Hounslow Council


Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: St Michael's Church, Elmwood Road, Chiswick W4 3DY

Contact: Chaspal Sandhu on 020 8583 2065 or at Email: CAF@hounslow.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members

Decision:

There were no apologies for absence.

 

 

Declarations of Interest:

 

The following Members declared that they lived on roads being discussed at the meeting:

 

Councillor Barwood, Councillor Hearn and Councillor Thompson.

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

 

 

Declarations of Interest:

 

The following Members declared that they lived on roads being discussed at the meeting:

 

Councillor Barwood, Councillor Hearn and Councillor Thompson.

2.

Grove Park Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Expansion - Results of Detailed Design Consultation pdf icon PDF 171 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

 

1.1 That Members considered the outcome of the design consultation and agreed that:

 

(a)  The Grove Park CPZ be extended to include Chatsworth Road, Chesterfield Road, Eastbourne Road, Elmwood Road, Lawford Road, Milnthorpe Road and Staveley Road (between Park Road and Sutton Court Road):

 

(b)  The Executive Director REDe be delegated authority to proceed with the formal (statutory) consultation to amend the existing Grove Park CPZ Traffic Management Order (TMO) to include all of the area in 1.1 (a) and to extend permit eligibility to include certain properties in Cedars Road (Nos. 1-39 odds only), Ellesmere Road (Nos. 1-67 odds only including Bourne Court), Sutton Court Road (Nos. 31-45 and 53-85 odds and Nos. 62-152 evens including Egerton House ) and Sutton Lane South (No. 45-51 odds including Sutton Close and Nos. 20-26 evens). :

 

(c)  The Executive Director REDe be delegated responsibility to, where possible, resolve any objections to the formal (statutory) consultation and implement the scheme.

 

(d)  In the event of any objections remaining unresolved, to delegate authority to the Chair of the Forum to consider these objections in consultation with the Ward Councillors and to determine  whether or not to confirm the TMO;

 

(e)  The costs associated with the recommendations of this report detailed in Appendix B to be funded from Section 106 agreements (Schemes 289 and 448);

 

(f)    All residents within the consultation area to be informed of the consultation outcome and Forum’s decision.

 

Minutes:

Mark Frost, Head of Traffic and Transport, presented the report. The recommendation within the report proposed that the Council proceed to formal (Statutory) consultation to amend the existing Grove Park CPZ Traffic Management Order to include all roads within recommendation 1.1 (a) of the report and also certain areas listed in 1.1(b) of the recommendation. Mr Frost advised that the recommendations had been proposed based on the results of the initial consultation. The majority of responses had indicated support for the introduction of the CPZ as an extension to the existing Grove Park CPZ.

 

7.40pm – Cllr Lee arrived at this point.

 

Mark Frost advised that a number of changes to the layout of parking bays had been suggested to maximise the amount of available parking space. Residents had suggested that some yellow line restrictions be removed close to crossovers to maximise the amount of space available. However, in some cases where there was poor visibility the yellow lines next to crossovers would need to be extended.

 

7:50pm: Councillor Davies arrived at this point.

 

Councillor Lynch stated that a lot of Council officer time and effort had been invested into the CPZ consultation. He thanked Officers for producing a good report and felt that the data and results within the report would assist the Area Forum in reaching a difficult decision.

 

The Chair invited comments and questions from members of the public.

 

 

Mr John Hickman, resident of Elmwood Road, addressed the Chiswick Area Forum. He stated that, following the introduction of the CPZ in Park Road and Staveley Road, a high level of displacement parking was being experienced in Elmwood Road. He felt that the CPZ in Park Road and Staveley Road had been wrongly implemented to prevent displacement parking following a decision to charge for parking at Chiswick House. At the time, it was thought that parking charges at Chiswick House car park would result in displacement parking onto Park Road and Staveley Road. However, he wished to emphasise that displacement parking never occurred. Mr Hickman felt that the consultation process had been biased and designed in a certain way so that only one result would be achieved. He felt that if the CPZ in Elmwood Road were to be approved the impact would be further displacement parking into other nearby streets.

 

In response to comments made regarding displacement parking from Park Road and Staveley Road, Mr Frost reminded that the issue had been discussed previously at the special CPZ meeting on 28 January 2015. Officers had worked hard to design a scheme that aimed to limit the amount of displacement parking. Mr Frost advised that CPZ requests were usually made by residents once serious parking difficulties were being experienced. However, Officers appreciated that there would always be differing opinions amongst residents regarding CPZs.

 

In response to a question raised about parking for Blue Badge holders, Mr Frost advised that a disabled blue badge holder could park their vehicle in any CPZ permit bay at any time if their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

3.

Riverside Ward - Results of Possible Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Consultation pdf icon PDF 940 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

 Resolved:

 

1.1 That Members considered the outcome of the design consultation and agreed that:

 

(a)  Officers proceed with a detailed design CPZ consultation for a new ‘stand-alone’ CPZ with residents and businesses of Area 1 (Geraldine Road, Hearn Road, Meade Close, Oliver Close, Pyrmont Road, Ship Alley, Spring Grove, Strand on the Green (Nos. 20-72 evens and Nos. 21-109 odds only), Thames Road (Nos. 24-140 evens and Nos. 1-59 odds) and Waldeck Road;

 

(b)  In view of the results of this consultation and provided that the proposed Grove Park CPZ extension is approved by the Area Forum, officers to design and incorporate Sutton Lane South in the statutory consultation for this amended scheme;

 

(c)  That residents and businesses in Area 2 be re-consulted in view of the decisions made at the meeting in relation to the Grove Park CPZ.  

 

(d)  Residents and businesses of the remaining properties in Areas 3, 4 and 5 including private streets where e-mail representations were received, be informed of the consultation outcome and Forums decisions relating to item (a);

 

(e) Officers report the results of the consultations in item (a) to a future meeting of this Forum for consideration and decision on future courses of action.

 

(f) The costs associated with the recommendation in item (a) to be funded from Section 106 agreement (Scheme 289);

 

 

Minutes:

Mark Frost presented the report and reminded the Forum that, at the meeting on 28 January 2015, it was agreed that residents and businesses of all roads within the Riverside Ward should be consulted for their views on the introduction of a CPZ. He advised that approximately 2980 residents were consulted and there had been a 37% response rate for the Area 1 consultation. The results identified that all roads were in favour of a CPZ except Oliver Close in Area 1. Therefore, the report recommended that Officers proceed to the detailed design consultation stage for Area 1.

 

Mr Frost advised that the results for Area 2 were not as clear. 316 consultees had returned the questionnaires resulting in a 33% response rate for the area. 209 (66%) of the consultees had stated that they were not in favour of their road becoming a CPZ. He advised that on a number of roads, in Area 2, residents had felt that there were no parking problems. However, roads such as Wolseley Gardens had received a very high amount of support in favour of a CPZ. Therefore, the decision for Area 2 was more difficult. As a result, the recommendation was not to proceed with a CPZ in Areas 2,3,4 and 5 where there was very little support.

 

It was further recommended that, given the level of support from residents of Sutton Lane South, that Members approve the inclusion of Sutton Lane South in the Grove Park scheme.

 

Councillor Lynch thanked Officers for producing a very comprehensive report. He felt it was clear that there was a huge amount of support for a CPZ in Area 1 except in Oliver Close and supported recommendation 1.1(a).

 

Councillor Barwood commented that it was very evident that a CPZ was needed in Wolseley Gardens and Elmwood Road and felt that Wolseley Gardens should have been included within the CPZ.

 

Councillor Hearn commented that planned developments, such as the Lionel Road development, could worsen the parking problems in the ward with construction workers parking vehicles in roads that would impact on residents.

 

Councillor Thompson advised that it was very likely that a further re-consultation of Area 2 would be required once the Grove Park CPZ was implemented and in operation. He advised that he supported the CPZ in Area 1, particularly due to added parking pressures from staff at Strand on the Green School parking in nearby streets. He suggested that many residents in Oliver Close may not have been in favour of the CPZ due to the fact that they already had their own off-street parking. In response, Mr Frost advised that there could be a change of view from residents of Oliver Close once the CPZ was operational due to displacement parking occurring.

 

Councillor Lee stated that Oliver Close should remain excluded from the CPZ. He stated that 67% of residents had voted against the CPZ and he felt strongly that they should not be forced into being part of the CPZ.

 

 

The Chair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Date of the next formal meeting - 19 January 2016

Decision:

Noted.

Minutes:

The date of the next meeting was noted as 19 January 2016.