Greenwich Council

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall, Wellington Street, Woolwich SE18 6PW. View directions

Contact: Jean Riddler  Email: jean.riddler@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or 020 8921 5857

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Sizwe James and Wynn Davies.

2.

Urgent Business

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 38 KB

Members to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda.  Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Mark James declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London in relation to Item 9, “Progress on delivery of Cycle Strategy – 2015/16”.

 

Resolved –

 

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies be noted.

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 43 KB

Members are requested to confirm as accurate records minutes of meetings of the Highways Committee held on 7 April 2016 and 26 May 2016.

 

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided.  Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the Minutes of meetings of the Highways Committee held on 7 April 2016 and 26 May 2016, be agreed and signed as true and accurate records.

5.

Vanbrugh Hill - Response to a Petition pdf icon PDF 58 KB

The Committee to note receipt of a petition relating to traffic and parking conditions on Vanbrugh Hill, and to note and comment on the proposed response to be submitted to the next meeting of Full Council.

Minutes:

The Principal Engineer summarised the content of the report, advising the Committee to note receipt of, and comment on proposals in response to a petition relating to traffic and parking conditions on Vanbrugh Hill, presented by Councillor Chris Lloyd at full Council meeting on 29 June 2016.  It was stated that Vanbrugh Hill was situated within the East Greenwich Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

 

The Committee noted the petition, and commented on the proposals in the report.

 

In response to questions raised, the Principal Engineer acknowledged to the Committee that residents had complained to the Council that High Goods Vehicles (HGV) were using Vanbrugh Hill as a haulage route.  It was stated that the Council was also aware of complaint relating to vehicles speeding above the recommended limit of 20mph on Vanbrugh Hill, particularly on the northern end of the road.  It was stated that in order to alleviate the concerns, the Council carried out observations and the findings had been used to inform the recommendation in the report.  Thus, it was appropriate to propose that a number of existing speed cushions should be replaced, and additional ones introduced in identified locations on Vanbrugh Hill.

 

The Principal Engineer also clarified to the Committee that the purpose for the existing CPZ was to deter commuter parking in the East Greenwich area.  However, to review CPZ provision solely on Vanbrugh Hill could divert vehicle movements to neighbouring roads and, as a result, the problem in the East Greenwich area would remain.  Therefore, the proposal in the report to review the entire East Greenwich CPZ was necessary to meet the needs of the wider community.  The Committee also received confirmation that additional Traffic Orders would be applied when undertaking future road works in the area, and the views of residents and businesses would be taken into account prior to implementation.

 

Members expressed a view that in spite of increased demands for parking as a result of large scale developments on Vanbrugh Hill, the East Greenwich CPZ remained unchanged.  It was suggested that officers should negotiate with the developers to pay for the proposed consultation and use the money earmarked for the exercise on other Council highways priorities.  In view of the suggestion, the Assistant Director (Transportation) stated that the allocated fund to undertake the consultation was within the Council’s Highways budget commitments, which was separate from negotiations with developers on planning matters under Section 106 Agreements.

 

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked the Officers for submissions made at the meeting.  It was stated that a report on the Council’s Highways priorities and work programme would be presented at a future meeting of the Committee, together with plans to review traffic provisions on Westcombe Hill and the surrounding areas, which included Vanbrugh Hill.

 

Action: AD (Transportation)

 

Resolved –

 

That the report be noted.

6.

Glenlea Road - Response to a Petition pdf icon PDF 56 KB

The Committee to note the petition requesting the restoration of free parking in Glenlea Road, west of Westmount Road, and to note and comment on the proposed response to be submitted to the next meeting of Full Council.

Minutes:

The Assistant Director (Transportation) summarised the content of the report, advising the Committee to note receipt of, and comment on the proposal in response to a petition presented by Councillor Matthew Clare at full Council meeting on 29 June 2016.  It was stated that the petitioners were requesting restoration of free parking in Glenlea Road, west of Westmount Road.

 

The Committee noted the petition, and commented on the proposal in the report.

 

Commenting on the issues, Members expressed a view that the parking controls should not have been implemented because there were no properties fronting Glenlea Road, west of Westmont Road.  In particular, the shift in commuter parking outside the extended Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was impacting adversely on residents’’ living conditions.  Furthermore, sustainability and air quality issues should have been considered in the arrangement.  Members enquired about options prior to implementation of the parking controls.

 

In response to the enquiry, the Assistant Director advised the Committee that the Council’s Highways policy was to protect the environment and safeguard local amenities with protective controls to the extent that residents desire them.  Thus, the decision to implement the parking controls was a result of feedback from residents following an extensive consultation by the Council during 2014-15.  The Committee also received confirmation that the use of Eltham Park and a car park in the vicinity were considered options when the parking controls were developed.

 

The Committee was further advised by the Assistant Director that it was unlikely that residents’ concern would be resolved by the removal of beneficial controls from Glenlea Road.  Therefore, efforts would be made to extend suitable controls to those streets currently experiencing parking pressures as part of the wider CPZ review.  It was confirmed that implementation of any proposed works would be supported by consultation with residents living in streets located north of the A2, and south of Rochester Way. 

 

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked the Officer for submissions made at the meeting.

 

Resolved –

 

That the report be noted.

7.

Kidbrooke Grove - Response to Petition pdf icon PDF 412 KB

The Committee to note the petition from residents of Kidbrooke Grove requesting consultation on the introduction of a controlled parking zone into Kidbrooke Grove., and to note and comment on response to be submitted to the next meeting of Full Council.

Minutes:

The Assistant Director (Transportation) summarised the content of the report, advising the Committee to note receipt of, and comment on response to a petition with 70 signatures, requesting consultation on the introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) into Kidbrooke Grove.  It was stated that the petition was submitted by Councillor Geoffrey Brighty at full Council Meeting on 29 June 2016.

 

The Committee noted the report, and that the petitioners had stipulated that should their request be granted, and the majority of responses to the consultation found in favour of formal parking controls in Kidbrooke Grove, then, the facility should be introduced by the Council.

 

In addressing the meeting, Councillor Geoffrey Brighty declared a personal interest as a resident of Kidbrooke Grove, and advised that he had no direct involvement in the petition.

 

Speaking on behalf of his constituents, Councillor Brighty stated that residents welcomed the response to the petition because of clarity in relation to the Council’s highways commitments in reviewing parking arrangements on Kidbrooke Grove.  However, residents had expressed a concern that the September 2016 deadline for implementation of parking controls at Kidbrooke Park Road would leave insufficient time for the Council to consider responses at the conclusion of the statutory consultation at the end of August 2016.  Councillor Brighty requested an assurance that the Council would deliver its commitments in time, and thereafter carry out a survey of to assess the impact of the new controls.

 

The Committee noted submission by Councillor Brighty and, in response to questions raised, received an assurance from the Assistant Director that the proposed parking control on Kidbrooke Park Road would be delivered on time.  It was stated that residents of Kidbrooke Grove would be consulted within 4-6 weeks after implementation.  Thus, there would be scope to undertake a further review of Kidbrooke Grove.  However, it was unlikely that a further survey would be undertaken to assess the impact of parking controls in Kidbrooke Park Road because the Council had acquired adequate information on traffic measures in the area and its surrounds.

 

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked the Officer for submissions made at the meeting.

 

Resolved –

 

That the report be noted.

8.

Eltham High Street - Response to Petition pdf icon PDF 75 KB

The Committee to note a petition, which was the subject of a motion agreed at Full Council Meeting on 29 June 2016 relating to works currently being undertaken at Eltham High Street, and to note and comment on the response to be submitted to the next meeting of Full Council.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Highways Assets Group Manager gave an illustrative presentation to the report, advising the Committee to note receipt of, and comment on proposals in response to a petition requesting the Council to support local shops on Eltham High Street that were affected by highways works currently underway in the Town Centre.

 

The Committee noted the report, and welcomed plans to improve the public realm, traffic conditions and road safety in and around Eltham Town Centre.  The Committee suggested that the delivery plan should be expedited to support the tourist/visitors economy in Eltham Town Centre.

 

In response to questions raised, the Manager informed the Committee a ramp had been erected on the highway to provide disabled access to a shop on Well Hall Road within the perimeter of the development site.  In general, compensation to mitigate for losses to shops affected by the road works would be in the form of business rate.

 

The Committee also received an assurance by the Manager that the deadline for completion of programme by March 2017 was achievable.  It was stated that the programme was sustainable because it would provide long-term benefits to those who live, work and visit the area.  In particular, the Council was continuing with its message as part of the publicity campaign that Eltham High Street was “open for business”.

 

In light of a suggestion, the Manager advised the Committee that because of their bespoke designs, it would be challenging to reuse railings and parking furniture that would be removed from the development site.  However, efforts would be made to incorporate them in future projects where appropriate.

 

The Manager continued by clarifying to the Committee that it was unlikely that the night time economy within Eltham Town Centre would be significantly affected by parking restrictions upon completion of the proposed works because the Control Parking Zone (CPZ) to be implemented would end at 6.30pm on Mondays through to Saturday, with free car parking on Sundays.  The Committee also received an assurance that works on the High Street would be completed in time for the Eltham Lights up and pre-Christmas trading because the programme had been prioritised into phased projects to ensure timely delivery.

 

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked the Officer for submissions made at the meeting, in particular that the illustrative presentation was useful in highlighting progress of the programme delivery timeline and mitigation arrangements.

 

Resolved –

 

That the report be noted.

9.

Progress on delivery of Cycling Strategy - 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

The Committee to note progress on delivery of the Council’s Cycling Strategy and associated action plan/targets.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Mark James declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London (TfL) in relation to this item

 

In presenting the second annual report to the Committee since the implementation of the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s (Royal Borough) Cycling Strategy in 2014/16, the Transportation Planning and Strategy (TPS) Manager highlighted progress, and stated that the action plan and targets would continue to be reviewed on an annual basis.

 

The Committee noted progress for 2015/16 financial years, together with proposals for 2016/17.  It was recognised that the Strategy comprised of measures to ‘provide more and better cycling routes’ and to ‘encourage more and safer cycling’.

 

In response to questions raised, the Committee was advised that substantial resources would be required to support delivery of the Santander bike hire scheme in the Royal Borough because an investigation of implementation at Tower Hamlets revealed that funding from TfL was inadequate.  Furthermore, it was found that the mounting spaces for the bicycles were more than the conventional requirement.  In addition to that, the arrangement would be time-consuming because of TfL’s criteria to coordinate implementation across neighbouring boroughs.  Notwithstanding that, the Council would continue to investigate the possibility of the Santander approach along with other options, such as a pilot folding bike hire scheme by Brompton Bikes, which was launched in the Royal Borough in spring of 2016.

 

The Committee was further advised by the TPS Manager that ‘wands’ attached to the ‘orca’ lane separators were designed not to break, but instead bend back into shape to both minimise risks of injury or damage, and prevent unnecessary replacement.  It was stated that the Council was still experimenting with the products in the Greenwich area where full segregation was not deemed necessary.  However, 85% of respondents to a recent survey on ‘light separation’ had requested that the facilities should be rolled out across the Royal Borough because they felt safer cycling in the lanes.  The Committee was advised that there had also been successful trials of on-street cycle ‘bike hangers’, which again would be rolled out across the Royal Borough.  Additionally, the Council was influencing cycling storage provision across relevant stations within the Royal Borough as part of the proposed Crossrail development consultation process.

 

In relation to publicity of the Strategy, the Committee was advised that the effort was on-going.  The TPS Manager informed that as part of the Council’s public health agenda, the Greener Greenwich Team had attended a range of public events to publicise ‘active travel’, and give out walking and cycling information to the wider community, including schools and businesses.  The ‘travel to work’ and ‘cycle parking’ initiatives had been incorporated as requirements in the Council’s planning guidance for major development applications.  Furthermore, neighbourhood scheme had proved useful through on-going feedback via a ‘drop box’ on the Council’s website, and from stakeholders who contributed to the development of the Strategy.  It was further advised that the Royal Borough’s cycling map was updated and published every two years on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.