Greenwich Council

Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Jasmine Kassim  Email: jasmine.kassim@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or 020 8921 5146

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 Matthew Clare and Paul Morrissey.

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 34 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 in relation to Item 8, “Local Implementation Plan (LIP) programme for 2018/19”, advising that he works for Transport for London.  It was noted that Councillor Mark James would leave the room and not take part in the discussions. 

 

The Chair, on behalf of the Committee, informed an agenda variation that Item 8 would be considered last, in order to enable Councillor James to participate on other items on the agenda.

 

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 61 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2017.

 

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.

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Highways Committee held on 21 September 2017, be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

 

5.

Response to a Petition Requesting a Cycle Hangar in Fingal Street pdf icon PDF 56 KB

The Committee to note the petition from residents of Fingal Street, SE10 requesting that the Council install a cycle hangar opposite Fingal Street.  To note the Council’s response to the petition as set out in this report, which will be summarised and reported to Council at the next opportunity.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report in response to a petition requesting a cycle hanger in Fingal Street was introduced to the Committee by the Principal Transport Planner.

 

The Committee noted the report, and that the petitioners were requesting installation of a cycle hanger to provide storage space at a location currently used for fly-tipping opposite Fingal Street.

 

The meeting was addressed by a resident who advised the Committee that after submitting the petition, he undertook further consultation with his neighbours, and they concluded that cycle hanger opposite Fingal Street could create more problems than solved.  It was stated that in addition to fly-tipping, residents believed that installation of the cycle hanger could attract anti-social behaviour, including potential theft of bicycles, and other criminal activities in the area.

 

In response to questions raised, the Officer advised the Committee that cycle hangers in other wards were routinely used, with no reported problems resulting in crime.  Furthermore, some residents in Fingal Street continued to maintain that installing a cycle hanger, as outlined in the petition, should be the way forward.  Thus, because of contradictory views, liaisons would continue with residents at Fingal Street for a conclusion on the matter.

 

The Officer continued responded to questions, advising the Committee that a waiting list for cycle hangers on a ward-by-ward basis would be circulated to Members.  However, there was no specific source of funding for implementation of cycle hangers in the Royal Borough of Greenwich.  Notwithstanding that, cost would be met from the Council’s Local Implementation Plan programme for 2018/19, and an estimate had been identified in light of the petition, pending conclusion of further consultation with residents, and negotiations with providers.

 

Action: Principal Transport Planner

 

The Committee considered submissions made and

 

Resolved –

 

1.            That the petition from residents of Fingal Street, SE10 requesting that the Council install a cycle hangar opposite Fingal Street, be noted

 

2.            That the Council’s response to the petition as set out in the report, which will be summarised and reported to Council at the next opportunity, be noted.

6.

Response to a Petition Requesting Parking Controls in Hardy Road pdf icon PDF 106 KB

The Committee to note the petition from residents of Hardy Road calling for parking controls to be introduced in Hardy Road on the same basis as those proposed in neighbouring Coleraine, Beaconsfield and Mycenae Roads.  To note the response to the petition as set out within this report, which will be summarised and reported to Council at the next available opportunity.

Minutes:

The report relating to petition response requesting the introduction of parking controls in Hardy Road was introduced to the Committee by the Parking Services Manager.

 

In their discussions, Members queried the adequacy of the consultation process relating to the implementation of the Westcombe Park (W) controlled parking zone (CPZ).  In response to a question in that regard, the Officer clarified to the Committee that there had been no confusion in the review of W CPZ., and that the consultations were robust and clear as to what the Council intended to do.  Therefore, the decision not to include Hardy Street as part of the permit controls was based on outcomes from consultation with residents.

 

The Committee received clarification form the Officer that it was when the Council advertised the Traffic Management Order (TMO) in September of last year that it received notification from residents that they had changed their minds, requesting that Hardy Street should be included within the permit control areas.  It was stated that the reason provided by residents for the change was that they were concerned that Hardy Street would be isolated in the wider scheme.  The Committee was advised that as a result of the change, a proposal submitted the relevant Cabinet Member to amend the earlier decision was agreed.  Thus, Hardy Road and Ingleside Grove would be included as part of the W CPZ permit controls.

 

The Officer continued responding to questions, advising the Committee that funding would be available to undertaken the work, and the cost of re-advertising the TMO would be met from the current year’s Local Implementation Programme budget.  However, because not all of the residents at Hardy Road signed the petition for the change, implementing the Cabinet Member’s decision could be delayed by further objections.

 

The Committee considered submissions made and

 

Resolved –

 

1.            That the petition from residents of Hardy Road calling for parking controls to be introduced in Hardy Road on the same basis as those proposed in neighbouring Coleraine, Beaconsfield and Mycenae Roads, be noted.

 

2.            That the response to the petition as set out within the report, which will be summarised and reported to Council at the next available opportunity, be noted.

7.

Road Collision Casualty Reduction pdf icon PDF 97 KB

The Committee to note and consider the content of this report that summarises information in relation to road safety and how road collision data is utilised in development of the Council’s road safety related work programme.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report relating to road collision causality reduction within the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s (Royal Borough) was introduced to the Committee by the Principal Transport Planner.

 

The Committee noted the report, and expressed satisfaction that there had been a significant reduction of accidents within the Royal Borough.  It welcomed information that the Council was consulting with nearby schools in the design and introduction of 20mph zone schemes.

 

In response to a concern, the Deputy Director of Regeneration, Enterprise & Skills (Transportation) advised the Committee that although the Council’s resources on enforcement was limited, addressing road safety was a priority.  Thus, funds would be available to implement the plans, and the Council would continue to utilise data gathered by the Police and officials at Transport for London to review and allocate priorities within the LIP as appropriate.

 

The Committee noted submissions made at the meeting, and it requested that information on improvements made to reduce accidents on a ward-by-ward basis should be circulated to Members.

 

Action: Road Safety Manager

 

Resolved –

 

That information in relation to road safety, and how road collision data is utilised in development of the Council’s road safety related work programme, be noted.

8.

Local Implementation Plan Programme for 2018/19 pdf icon PDF 77 KB

The Committee to note the mechanism used for the prioritisation of schemes for inclusion in the Council’s Local (Transport) Implementation Plan programme for 2018/19 and the content of that programme.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Mark James declared a personal interest in relation to this Item, advising that he works for Transport for London.  It was noted that Councillor Mark James would leave the room and not take part in the discussions, and that the Item would be considered last on the agenda.

 

The report relating to the Royal Borough of Greenwich (Royal Borough) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) was introduced by the Principal Transport Planner.

 

The Committee noted the report, together with a requirement that every London borough should have a local (transport) implementation plan.  It was recognised that the annual preparation of a programme of investment to enable implementation of the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Transport Strategy on a rolling basis up to 2031 was in accordance with the London Plan.

 

In response to questions raised, the Deputy Director of Regeneration, Enterprise & Skills (Transportation) reiterated to the Committee that the issue of enforcement was separate.  However, should it be decided that to devolve enforcement of moving traffic offenses to the Council, additional resources would be required.  Meanwhile, the Council was prioritising the schemes as a means of attracting and maintaining funding for improvement of equal value.

 

The Group Manager (Traffic) clarified to the Committee that each year, the Council would review and update the data on the LIP to assess what improvements should be made, when, and where.  Thus, the prioritisation decision relating to the LIP had to be made on a hierarchy of needs.

 

The Committee noted submissions made at the meeting, and it suggested that information relating to road safety improvement should be widely publicised, for local people to be aware of achievements and progress.

 

Action: Principal Transport Planner

 

Resolved –

 

That the mechanism used for the prioritisation of schemes for inclusion in the Council’s Local (Transport) Implementation Plan programme for 2018/19 and the content of the programme, be noted.

9.

Work to Improve Traffic Conditions in Sandy Hill Road - Progress Update pdf icon PDF 74 KB

The Committee to note the progress on actions necessary to resolve the concerns of residents about local traffic conditions in Sandy Hill Road area.

Minutes:

In introducing the report, the Group Manager (Traffic) advised the Committee that work was underway to address a petition relating to concerns about the volume of traffic using Sandy Hill Road.

 

The Committee noted the report, and welcomed progress aimed at alleviating residents’ concerns in regard to the traffic conditions at Sandy Hill Road and its surrounds.

 

The meeting was addressed by Councillor David Gardner.  He expressed a concern about delays in reaching a conclusion on the petition.  It was stated that the petition was first considered by the Committee in May 2015, and that it was right to suggest that the review of direction of traffic on Sandy Hill Road would be treated as an urgent priority, as the decision to widen the road was consistent with the London Plan.  In view of that, it would be appropriate for the eastern pavement to be widened by at least two metres for ease of traffic, and as a means of identifying pedestrianised areas.  Councillor Gardner suggested that the Council could benchmark against the London average, with a view of identifying the area as a health street zone.

 

In response to questions raised, the Officer acknowledged that there had been some delay in the process.  However, it was necessary to identify options for further consultation with residents.  Furthermore, opportunities for financial resources had to be investigated, and consideration had been given to the use capital from the Local Implementation Plan for 2018/19.  In addition to that, the Council would continue to identify contributions via Section 106 Agreement through the planning process.  Thus, there had been progress, and a report would be brought back to the Committee with the options prior to a decision on the matter.

 

The Committee was further advised by the Officer that because of the specialised nature of traffic modelling work, it was considered cost-effective to appoint a consultant with up-to-date experience, capacity and background to deliver a design for the Sandy Hill and its surrounds, particularly in light of the proposed Crossrail development.

 

Resolved –

 

That progress on actions necessary to resolve the concerns of residents about local traffic conditions in Sandy Hill Road, be noted.