Agenda item

Concerns and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

·        The finalising of yellow lines was against procedure.

·        56% opposed the single yellow line.

·        If the Council knew the residents were confused why did they not write to the residents again.

·        23% failed to respond to the Council survey.

·        The Council chose to ignore the residents before the petition hearing had taken place.

·        The majority were not aware of the discussions in 2008. The consultation document would of had their input.

·        Petitioners questioned why there were no other options considered.

·        That the Council should of written to all residents not just relied to lead petitioners.

·        A more detailed exercise determining the thoughts of the residents should have been carried out.

·        The school is a problem when in use. There was no problem during school holidays, weekends and evenings.

·        The middle section of the road was taken by school parking which meant that Residents had to park elsewhere.

·        Drivers speed at night.

·        Parking was causing problem for neighbours.

·        The head of the school said she would move bicycle shed to make a space for 20 parking spaces, which never happened.

·        The Council could of spent the £500 they spend on Yellow Lines to move the bicycle shed.

·        The Council showed 42% of the road supported the yellow lines, the petition showed that 56% opposed.

·        The petitioners would of liked the council to consider an alternative.

·        Cllr Hensley, Ward Councillor, asked the Head of school to speak. The School could not build on the playing fields, as that was green belt area. The school also had funding issues.

·        The Head of the School said they had a travel plan but nobody had asked for it.

·        The had one field. The other school fields were over the A40.

·        The Headteacher Had asked 6^th formers to park on one side of the road and not to park driveways. This had improved issues.

·        The School office did hold many of the registration numbers voluntarily.

·        The School had cancelled car boot sales since March 2009, and would not be holding anymore again in response to residents.

·        The School had a weekly newsletter that reminded parents and students to be courteous.

·        The Head stated that they had a travel plan that encourages pupils to cycle into school. They did have a plan to move the cycle plan to another site. Car park spaces and Cycle Shed would swap sites.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised. 

The Council did follow due process in the consultation process it carried out from a petition hearing in October 2008.

The original decision did come to the Cabinet Member to sign off. 76% agreed there was a parking problem on Warren Road. This was the subject of the petition hearing in October 2008. It is not the Cabinet Member’s responsibility or the Council’s to let every resident know of each petition. They are advertised on the website and outside the civic centre. It is up to the lead petitioners. It is a personal choice on whether they sign the consultation or not. If people are unsure they can call the Council for clarification.

This was a democratic process. That is how he based his decisions as a Cabinet Member. A consultation took place. Based on those results a Cabinet Member report was signed off and a traffic order was put up on lampposts. Some of which disappeared in the area, had since been replaced.

The majority of people in Warren Road wanted some form of restriction in Warren Road. The Cabinet Member made his judgement on what had come back in consultation. If it was close between decisions then he could ask officers to go back to re-consult.

Could of had a Cabinet Member Decision on making the decision, but as there was a petition it was put on an agenda and they waited for what the concerns were.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that Vyners School did have a School Travel Plan.

He had not heard anything in the objection that would move the Cabinet Member from anything that the officer had recommended in her report.

He had reduced the effective timing from 18 months to 12 months.

The consultation was quite clear cut. He had listened and made notes on what was said. The Cabinet Member was not convinced that his original decision was incorrect. And it followed all legal requirements.

Resolved - 

That the Cabinet Member:

1. Acknowledged the petition.

2. Listened to the petitioners views and concerns and noted the objection to the proposed single yellow line waiting restriction on Warren Road.

3. Agreed to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the waiting restrictions after one year.

Reasons For Recommendation

The Cabinet Member would wish to listen to and understand the residents’ concerns. This report provided the Cabinet Member with the background to previous consultations.

Although it was clear that a significant minority of the local residents were not in support of the proposed waiting restrictions, it was decided to introduce the measures supported in the consultation on an experimental basis. This committed the council to a formal review of the

measures after a period of up to 18 months before deciding on whether or not to make the measures permanent. During this period, the petition objecting to the waiting restrictions could be considered as part of the objections that would be assessed during the lifetime of the experimental order.

Alternative Options Considered

The Council decided not to put the restrictions in.

Relevant Ward:

ICKENHAM