Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Committee Rooms 2 & 3, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley Middlesex, HA9 9HD
Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Petitions a) Petition against the removal of traffic signals on the North circular Road
b) Petition against the proposed increase in residents parking charges Decision: (i) that the petition against the removal of traffic signals on the North Circular Road be noted;
(ii) that the petition against the proposed increase in residents’ parking charges be noted. Minutes: The petition received from residents and businesses of the Fleetway Business Centre requested the following;
“Many companies operating between Neasden and Staples Corner Roundabout have containers and long vehicles visiting due to its industrial environment. The traffic lights, allow safe manoeuvring of such vehicles, without posing a risk to traffic and maintaining road safety.
We request that the traffic lights are not disconnected for the benefit of both the public and surrounding businesses.”
The petition was presented by Ms Tina Cara representing local businesses in the centre. Ms Cara stated that the proposal by TfL to remove the traffic lights would make it difficult for the long vehicles to manoeuvre, resulting in poor visibility, traffic disruption and compromising road safety. She added that the argument by TfL that the signals no longer conformed with the regulations of the Department of transport and that the demand for their use was low were not shared by local residents and businesses within the Fleetway Business Centre. Ms Cara urged the committee to ask TfL not to decommission the traffic lights on the North Circular Road.
RESOLVED:
that the petition against the removal of traffic signals on the North Circular Road be noted.
|
|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: None. |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting held on 23 March 2011 PDF 116 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 23 March 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
Matters arising (if any) Minutes: None. |
|
Deputations (if any) Minutes: None. |
|
Response to petition against the removal of traffic signals on the North circular Road PDF 373 KB This report informs members of a petition entitled “North Circular Road – Push Button Signal Removal.” The report outlines officer’s investigations into the matter and describes the dialogue between officers and Transport for London (TfL) which has the responsibility for the North Circular Road (NCR) including the operation of the traffic signals. Decision: (i) that the contents of the petition and the issues raised be noted;
(ii) that the course of action taken by officers in relation to the issue be noted;
(iii) that having given consideration to the petition and the action taken by officers, the Head of Transportation be instructed to request TfL to undertake a safety audit in the winter months and to request their future plans for the junction of NCR and Brentfield Road.
Minutes: Members considered a report that informed them about a petition entitled “North Circular Road – Push Button Signal Removal” and outlined officer’s investigations into the matter. The report also described the dialogue between officers and Transport for London (TfL) which has the responsibility for the North Circular Road (NCR) including the operation of the traffic signals.
Tim Jackson, Head of Transportation in setting the background to the decision by TfL informed members that the A406 North Circular Road (NCR) was a red route and as such formed part of Transport for London’s Road Network (TLRN). TfL were the Highway Authority for the road and operated all traffic signals across London and whilst the Council could raise concerns about NCR, it could not take any direct action regarding it. He understood that TfL’s decision was in response to the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy and direction to look at ways of smoothing traffic flow which would mean less stop-start traffic movement, more predictable journey times and fewer obstacles for pedestrians. The traffic signal in question was 1of 145 signals identified across London for removal on the grounds that the demand for it was low and that it did not conform to the Department of Transport regulations. He reported that works to permanently remove the traffic signal had been suspended pending the outcome of this meeting and updated members on the results of officers’ observations following the petition and the dialogue with TfL on the decommissioning of the traffic lights.
Tim Jackson added that although TfL recognised the concerns expressed by the businesses it appeared they were unwilling to change their minds on the grounds that the traffic lights did not conform to the current regulations and standards of the Department of Transport, the frequency of demand and use of the traffic lights and that the push button signal was unsafe. In view of that he did not consider further involvement of officers’ time and resources would be desirable.
Whilst acknowledging that TfL were unlikely to change their minds, Councillor Long requested that safety audit into the proposal be carried out in the winter months when the days were shorter. In addition she requested that TfL be asked to indicate their plans for the North Circular Road/Brentfield Road junction where there could be opportunities to smooth traffic flows. The recommendations in the report were then agreed subject to the comments made by Councillor Long.
RESOLVED:-
(i) that the contents of the petition and the issues raised be noted;
(ii) that the course of action taken by officers in relation to the issue be noted;
(iii) that having given consideration to the petition and the action taken by officers, the Head of Transportation be instructed to request TfL to undertake a safety audit in the winter months and to also request their future plans for the junction of NCR and Brentfield Road.
|
|
Response to petition against the proposed increase in residents parking charges PDF 76 KB This report advises the Committee of a petition received and signed by residents from across the Borough, opposing proposals to introduce a vehicle emission-based scheme of charges, with a revised range of charges, for residents parking permits. The report outlines the arrangements that were made for considering representations to the proposals, confirms that the petition was properly considered before a decision was made and provides details of the decision made.
Additional documents: Decision: (i) that the contents of the petition and the issues raised be noted;
(ii) that the response of officers, to the petition, as set out in the report be noted;
(iii) that the main petitioner should be advised of the Committees’ consideration of this matter.
Minutes: The petition received from Brent Liberal Democratic Group stated as follows;
“As a local resident I oppose the plans by the Labour Executive at Brent Council to increase residents Parking Permit charges by an excessive amount. CPZ’s exist to protect local residents and NOT make money out of us”.
The petition was presented by Councillor Lorber (Group Leader) who stated that that the Executive took a decision to introduce the changes subject to consultation and delegated the final decision to officers. The decision should have been called in for scrutiny and whilst being scrutinised, the decision could not be implemented. He continued that controlled parking schemes (CPZ) were introduced as a self funding schemes aimed at protecting local residents from unauthorised parking in their areas. However, it had now become money making schemes as the Council sought to increase the charges. Councillor Lorber concluded that the substantial increase in charges was not supported by local residents as it undermined democratic process.
The report from the Head of Transportation advised the Committee of a petition from residents from across the Borough which opposed proposals to introduce a vehicle emission-based scheme of charges. The report outlined the arrangements that were made for considering representations to the proposals and confirmed that the petition was properly considered before a decision was made. Tim Jackson, Head of Highways, informed the Committee that after due consideration of all representations received, the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods implemented the decision of the Executive. He added that the director of Legal and Procurement did not consider the decision to be ultra vires.
In bringing the matter to a close, Councillor Powney, Vice-Chair pointed out that the decision which was made by the Executive in August 2010 was not called in for scrutiny.
RESOLVED:-
(i) that the contents of the petition and the issues raised be noted;
(ii) that the response of officers, to the petition, as set out in the report be noted;
(iii) that the main petitioner should be advised of the Committees’ consideration of this matter.
|
|
Proposals to introduce pay and display parking controls in Preston Road & Bridge Road PDF 140 KB This report outlines the representations received in relation to the consultation, including the statutory consultation in association with the Traffic Order process. The report also considers those representations in the context of the original proposals and recommends that the Committee approves implementation of the proposals. Additional documents:
Decision: (i) that, having given proper consideration of the matters raised by way of objections and representations summarised in Section 6 and Appendices 2 and 3 and discussed in detail within the report, and in the context of the policy and other reasons set out in the report and the Equality Analysis, approval be given to the introduction of schemes of pay and display parking in Preston Road and Bridge Road (and adjacent side roads), as described in the report;
(ii) that the proposal to undertake a review of the operation of the scheme(s) no later than 12 months after their implementation and present the outcomes of that review to the Committee upon completion of that review Committee be noted;
(iii) that the Head of Transportation be instructed to give priority to working with the lead member, ward members, and others representing local residents and businesses, to (i) identifying and introducing measures to improve awareness and use of the Preston Road car park and (ii) to explore opportunities to pilot a charging regime in that car park that would further increase use of the car park and the vitality of businesses in Preston Road and could be considered for introduction in all town centre car parks.
Minutes: The Committee considered a report that outlined the representations received in relation to the consultation, including the statutory consultation in association with the Traffic Order process. The report also considered those representations in the context of the original proposals and recommended implementation of the proposals. In setting the background to the proposals, Tim Jackson, Head of Transportation stated that the report had its origins in a report in December 2010 on fees and charges considered by the Executive Committee that agreed the proposals to “review anomalies for charging for on-street parking spaces on Bridge Road (Wembley), Preston Road and on the Park Royal Industrial Estate”. He reminded the Committee that, at their meeting in March 2011 they delegated authority to the Head of Transportation to implement pay and display parking controls at identified sites subject to appropriate consultation arrangements being followed and the identification of funding for implementation. He advised that the report was being presented now because of the significant number of non-vexatious objections to the proposals for Bridge Road and Preston Road.
Tim Jackson drew members’ attention to the following pertinent issues:
(i) They (free short term bays) represented an inconsistency since motorists parking in those bays did so free of charge whilst they would be charged at generally similar locations elsewhere (outside and within CPZs).
(ii) The inconsistency could be argued as being contrary to the Council’s general policy of encouraging the use of more sustainable transport modes and discouraging non-essential car journeys
(iii) Enforcement was resource intensive coupled with generally a low level of compliance with the one hour maximum stay and hence their purpose is undermined.
To overcome the above issues, proposals introducing pay and display controls in both Preston Road and Bridge Road and side roads where free short term parking bays exist were developed. If introduced, motorists would have to pay to park in these bays from Monday to Saturday between 8am and 6.30pm in Preston Road and side roads and from Monday to Saturday between 9.30am and 4.30pm in Bridge Road and side road. He continued that the proposals had generated a number of objections and drew members’ attention to the representations and the analysis of responses as set out in the report.
Tim Jackson recommended the Committee to approve implementation of the proposals at both locations. He added that the responses to the consultation identified that an opportunity existed to encourage use of the Preston Road car park, in a way that would not be contrary to the Council’s wider strategy on sustainable use as well as address a number of concerns in relation to the vitality and viability of Preston Road as a local centre and that this was covered within the recommendations. He also recommended that officers work with representatives of the local community on measures to increase awareness and use of the car park and to explore opportunities to adopt a pilot charging regime in the car park that could further support activity in Preston Road ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 2011-14 PDF 490 KB This report summarises the background and content of the LIP as amended following the consultation on the draft and seeks Committee approval to submit the final LIP to Transport for London (TfL). Once approved by TfL/The Mayor, the LIP will become a statutory document spanning the period 2011-2014 and will provide the framework against which TfL will allocate funding to the Council through the LIP process.
I have produced separately the appendix to the report. Hard copies will be made available at the meeting.
Additional documents: Decision: (i) that the work undertaken to communicate the Local (Transport) Implementation Plan process with stakeholders, statutory consultees and the wider community and to engage people in contributing to the final document be noted;
(ii) that the requirement to prepare and consult on a Local (Transport) Implementation Plan and to submit an approved Plan to Transport for London by the end of July 2011 be noted;
(iii) that the submission of the final Local (Transport) Implementation Plan to Transport for London (TfL), as set out in Appendix A to the report, be approved.
Minutes: Members received a report from the Head of Transportation which summarised the background and content of the LIP as amended following the consultation on the draft and sought Committee approval to submit the final LIP to Transport for London (TfL). In introducing the report, Adrian Pigott (Policy Manager) informed members that the draft LIP adhered to the TfL guidance and was informed by Brent’s Corporate Strategy and local and sub-regional transport needs and priorities. The approved draft LIP and its’ accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) went out for consultation with the public, partners and TfL in order that a final LIP could subsequently be approved and submitted to TfL in accordance with their requirements.
The Policy Manager referred to the respective sections of the LIP together with comments and resulting amendments made as set out in the report. The LIP thus reflected the outcome of the consultation process and TfL’s comments. He assured members that officers had been in frequent communication with TfL throughout 2011 to ensure that the final LIP was robust and were confident about its approval by the London Mayor’s office, if submitted in its’ current form.
He continued that once approved by TfL/The Mayor, the LIP would become a statutory document spanning the period 2011-2014 and would provide the framework against which TfL would allocate funding to the Council through the LIP process. Members noted that the submission of a LIP that can be approved by TfL would enable the Council to meet its legal obligations at the same time as enabling it to maximise opportunities for inward investment in Brent’s infrastructure from TfL and others.
Mr Robert Dunwell in addressing the Committee enquired as whether the transport impact had been addressed in detail and also whether approval of LIP by the Mayor of London and TfL would guarantee funding for A5 Edgware Road and Kilburn High Road improvements.
In responding to the above, the Policy Manager drew members’ attention to the appendix to the report that set out Brent Council’s in-principle support for the regeneration of the Brent Cross area and highlighted the concerns about the potential transport impact.
(i) that the work undertaken to communicate the Local (Transport) Implementation Plan process with stakeholders, statutory consultees and the wider community and to engage people in contributing to the final document be noted;
(ii) that the requirement to prepare and consult on a Local (Transport) Implementation Plan and to submit an approved Plan to Transport for London by the end of July 2011 be noted;
(iii) that the submission of the final Local (Transport) Implementation Plan to Transport for London (TfL), as set out in Appendix A to the report, be approved.
|
|
Harlesden Town Centre Major Schemes PDF 2 MB This report informs members of the current progress on the Harlesden Town Centre “Major Scheme”. The Major Scheme is Transport for London’s (TfL) funding regime which provides an opportunity for the Council to develop and implement schemes aimed at improving the operation and appearance of town centres so as to support the vibrancy and vitality of those town centres.
Decision: that the report on Harlesden Town Centre Major Scheme be noted. Minutes: Members received a report from the Head of Transportation which informed them of the current progress on the Harlesden Town Centre “Major Scheme”. The scheme was Transport for London’s (TfL) funding regime which would provide an opportunity for the Council to develop and implement schemes aimed at improving the operation, appearance, vibrancy and vitality of those town centres.
The Head of Transportation informed members that the Harlesden Town Centre Project, anticipated to be funded primarily from TfL, would improve Harlesden Town Centre by making changes to the traffic and parking arrangements so as to reduce congestion and improve road safety. In addition, the project would increase pedestrian space and improve the quality and layout of the public space (road surface, footways, street furniture etc.). He drew members’ attention to the key elements of the Station Road Project which included increased pavement widths, new high quality paving and street furniture, a new Zebra Crossing, the relocation of the gated road closure on Honeywood Road to create an enlarged pedestrian space and the planting of 18 new trees. It was anticipated that these changes would improve the “look and feel” of Harlesden as a place and contribute to improving its vitality and sustainability as a local town centre.
Members noted that funding had been secured from TfL to implement improvements to Station Road, as a precursor to the main town centre scheme, during the current (2011/12) financial year. It was also noted that a “one off” allocation made by TfL of £340,000 through the Major Scheme’s Programme would predominantly fund the Station Road scheme and would be partly match funded with £90,000 of Developer (s106) contributions. Tim Jackson continued that public consultation on the core scheme proposals including a dedicated website (www.brent.gov.uk/harlesdentown), promotion in Brent Magazine and on-street advertising to enhance awareness would take place during November 2011.
Members welcomed the report in particular the key elements of the project. Councillor Long noted that illegal pavement trading was still taking place in parts of Harlesden Town Centre and called for increased enforcement in order to regularise the use of the pavement and realise the full benefits of the scheme.
RESOLVED:-
that the report on Harlesden Town Centre Major Scheme be noted.
|
|
Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Highways Committee is scheduled for 18 October 2011 at 7:00pm Minutes: Noted that the next meeting would take place on Tuesday 18 October 2011. |
|
Any Other Urgent Business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64. Minutes: None at this meeting. |