Agenda item

Details of petitions received in connection with the school crossings patrol report are attached.

The Executive had before them details of four petitions in support of the retention of school crossing patrols in various locations around the borough. Present at the meeting in support of two of the petitions were Councillor Lorber (Leader of the Opposition) and Mr George Burn. The petitions were in response to a consultation exercise that had taken place earlier in the year and the report from the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services explained that the proposals now before members were significantly different from those originally proposed.

Councillor Lorber presented the petitions entitled 'Save Brent's Lollipops' supporting the retention of school crossings in the borough in particular in the Sudbury area and in the vicinity of Convent of Jesus and Mary Infants, Park Avenue and High Road Willesden. Councillor Lorber stated that for parents, safety was paramount. Over the years the council had worked hard to reduce the number of accidents and to remove school crossing patrols would turn the clock back. He felt that the revised proposals set out in the report, namely to ensure that priority sites continued to be covered but to reduce the number through natural wastage, re-assigning staff from lower priority sites, were insupportable and questioned the basis for the risk evaluation statistics which he felt did not take into account all the risk factors in a location. He referred to Harrow Road and Sudbury School which appeared to have been omitted. Councillor Lorber also felt that contrary to indications in the report, infant schools did require patrols as frequently one adult was in charge of a number of children all walking to school. He felt that the Executive were not being presented with a solution that ensured safety.

Mr George Burn addressed the meeting in support of a petition objecting to proposed changes to school crossing patrols. He stated that he did not represent any particular group but through informal conversations had established that there were concerns over the proposals and the manner in which they had been introduced. He welcomed the revised proposals which did not involve a unilateral withdrawal, would allow greater consultation with schools and was pleased that the council had listened to concerns raised. Mr Burn stated that some schools said they were not consulted and parents were very upset at the plans for withdrawal. If schools were to contribute financially they would need a reasonable lead in time. Mr Burn said it was well understood that the council was under financial pressure but there was still a requirement of changes to be made fairly. He applauded attempts to use criteria to establish risk, for example, whether a pelican crossing was in the vicinity, and felt that each area needed to be considered as a whole taking into account how busy the road was in rush hour or limits on visibility. Mr Burn felt that the cost of providing crossing patrols was relatively small and that more work was required to ensure that each location was fairly assessed.

In response, Councillor John referred to the need for the council to identify approximately £100M savings over four years hence the need for change but nonetheless she thanked presenters for their contributions.