Park Way and instructed officers to consider the undertaking of 24/7 speed and vehicle classification surveys (petitioners’ views on locations for these to be sought after the meeting);

3)    Noted the specific feedback provided by ward councillors at an early stage upon receipt of the original petition;

4)    Asked officers to investigate the feasibility of the petitioners’ request for a pedestrian crossing in the area, given the constraints, most notably the width of the road; and

5)    Based on the results of the traffic surveys and pedestrian refuge feasibility investigations, instructed officers to explore further investigations for improving road safety on Elm Avenue and Park Way, within the scope of petitioners’ testimony and report back.