Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and substitutions from Members.  

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tatler, M Patel and Farah. Councillors Butt, McLennan and Miller, as substitutes for the Committee, were present in their place.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillors are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or other interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

(i)         Councillor Butt declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of Agenda Item No.7, (Wembley Stadium Protected Parking Scheme and Associated Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs): Off Peak Visitor Permits), by virtue of the fact that the proposed changes would affect his ward of Tokyngton. Councillor Butt confirmed that he would exclude himself from the meeting during the Committee’s discussion and decision on this item.

(ii)        Councillor Hirani also declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of Agenda Item No.7, (Wembley Stadium Protected Parking Scheme, and Associated Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs): Off Peak Visitor Permits), by virtue of the fact that he lived within the Wembley Permit Protection Zone and would thereby be affected by the proposed changes. Councillor Hirani confirmed that he would exclude himself from the meeting during the Committee’s discussion and decision on this item.

To confirm as a correct record, the attached minutes of the meeting of the Highways Committee, held on 26 October 2016.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 October 2016 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

To address any matters arising (if any).

There were no matters arising.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 60.

The Chair noted that two formal deputations had been received from Mrs Anne Groome and Councillor Daly in respect of Agenda Item No.6, Medway Gardens Petition. The Committee was also made aware that there had been additional requests to speak from members of the public in respect of Agenda Item No.6 from Mr Jim Moher and Agenda Item No.7 from Mr Robert Dunwell.

In accordance with the wording in Standing Orders 17 and 69 (Deputations), the Committee RESOLVED that both deputations be heard in relation to the agenda item they wished to speak on.

This report discusses a petition received from residents of Medway Gardens in Sudbury regarding the proposed pavement reconstruction. The work was postponed pending the hearing of the petition.

RESOLVED that:

(i)            The petition from residents in Medway Gardens, Sudbury regarding the proposed pavement reconstruction, received by the Council on 26 October 2016 be noted;

(ii)          The Medway Gardens pavement reconstruction goes ahead with asphalt used in between concrete block areas at dropped crossings and street corners; and

(iii)         The Council continue to review and update its policy for consultation with residents on road maintenance issues to provide re-assurance of consistency across the Borough.  

The Chair invited Mrs Anne Groome (representative of residents in Medway Gardens) to address the Committee. Mrs Groome outlined that a petition had been submitted to the Council in October 2016 because residents had been concerned that they had not been adequately consulted on the proposed reconstruction of pavements in Medway Gardens. It was also felt that the plans had not addressed some of the key issues in the Medway Gardens area (including Ash Grove) in accordance with the criteria of the Council’s own Asset Management Plan.

The Committee heard that a fundamental cause of damage had been caused by cars and commercial vehicles parking on the pavements in Medway Gardens, particularly the section of road which leads up to Harrow Road. Mrs Groome stated that the road did not meet the Council’s criteria for the relaxation of parking restrictions outside of the Wembley Controlled Parking Zones and that the proposed maintenance work had not taken this into account. She emphasised that residents had felt that without addressing the number of vehicles parking on the road, the proposed tarmac solution would degrade quickly and would require more frequent maintenance. She noted that Elms Park Avenue, which ran parallel, had brick paving which had been deemed to be more durable, as opposed to tarmac. A second fundamental cause to the damage of the pavement had been cited as traffic crossing the footpath and that, at the time, the Council discounts applied for damage to crossover sections had not been communicated to residents. She concluded that the Council had not considered the key issues facing the different sections of road and that the proposed maintenance should be re-evaluated accordingly before going ahead.

The Chair then invited Mr Jim Moher (resident of Medway Gardens) to address the Committee. Mr Moher drew the Committee’s attention to photographs on page 13 of the agenda pack, stating that this stretch of pavement in Medway Gardens was evidently in a deplorable condition. He believed that the Council was correct to be addressing this issue and that the commercial vehicles parking on the pavements had contributed to its deterioration. The Committee also heard of the effect it had had on the previous number of trees on the pavements, and that he welcomed proposals to install new trees on them. He concluded it was essential that if the proposals were to go ahead, the Council ensured that the work was completed satisfactorily for all residents on the road.

The Chair next invited Councillor Daly (Sudbury Ward) to address the Committee. She stated that she hoped her deputation would bridge the gap between the Council’s statutory duty to ensure pavements were safe for the public whilst also ensuring that the concerns of residents were taken into account. Councillor Daly said that it was important for the Committee to acknowledge that the conditions of the pavements on different sections of the road were variable and there were sections of the road where the paving slabs were suitable and did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Some outstanding Executive decisions from 2013, relating to the Wembley Event Day zone (including implications for visitor permits in CPZs W zone, E zone and T zone used during off peak parking hours) have not yet been implemented. This briefing paper identifies the Executive decisions, the decision making rationale at the time and the current context, and seeks a decision from Highways Committee on how to proceed. The report also provides a progress update on implementing Executive-agreed changes to business permits.

RESOLVED that:

(i)            The decision made by the Executive on 15 July 2013 to introduce 3 year WSPPS permits with a £15 administrative charge be implemented, subject to the results of formal consultation and that the matter will be reported back to the Highways Committee if substantial objections are received;

(ii)          The decision made by the Executive on 15 July 2013 to introduce 3 year T zone visitor permits with a £15 administrative charge be implemented, subject to the results of formal consultation and that the matter will be reported back to the Highways Committee if substantial objections are received;

(iii)         To rescind the decision made by the Executive on 15th July 2013 that approved implementation of a 24 hour online visitor pass for the T zone during off-peak hours be rescinded, subject to the results of formal consultation and that the matter will be reported back to the Highways Committee if substantial objections are received;

(iv)         3 year W zone and E zone visitor permits with a £15 administrative charge be introduced, subject to the results of formal consultation and that the matter will be reported back to the Highways Committee if substantial objections are received;

(v)          The decision made by the Executive on 19 September 2012 that approved implementation of a 4 hour online visitor pass for the W zone and E zone during off-peak hours be rescinded, subject to the results of formal consultation and that the matter will be reported back to the Highways Committee if substantial objections are received;

(vi)         Authority be delegated to the Operational Director Environmental Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Environment and relevant ward councillors, to introduce the changes identified in recommendations (i) to (v) above, subject to the results of formal consultation, and reporting back to the Highways Committee if substantial objections are received; and

(vii)        Additional clarity and information be provided to outline that the proposed changes won’t affect existing permit holders but will only apply to new applications for permits.

(Please note: Councillors Butt and Hirani each declared an interest and excluded themselves from the discussion and subsequent decision on this agenda item)

As noted under Declaration of Interests: Councillors Butt and Hirani left the room before the discussion and subsequent decision on this item.

The Chair invited Mr Robert Dunwell to address the Committee. Mr Dunwell explained that the concept of the parking scheme had arisen within the Council in 1996. He noted that he had changed a lot of the details to the scheme through bringing a large petition to the Council in 2003/2004 and that he had been party to the legal agreements of the scheme being signed between Brent Council and Wembley Stadium PLC. He stated that he was disappointed with the planned introduction of a new administrative charge as this had been considered between 1996 and 2004 and all of the proposals at the time had eventually been discounted. Mr Dunwell asked the Committee to consider that there were material aspects which he believed had been missing from the report which could have left the Council open to the imposition of the charges being challenged in court. He requested the Committee delayed any action on the decision being made until these background issues and wider legal considerations had been taken into account.

The Chair then invited Mark Fairchild (the Council’s Parking Projects Manager) to give an overview of the proposals. Mr Fairchild outlined that the report was seeking a decision from the Highways Committee on how to proceed with some outstanding Executive decisions from 2013 relating to the Wembley Stadium Parking Protected Scheme and Associated Controlled Parking Zones which had yet to be implemented. Mr Fairchild referred Members to the specific decisions required within the report. The proposals had been designed to protect local businesses from increased parking around Wembley stadium with a potential increase in the number of event days in the near future, and also to guard against the current processes in place being open to abuse. He gave an example of the risk of lifetime permits being sold on when residents left the Borough, rather than a new residents applying for a new permit. He emphasised that if the Committee was to agree to the recommendations, the proposals would be subject to a statutory consultation process, with objections considered prior to a delegated authority decision to proceed to implementation. He concluded by explaining why the decision was being taken now as opposed to 2013, outlining that there had been a change of management arrangements within the Council’s Highways Department in 2014 and that the need to find recent budget savings targets had delayed the implementation of these decisions.

A Member of the Committee inquired how the proposals mitigated against the risk of visitors being penalised for parking in controlled zones if they had not been aware that a new event day had been announced or that event day dates had changed in a short space of time. Mark Fairchild said that on a practical level it would have been for residents with visitor permits to have placed these on the relevant car but noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.

There was no other urgent business to be transacted.

The next meeting of the Highways Committee is scheduled for 27 March 2017.

The scheduled date of the next meeting of the Highways Committee was noted as 27 March 2017.