Agenda item

Speed Calming Measures on Manor Way, Ruislip


The Cabinet Member considered a petition requesting speed calming on Manor Way, Ruislip.


The lead petitioner addressed the Cabinet Member and made the following points:


The petitioner had lived in Manor Way for three years and the road was becoming increasingly family-focused, while it had previously been home to a majority of elderly residents. The influx of younger families was partly due to the close proximity to schools and shops. Safety of pedestrians and drivers was paramount.


Manor Way was often used at a cut-through between Eastcote Road and the local High Street, particularly at peak hours but often at high speeds. The petitioner was not anti-driver but concerned about safety. The local Safer Neighbourhoods was noted.


Traffic surveys had not been completed since 2017, and new surveys would be welcomed. Warrender Primary School, which was located nearby, had recently requested speed measures as speed was presenting a problem for school children.


There were blind spots on the junction of West Hatch Manor and Windmill Hill.


The fact that there had been only three recorded incidents was surprising.


The Cabinet Member noted that Police Safer Neighbourhood teams could lend speed guns that could help to identify specific problem locations. This could be arranged through Ward Councillors.


A statement had been received from Councillor Philip Corthorne as Ward Councillor for Ruislip:


Councillor Corthorne had spoken to the petitioner previously and recently undertaken a short site meeting.


Councillor Corthorne has written to the Cabinet Member in early August to suggest that the current situation may lend itself to some informal dialogue to discuss the problems and what kind of measures may or may not be appropriate at this location. It was thought that the prompt scheduling of bring this petition to a hearing had rendered this unnecessary/ inappropriate.


Councillor Corthorne had rad the officer report and noted that the 2017 speed surveys had pre-dated him as Ward Councillor for this part of Ruislip. The comments of one resident, which had been reproduced in full in the report, was a reminder that there were differing viewpoints on this matter, and Councillor Corthorne would not favour speed humps.


Nevertheless, concerns which had given rise to the petition should not be dismissed out of hand and the Councillor Corthorne would favour fresh speed surveys to help determine whether the situation had changed significantly since 2017.


The petitioners themselves recognise that the area places constraints on what measures are possible, but they would welcome dialogue on their concerns and possible outcomes. It was hoped that the petition hearing would be a starting point to this, and Councillor Corthorne would follow up with residents after the meeting.


The Cabinet Member noted the issue at the junction of Manor Way and Windmill Way and highlighted that improved sightlines often led to more speeding. It was further noted that parked cars often deterred speeding. Locations for possible speed surveys were discussed with the petitioner. It was noted that speed humps often had the unintended consequence of more noise, and that while some residents may favour them in principle, residents often did not want them directly outside their own property. The possibility of signs or speed limit reminders was noted. It was noted that 20 mph speed limits were often only implemented near schools.


The petitioner re-iterated that they were not anti-driver, and that they would happily defer to the transport experts.


That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:


1)    Met with petitioners and listens to their request for “speed calming measures” on Manor Way, Ruislip;


2)    Noted the concerns raised by a resident concerning the petition;


3)    Noted the results of the previous speed and traffic surveys undertaken in July 2017; and


4)    Asked officers to commission independent 24/7 traffic and speed surveys on Manor Way at locations agreed with petitioners and Ward Councillors.


Supporting documents: