Agenda, decisions and minutes

None declared.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 July 2013 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

None.

None.

Noted the Sudbury CPZ review petition.

The Committee received a petition from the residents and businesses in the Sudbury controlled parking zone SH (CPZ SH) which stated as follows;

             “In view of the recent increases in Residents Parking Permit Charges and reductions in number and increased charges for visitor permits we call on Brent Council to undertake an early review of the controlled parking zone operating in Fernbank, Maybank and Rosebank Avenues, Sudbury.”

Mr Yasir Hai, a local resident spoke to the petition.  Mr Hai stated that he had conducted a survey among residents on the review of the hours of operation of the CPZ for the Sudbury area, copies of which results he had sent to all members of the Committee. In addition, he had collected in excess of one hundred signatures of local residents who expressed objection to any proposed review and requested that the current hours of operation remain unchanged.  He continued that if the hours of operation were reduced from 08:00 – 18:30 to 08:00 – 15:30, residents would find themselves competing for parking spaces with commuters, restaurant diners and visitors whilst still having to pay the same charge for permits.  Mr Hai also informed the Committee that residents had requested the retention of the scratch card for visitor permits and to revert to the previous system instead of the on-line system which they did not find it to be user friendly.

Mr Yasir Hai was thanked for his address.

This report informs the Committee of a petition requesting a review of the controlled parking zone in Fernbank, Maybank and Rosebank Avenues, Sudbury.

(i)            That the contents of the petition and the issues raised be noted;

(ii)          That the allocation of £10,000 of LIP capital funding to undertake a review of the operational times of  CPZ SH in Sudbury during the 2014/15 financial year be approved, subject to approval of the 2014/15 LIP programme;

(iii)         That the Head of Transportation be instructed to proceed with a review of the controlled parking zone SH during the 2014/15 financial year, subject to the outcome of the Local Implementation Plan capital funding submission;

(iv)         That subject to the outcomes of a review of CPZ SH during 2014-15, authorised the Head of Transportation to undertake any necessary non-statutory and statutory consultation, to consider any objections or representations and to implement the necessary Traffic Management Orders and associated signing and road marking works required to implement the changes;

(v)          That the main petitioner be informed of the outcome of the Highways Committee decision in regard to this matter.

Members considered a report that responded to a petition requesting a review of the controlled parking zone in Fernbank, Maybank and Rosebank Avenues in the Sudbury area.  In setting the background, Paul Chandler, Head of Transportation stated that the controlled parking zone SH (CPZ SH) was introduced principally to remove commuter and long term non-residential parking, improve road safety by removing obstructive parking at junctions, regulate on-street parking and by allowing greater turnover in parking spaces, attract more customers to local businesses. He continued that the operational times of 8:00am to 6:30pm Monday to Saturday excluding bank holidays were agreed with residents and local businesses.  Members heard that the request for review had been assessed and considered to meet the criteria explained in the report. 

Paul Chandler informed members that the cost of undertaking the review would include resources involved in undertaking a consultation as well as amending traffic orders and implementing signing changes if residents desire a change. Total costs could be up to £10,000. As there was no budget provision for this review, it was proposed to use funding available via the Local Implementation Plan (LIP during 2014/15 to review CPZ SH. 

In response to other parts of the petition, Paul Chandler stated that the prices of resident and visitor permits were consistent across all parking zones and that the request to re-introduce scratch cards would have Brent-wide cost implications that could not be considered as part of a local CPZ review.

Councillor Lorber stated that majority of the residents endorsed the current operational hours from 08:00am-6:30pm which had deterred commuter parking, non-residential long term parking and improved road safety. Councillor Lorber added that residents had however expressed genuine concerns about the charges for permits.

Councillor Daly stated that whilst there was an urgent need for a review, any review should be tailored to the needs of individual roads and should also take into consideration the needs of particular groups especially disabled persons.  Councillor Daly also expressed concerns about the telephony system which she added made it more difficult for residents to use the on-line parking system.

Whilst members agreed that there could be potential for a separation of operational hours tailored to suit individual roads, they felt that in addition to the cost implications there were practical difficulties involved in that approach.  

RESOLVED:

(i)        that the contents of the petition and the issues raised be noted;

(ii)       that the allocation of £10,000 of LIP capital funding to undertake a review of the operational times of  CPZ SH in Sudbury during the 2014/15 financial year be approved, subject to approval of the 2014/15 LIP programme;

(iii)      that the Head of Transportation be instructed to proceed with a review of the operational hours of controlled parking zone SH during the 2014/15 financial year, subject to the outcome of the Local Implementation Plan capital funding submission;

(iv)      that, subject to the outcomes of a review of operational hours of CPZ SH during 2014-15, authorise the Head of Transportation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report seeks the approval of the committee to implement a traffic management and road safety scheme with an associated 20 mph speed limit on the section of the A5 Kilburn High Road between Willesden Lane and Kilburn Station.  This is a jointly developed scheme which Camden and Brent Councils have been working on to improve public realm and safety along the corridor.  The scheme will extend from Willesden Lane to Kilburn Station and on through the borough of Camden to their border with Westminster.

(i)            That conceptual designs jointly developed by Brent and Camden for a proposed urban realm improvement and traffic safety scheme for A5 Kilburn High Road, including a reduced 20mph speed limit between Willesden Lane and Kilburn Station be noted;

(ii)          That subject to agreement to LIP funding requirements, further preliminary and detailed design work be undertaken in collaboration with London Borough of Camden leading to a full public consultation over the proposals in 2014/15.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Transportation that sought approval to implement a traffic management and road safety scheme with an associated 20 mph speed limit on the section of the A5 Kilburn High Road between Willesden Lane and Kilburn Station.   Paul Chandler, Head of Transportation clarified that this was a concept scheme developed jointly with Camden to improve public realm and safety along the corridor.  Members heard that Camden was looking to implement a borough wide 20 mph limit, of which the Kilburn High Road was a part.

Paul Chandler continued that as the joint concept was subject to committee approval, officers were proposing to prioritise Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding in 2104/15 and 2015/16 so that further detailed design and development work could be undertaken prior to consultation and implementation. He updated members that Camden already had funding agreed for their part and were looking to develop parts of the scheme on their section of the High Road by 2014/15.  In order not to heighten residents’ expectations ahead of funding, he cautioned that the scheme was only a concept at this stage. Once a more formal scheme had been developed, a comprehensive local consultation would be undertaken.

Paul Chandler clarified that Brent currently adopted a case by case approach to the use of 20mph speed limits, concentrating investment in streets and areas which had a history of accidents. He added that the approach had been very successful in reducing the number of accidents and casualties on our roads.  He continued that Brent’s current policy was to only introduce 20mph speed limits on residential and where benefits in terms of addressing a poor collision record and where the reduced limit would be largely self-enforcing, through the introduction of traffic management or calming measures that change the nature of the road and create an environment where a lowered speed limit can be demonstrated.

In welcoming the concept scheme, the Chair added that Brent’s approach had been very successful to date, with numbers of persons being killed or receiving serious injuries (KSI) collisions in Brent reducing from 350 in 1991 to 72 in 2011, beating both national and Greater London reduction targets by a significant margin.  Councillor Cheese suggested that in order to educate children about road safety and to keep up with the reducing trend, members should be encouraged to accompany the road safety team to schools.

RESOLVED:

(i)            that conceptual designs jointly developed by Brent and Camden for a proposed urban realm improvement and traffic safety scheme for A5 Kilburn High Road, including a reduced 20mph speed limit between Willesden Lane and Kilburn Station be noted;

(ii)          that subject to agreement to LIP funding requirements, further preliminary and detailed design work be undertaken in collaboration with London Borough of Camden leading to a full public consultation over the proposals in 2014/15.

The primary source of funding for schemes and initiatives to improve transport infrastructure and travel behaviour in Brent is Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding, which is allocated through Transport for London (TfL). This report seeks the approval of Highways Committee to submit the 2014/15 capital programme to TfL and following the approval of that body, to implement the schemes and initiatives within the submitted/approved programme.

(i)           Noted the indicative 2014/15 TfL LIP allocation of £3,711,000, comprising of:

·         £2,480,000 for ‘Corridors, Neighbourhoods & Supporting Measures’;

·         £1,131,000 for ‘Principal Road Maintenance; and;

·         £100,000 of ‘Local Transport Funding’;

(ii)          Approved the selection of LIP schemes through application of a priority assessment model;

(iii)         Approved the programme of prioritised schemes and initiatives described in this report and, subject to TfL approval in autumn 2013 and confirmation of the total LIP allocation, instructs the Head of Transportation to deliver these schemes using the allocated budget and resources available;

(iv)         Authorised the Head of Transportation to undertake any necessary non-statutory and statutory consultation, to consider any objections or representations and to implement the necessary Traffic Management Orders if there are no objections or representations or; if the Head of Transportation considers the objections or representations are groundless or insignificant. Otherwise, to refer objections or representations to the Committee for further consideration.

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Transportation that sought approval to submit the 2014/15 capital programme to Transport for London (TfL) and following the approval of that body, to implement the schemes and initiatives within the submitted/approved programme.  Paul Chandler, Head of Transportation clarified that the primary source of funding for schemes and initiatives to improve transport infrastructure and travel behaviour in Brent was Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding, which was allocated through TfL.

With reference to the report, Paul Chandler explained the bidding process and prioritisation metrics. He continued that over the course of any financial year, officers received a significant number of requests for infrastructure improvements and given budget restrictions, it was not always possible to satisfy all of the requests received. Consequently, a prioritisation model had been developed that assisted with the ranking of infrastructure improvement requests received and a draft programme based on provisional funding allocation.  He explained that potential schemes were assessed by scoring each against the likely benefits that it would deliver, reflecting the priorities stated within regional and sub-regional transport policies, plans and strategies along with Brent’s corporate strategic objectives and growth plans.

Members heard that Brent’s provisional LIP funding allocation would allow officers to take forward all schemes put forward during the current financial year for further detailed study and/or scheme development. However, if the final LIP allocation was less than the provisional value of £2,480,000 the size of the programme would need to be reduced accordingly and allocated priority scores would be employed to determine which projects could be taken forward during 2014/15.  

The Head of Transportation continued that the 2014/15 Spending Submission which must be submitted to TfL no later than 17 October 2013 had been developed and presented in two parts: Corridor and neighbourhood schemes and supporting measures; and Principal road asset renewals and strengthening works for bridges and other structures in the Borough.  He added  that the Council was on target to deliver a wide range of infrastructure and initiatives in line with TfL expectations.

In the ensuing debate, it was remarked that whilst major roads were sometimes resurfaced several times within a period, the side roads were often neglected and requested the Head of Transporetation to ensure that TfL considered improving side roads also.  With reference to the 6% of the budget allocated to cycling, the Head of Transportation was asked to indicate the spending priorities.

Members heard that TfL would only invest in class A roads with the remainder of the road repair programme left to Brent Council and which was dealt with under the Highway Asset Plan.  He indicated the key priorities which included the following; cycle lanes, cycle stands, electric vehicle charging points, car clubs, travel awareness, street trees, business travel planning and air quality monitoring to feed into the Council’s programme of work.  In welcoming the report, the Chair emphasised the need to encourage and publicise wider use of car clubs around the Borough if a significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

None.

The next meeting of the Highways Committee is scheduled for 10 December 2013

RESOLVED:

to note that the next meeting would be held on 10 December 2013.