Agenda item
Petition: 20mph zone into the Harrowdene Road area
- Meeting of Highways Committee, Tuesday 17 July 2012 7.00 pm (Item 5d)
- View the background to item 5d
This report informs the Committee of a proposal to extend an existing 20mph zone to include the Harrowdene Road area. The proposed zone is bounded by East Lane, Harrowdene Road, and Harrow Road as shown in the consultation plan.
Decision:
(i) that the results of the public consultation showing strong support for the proposals, the petition submitted against the proposals and the views expressed at the meeting be noted;
(ii) that the review of the original proposals and the response to the concerns of the petitioners, as set out in the report submitted, be noted and the lead petitioner be informed of the exact accident statistics used to justify the scheme;
(iii) that implementation of the amended proposals be approved, subject to confirmation that the emergency services were consulted;
(iv) that subject to (iii) above, the advertising of the necessary traffic management orders towards implementing the amended proposals be approved;
(v) that the Head of Transportation be delegated authority to consider objections and representations to statutory and other consultations undertaken on the scheme and to report back to Committee if those objections are substantial but otherwise implement the scheme with minor modifications if appropriate.
Minutes:
Sue Saville, representing residents from the Harrowdene Road area, spoke in support of the petition submitted which objected to the proposed traffic plans for Harrowdene Road, Sudbury Avenue, Sylvester Road, Crawford Avenue and Copland Avenue. She submitted that the consultation carried out by the Council and detailed in the report submitted addressed two issues but only allowed residents to comment on one. She stated that a majority of residents were in favour of the proposed 20mph zone and vehicle weight restrictions but did not support the proposed number or positioning of speed reduction measures. She questioned the accident statistics used and said that details had not been sent to her as requested. As local residents, they were not aware of the number of accidents as presented. It was submitted that many householders had claimed not to have received the consultation documents and were not aware of what was proposed for the area. Whilst appreciating that the number of road humps had been reduced from that set out in the original proposals, it was felt that there were still too many. Sue Saville also stated that she was concerned that from the feedback she had received when discussing the proposals with the fire service and the ambulance service it appeared they were not aware of the proposals.
David McKibbin, Interim Head of Highways and Transportation, confirmed that the emergency services were always consulted on such road safety schemes but undertook to check this had been done. He introduced the report submitted which informed members of the proposal to extend the existing 20mph zone to include the Harrowdene Road area and responded to the points raised in the petition. David McKibbin explained that there were stringent rules around introducing 20mph zones. Recent changes to these rules had allowed for a reduction in the number of road humps proposed for this scheme but any further reduction would lead to the scheme not being self-enforceable and therefore not viable. In light of the significant majority of residents responding to the consultation being in favour of the scheme, it was proposed to proceed with it.
In response to questions concerning the accident figures used, David McKibbin referred to the figures shown in paragraph 3.3 of the report submitted, although he acknowledged that the measures now proposed may not have prevented the one fatality from occurring.
RESOLVED:
(i) that the results of the public consultation showing strong support for the proposals, the petition submitted against the proposals and the views expressed at the meeting be noted;
(ii) that the review of the original proposals and the response to the concerns of the petitioners, as set out in the report submitted, be noted and the lead petitioner be informed of the exact accident statistics used to justify the scheme;
(iii) that implementation of the amended proposals be approved, subject to confirmation that the emergency services were consulted;
(iv) that subject to (iii) above, the advertising of the necessary traffic management orders towards implementing the amended proposals be approved;
(v) that the Head of Transportation be delegated authority to consider objections and representations to statutory and other consultations undertaken on the scheme and to report back to Committee if those objections are substantial but otherwise implement the scheme with minor modifications if appropriate.
Supporting documents: