Greenwich Council

Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Daniel Wilkinson  Email: or 020 8921 5102

Note: Moved from 26 January 2017 

No. Item


Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.


Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mark James, Sizwe James and Paul Morrissey.


Urgent Business

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


There was no urgent business.


Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 24 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:


Resolved –


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


Minutes pdf icon PDF 26 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 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.


Resolved -


That the minutes of the meeting of the Highways Committee held on 30 November 2016 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.


Response to a Petition - Road Safety outside St Thomas More School, Footscray Road pdf icon PDF 53 KB

To note the petition requesting action to introduce one or more pedestrian crossing facilities on Footscray Road around Saint Thomas More School along with a 20mph speed limit; and note that response will be summarised and reported to Council.


The Principal Engineer presented the report with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He advised that the School was working with the Council to develop a travel plan as, currently, a large number of the children were brought to school by car. 


He drew the Members attention to the fact that Footscray Road was part of the emergency road network, used by fire and ambulance services, which restricted the use of speed humps and implementation of a 20 mile per hour speed limit or zone may not be effective.  That the road was too narrow for a pedestrian island but a controlled Zebra or Pelican crossing may be feasible.  There is guidance on the assessment of the suitability of controlled crossings and a feasibility study should be undertaken in accordance with this.  That undertaking the feasibility study would be around £1,500 which be met by TfL.  He added that work was continuing to reduce the number of children driven to school and for the police enforcement of the speed limit.


Members noted that Footscray Road and Southend Crescent had a challenging layout and, whilst in favour of the installation of a crossing were concerned that drivers may jump the lights.


The Principal Engineer acknowledged that this was a concern, particularly when the light would be green for the greater majority of time.  However, it was a straight road with clear sight lines.  That parking enforcement, in relation to parking on the school zig zags markings and other restrictions, would need to be maintained to deter obstruction caused by parents parking on the Zig Zag markings to drop children off.


The Principal Engineer responded to Members that the collision data, which cover the past three years, does not show any child fatalities in this road.

resolved –


1. That the petition requesting action to introduce one or more pedestrian crossing facilities on Footscray Road around Saint Thomas More School along with a 20mph speed limit be noted


2.  That it be agreed to recommend that officers look at the feasibility of the installation of a controlled crossing and that officers continue working with the school on developing a meaningful travel plan. That officers discuss enforcement issue with the parking services and the police.


3.     That it be noted that the response to the petition as set out in this report and the comments of this panel, will be summarised and reported to Council on 10 March 2017.


Progress on work to improve traffic condition on Sandy Hill Road. pdf icon PDF 51 KB

To note the work that has been undertaken; officers progress; that further survey work is planned and to agree that the outcomes of that work should be reported back to Committee at the earliest opportunity so that the views of the Committee can inform any future decision.

Additional documents:


The Assistant Director for Transportation apologised to the Committee and Councillor Gardner that paragraph 3.1 of the report was incorrect as the original petition had been submitted by Councillor Gardner.


The Principal Engineer gave a power point presentation and reiterated the request submitted in the original petition.


Councillor Gardner addressed the Committee and was concerned that residents had been waiting for nearly two years for a resolution to this request, were tired of the ongoing problems and damage to their cars and were being presented with a report saying that a further report would be submitted.    He continued that, in line with the Greener Greenwich and Core Strategy, it was time to adopt a different approach to traffic management and support public walking, sustainable transport and cycling.  He felt that all the residential roads should be access only, as residential roads. 


Councillor Gardner continued that this road was not suitable for two-way traffic and that consideration should be given to the residents request to make it one way, in line with other roads in the area.  He believed that any displacement could be accommodated particularly as Angelsea Road was non-residential.  He urged that, in the meantime, officers to consider the use of priority signage.


The Committee accepted an address from the lead petitioner who advised that there were problems with the report in that the surveys were conducted when the road was quiet, over the Christmas period; Blackwall Tunnel was running freely and road use was, predictably, low.   That the report did not give much consideration or attention to pedestrians.  Further, that the photo of the road, used in the PowerPoint presentation to Members, was deceptive, as the road narrowed to the bottom end.


The Lead Petitioner continued that there was a strong feeling among the resident of Sandy Hill Road that they had been forgotten as attention was being given to the roads serving new developments over their need.  However, people were still driving on the pavement; anti-social-behaviour was taking place daily between drivers and the area continued to be used as a rat run.   She summed up that it was felt that making the road one-way was the best solution and that it should be done urgently.


The Committee accepted an address from a resident of Sandy Hill Road who advised that she had had to jump out of the path of van driving on the footpath, on her way to the meeting and the problems, raised in the petition, were still ongoing.  She advised that the use of the road by the 386 bus was causing issues and asked if officers could speak to TfL as to changing the route into Woolwich, particularly as the one bus stop on the road was to serve Connaught Estate, which is no longer there and the stop is not used.  She believed that making Sandy Hill Road one way would cause no loss of amenity in terms of access to Woolwich, the DLR or Main Line Train stations. 


In considering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.


Proposed Controlled Parking Zone Work Programme pdf icon PDF 53 KB

To consider the methodology used to prioritise the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) work programme and implement new, or amend existing, CPZs and the proposed works programme for 2017/18 as outlined within this report and to provide comments on how processes may be improved and/or the programme should be adjusted.

Additional documents:


The Head of Parking Services presented the report, advising that the report set out the methodology and proposals for the Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).  He continued that 1/3rd of the Borough was covered by 23 CPZs which varied from short control time periods to all day.  That there was limited demand and interest for the introduction for CPZs in some areas but the Zones were growing. 


He informed the Committee that the arrangements for the review process were financially limited prioritisation arrangements had to be introduced.  That the process for review was an established one taking between six to eight months to complete.


A Panel Member thanked the officers for their attention to concerns raised on behalf of the resident in New Eltham and were conscious of the amount of work officers were undertaking in Eltham South.  Further, that there was an awareness that, generally, apathy could result in a low public response.  How would officers deal with zone consolidation where there was not majority in favour for or against the introduction of a CPZ.


The Chair advised that whilst officers do try to group CPZs, this was not an enforced action where there was no desire from the resident for this.


Members asked how CPZs were installed on non-residential roads, such as Rochester Way; to which Transport Officers advised that there were other mechanisms available for these types of areas.


The Assistant Director for Transportation added that part of the aim of the parking strategy is to challenge commuter parking with pay and display brought in to limit provision.  He continued that there was a strong desire to introduce parking restrictions to Rochester Way and similar roads.  However, where these roads were on or near the Borough Boundary with Bexley there had been objections raised, by Bexley Council.  He continued that many people were not unhappy to pay a reasonable parking charge but over a certain amount they would simply try and find a new place to park.  He added that the cost of train fairs and increased has an effect on the pressure of parking near stations.


Members commented that some Boroughs had introduced variable parking charges depending on the level of pollutants a vehicle would produce.  Had Greenwich Council Officers looked at this type of charging?


The Assistant Director for Transportation responded that nothing had been ruled out, or in, and officers continuously reviewed the actions taken by other authorities to see if there were best practices that Greenwich could incorporate into its own practices.


The Chair noted that the increase in CPZ areas would require increased enforcement and asked if it was felt that the Council had enough enforcement officers to effectively cover this?


The Head of Parking Services advised that there was a current round of recruitment for Enforcement Officers.  He added that there was also a high degree of self-enforcement, by residents, of CPZs.


The Committee accepted an address from a Borough resident who advised that many residents were seriously inconvenienced by CPZs,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


CCTV enforcement of Moving Traffic Contraventions pdf icon PDF 52 KB

To note the content of the report and provide views on the benefits and disadvantages of undertaking Moving Traffic Contraventions enforcement by CCTV so as to inform any future decision.


In presenting the report the Head of Parking Services advised that it was an information item which was seeking the views of the Committee to help inform future decisions.


The Head of Parking Services continued that over the past 12 months a number of Local Authorities had adopted the powers with over 1million penalty notices having been issued in London last year.  He continued that the powers were mainly used for enforcement the correct use of yellow box junctions; illegal manoeuvre’s such as prohibited U turns, travelling the wrong way up a one-way street and ignoring restricted turning signs.


He continued that both static CCTV and mobile CCTV could be used for enforcement purposes and the report set out the steps and considerations the Council would need to undertake, such as the setup and ongoing financial costs as well as public perception; also what powers would be used, where and how. 


He noted that there was also an issue around future Government Policy as CCTV parking enforcement powers were recently withdrawn by Government, which had major cost implications for a number of authorities who had set up systems to use these powers.


Members noted that they frequently received enquiries re parking enforcement issues from constituents, including parking outside schools, u-turning around pedestrian islands and there were significant issues, involving TfL, around the Yorkshire Grey roundabout.  Further, there were a number of yellow box junctions frequently blocked as drivers knew there was no enforcement.


The Head of Parking Services confirmed that the powers could be used in respect of parking outside schools and box junctions but could not be used of TfL roads. 


In response to the Chair’s question, as to whether public volunteer help could be used to support these powers, the Assistant Director for Transportation advised that public enforcement would be precluded.  That specific equipment was needed and the possibilities of outsourcing this was an option to consider.


Resolved –


1.     That the report be noted.


2.     That the benefits and disadvantages of undertaking Moving Traffic Contraventions enforcement by CCTV be noted and the proposals be advanced.