Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2019 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2019 were agreed as an accurate record.

Apologies were received from Councillor Bains; Councillor Mohan was present in substitution.

Apologies for lateness had been received by Councillor Jewitt.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which exceeds £50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a cumulative value of £50 or more when received from a single donor within a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.

The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 10 – School Streets. He noted that his children attended Regina Coeli Catholic Primary School; however, he remained of a neutral mind and would take part in the consideration and vote on the recommendations. Following legal advice previously sought, Councillor Ali agreed to take the Chair if there was discussion regarding Regina Coeli Catholic Primary School.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business.

This report considers the results of the statutory consultation on the proposed introduction of a CPZ into the Boston Road / Keston Road / Broughton Road Area which includes unrestricted roads bounded by London Road, Thornton Road and the existing Northern CPZ in the Wards of Bensham Manor, Selhurst and West Thornton.

The Traffic Management Advisory Committee considered the report on the results of the statutory consultation on the proposed introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) into the Boston Road / Keston Road / Broughton Road Area which includes unrestricted roads bounded by London Road, Thornton Road and the existing Northern CPZ in the wards of Bensham Manor, Selhurst and West Thornton.

Mr Imran Khan addressed the Committee in his capacity as a local resident representing the Croydon Mosque & Islamic Centre. He explained that he was speaking in objection to the scheme because he worked within the community and local residents had noted that it would be harder for them to visit the centre and utilise the resources available due to the parking restrictions. He also stated that there were often funerals held in the Croydon Mosque & Islamic Centre and the CPZ would affect the family members needing to park. He added that not everybody had access to public transport and the proposed scheme would disadvantage these people.

Ms Sharon Baker addressed the Committee in her capacity as a local resident of Boston Road and explained that she was representing the 80 local residents who had signed the petition in support of the scheme. She explained that there were severe parking problems in the area due to the hospital being closely located; patients, staff and visitors were currently able to park for free, therefore, residents were unable to park near their properties. She noted that there were garages in the area and were using the free parking bays to fix cars in; one car had been permanently parked in Boston Road for eight months. There were safety issues with the current arrangements as residents were often having to park three roads away and walk passed alleyways in the dark.

Councillor Jewitt entered the Council Chamber at 1837 hours.

In response to the comments made by the public speakers the Parking Design Manager, David Wakeling, explained that the scheme was likely to benefit those attending the Croydon Mosque & Islamic Centre as the controls in the neighbouring areas had been received positively once implicated.

In response to Councillor Ali the Parking Design Manager noted that more disabled parking bays had been provided for the Croydon Mosque & Islamic Centre and limited free parking bays outside the hospital; however, explained that it was difficult to design a scheme to benefit all elements of the area.

The Head of Parking Services, Sarah Randall, explained to the Committee that there was currently a policy for the hearse and family support vehicles to park for free in all religious and non-religious venues which held funerals. Councillor Jewitt added that approximately 20 years ago all places of worship within the Borough were issued cards for families attending funerals to display on their dashboards to park for free.

In response to the Chair the Parking Design Manager explained that the space in the Dunheved Road area would be maximised and was likely to fit the same amount of cars  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/19

The purpose of this report is to consider objections received from the public following the formal consultation process on a proposal to extend the existing Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (North N & N1 Permit Areas) to Bensham Lane, Bert Road, Fairgreen Road, Frant Road, Kingswood Avenue, Kimberley Road, Lakehall Road, Lakehall Gardens, Meadow View Road and Queenswood Avenue with a combination of shared-use (permit/pay-by-phone) bays and single yellow lines operating 9am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday.

The Traffic Management Advisory Committee considered the report on the objections received from the public following the formal consultation process on a proposal to extend the existing Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (North N & N1 Permit Areas) to Bensham Lane, Bert Road, Fairgreen Road, Frant Road, Kingswood Avenue, Kimberley Road, Lakehall Road, Lakehall Gardens, Meadow View Road and Queenswood Avenue with a combination of shared-use (permit/pay-by-phone) bays and single yellow lines operating 0900 hours – 1700 hours, Monday to Saturday.

Ms Marzena Harrison addressed the Committee in her capacity as a local resident of Lakehall Road and explained that she was in support of the proposed CPZ as she had been a local resident for five years and the current residents were all having issues with parking in the area. She noted that hospital workers and visitors parked in the area, in addition to large commercial vehicles, which often used more than one space. It was added that it was common for residents to have to park at least a 10 minute walk away from their house.

In response to Councillor Clark the Parking Design Manager explained that he was hopeful that hospital workers would use other modes of transport. They were still able to park in the area during the CPZ operational hours; however, it would be costly. Councillor Clark noted that the officers should encourage other modes of transport, such as; car share schemes and public transport.

Councillor Jewitt noted that she was in favour of the proposed CPZ; however, the hours should have been extended from 0900-1700 hours as it would not benefit those returning home from work after 1700 hours.

RESOLVED – That the Traffic Management Advisory Committee agreed to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration (job share) that they:

1)    Consider the objections to extending the existing Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (North N & N1 Permit Areas) to Bensham Lane, Bert Road, Fairgreen Road, Frant Road, Kingswood Avenue, Kimberley Road, Lakehall Road, Lakehall Gardens, Meadow View Road and Queenswood Avenue with a combination of Shared-Use (Permit/Pay-by-phone) bays and single yellow lines operating 9am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday.

2)    Agree for the reasons detailed in this report to extend the Croydon Controlled Parking Zone into the above roads as shown in drawing no. PD 382.

3)    Inform the objectors and supporters of the above decision.

The purpose of this report is to consider objections received from the public following the formal consultation process on a proposal to introduce ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions in Amberley Grove, Bywood Avenue, Dalmeny Avenue, Dunbar Avenue, Kilmartin Avenue, Melrose Avenue and Reedham Drive, and 7am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday, loading restrictions in a section of High Street, Croydon.

The Traffic Management Advisory Committee considered the report which included the objections received from the public following the formal consultation process on a proposal to introduce ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions in Amberley Grove, Bywood Avenue, Dalmeny Avenue, Dunbar Avenue, Kilmartin Avenue, Melrose Avenue and Reedham Drive, and 7am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday, loading restrictions in a section of High Street, Croydon.

Ms Janice Lawrenceaddressed the Committee in her capacity as a local resident of Reedham Drive and explained that she was not in objection to the parking restrictions; however, the proposed double yellow lines were located incorrectly. It was explained that it was not appropriate for the double yellow lines to be outside number seven, Reedham Drive, as there were not existing problems here; however, she advised that the lines were introduced outside numbers one, three and five Reedham Drive and urged the Committee to reconsider the recommendations outlined in the report.

The Parking Design Manager noted that the restrictions outside number 7 Reedham Drive could be relaxed as it would still allow refuse and emergency services vehicles to access the road. In response to Councillor Hoar it was confirmed that the officers could re-consult with the local residents and bring the new plans back to the Traffic Management Advisory Committee.

Mr Andrew Odusanya addressed the Committee in his capacity as a local resident of the Norbury & Pollards Hill ward and explained that he was speaking in objection to the proposals outlined in the report for Dalmeny Avenue, Dunbar Avenue, Kilmartin Avenue and Melrose Avenue. He noted that the proposed restrictions would negatively impact on the local residents as they would not be able to park close to their property and this would become a safety issue.

The Parking Design Manager recognised that there were current parking difficulties in the area so had designed a scheme to just restrict parking by the junctions. 

Councillor Ben-Hassel addressed the Committee in her capacity as the local Ward Councillor for Norbury & Pollards Hill and explained that the residents were very supportive of the scheme as there had been parking problems in the area. She thanked the officers for their hard work to design a scheme to mitigate the problems in the area.

In response to Councillor Jewitt the Parking Design Manager explained that the Highway Code stated that vehicles should not parking within 10 meters of a junction and the police had the ability to issue tickets for this breach. He noted that the Council could introduce parking bays less than 10 meters; however, this had only been done in quieter areas if it was suitable. He confirmed with Councillor Jewitt that the proposed parking restrictions were in line with the Highway Code; however, the plans could be revised to have the double yellow lines seven meters long from each junction.

In response to queries raised regarding the safety issues in the Norbury & Pollards Hill ward, the Parking Design Manager explained that the proposed parking restrictions were in response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/19

The purpose of this report is to consider objections received from the public following the statutory consultation process on a proposal to introduce ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions in Tollers Lane, Lacey Green, Goodenough Way, Ellis Road, Goodenough Close, Middle Close, Weston Close and Ellis Close. The statutory consultation took place between 3 January 2019 and 27January 2019.

The Traffic Management Advisory Committee considered the report which included the objections received from the public following the statutory consultation process on a proposal to introduce ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions in Tollers Lane, Lacey Green, Goodenough Way, Ellis Road, Goodenough Close, Middle Close, Weston Close and Ellis Close. The Project Manager, Richard Lancaster, noted that the Committee was recommend to proceed with the waiting restrictions at the locations listed within the report, subject to Transport for London (TfL) taking the decision to introduce a bus service to serve the Tollers Lane Estate.

Mr Stuart Austen addressed the Committee in his capacity as a resident of Tollers Lane Estate and explained that he was in objection to the proposed waiting restrictions and the new bus route to be introduced by TfL. He had been a resident of Tollers Lane Estate for approximately two years and had moved due to it being quiet. He explained that there were two bus routes that were easily accessible from the estate and the report had noted that these were a seven minute walk away, but this was from the furthest dwelling from the stop; a solution would be for TfL to slightly extend the bus route 60 to the edge of the estate. The estate was not suitable for buses to access and having a route operating every 15 minutes would disturb the residents. There were already current parking issues in the area and the proposed restrictions would worsen these.

In response to the queries raised by the local resident the Project Manager explained that the walking distance to the current bus stops had been taken from a central point in the estate and for some residents the current distance was challenging. In response to the new bus route, additional parking spaces would be introduced. The Head of Transport, Ian Plowright, added that TfL were working to meet the London Mayor’s objectives.

In response to Councillor Hoar the Head of Transport explained that TfL were yet to publish their formal findings from the consultation regarding the 404 bus route and the proposed waiting restrictions would not be implemented until this analysis was published.

Councillor Ali noted that there was a need for an improved bus route in the area and this had previously been discussed at the Public Transport Liaison Panel where residents had requested the new route.

RESOLVED – That the Traffic Management Advisory Committee recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration (job share) that they:

1)    Considers the objections received to the proposed ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions and the officer’s response to these in:

·         Tollers Lane

·         Lacey Green

·         Goodenough Way

·         Ellis Road

·         Junction of Goodenough Way / Goodenough Close

·         Junction of Goodenough Way / Middle Close

·         Junction of Goodenough Way / Weston Close

·         Junction of Ellis Road / Ellis Close

2)    Notes the changes that have been made to the proposals following the statutory consultation.

3)    Subject to Transport for London (TfL) taking the decision to introduce a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/19

This report considers the results of the informal consultation on the proposed introduction of a CPZ into the Road Area which includes, Kynaston Avenue, Kynaston Crescent, Kynaston Road (south-eastwards of Swain Road junction Nos. 1 – 53 & 2 – 64), Palmerston Road, Pitt Road and Sandringham Road.

The Traffic Management Advisory Committee considered the report which considered the informal consultation on the proposed introduction of a CPZ into the Bensham Manor Area which includes roads bounded by the existing Thornton Heath CPZ, Princess Road area CPZ, proposed Lakehall Road area CPZ and Brigstock Road.

Ms Cheryl Samuels addressed the Committee in her capacity as a local resident and explained that she was supportive of the proposed CPZ; however, requested that it was operational from 0900 hours – 1830 hours at least, rather than 1700 hours which was recommended in the report. She had been a resident of the area for over ten years and there had been sufficient parking for residents up until recently; however, there were now significant displacement issues following the introduction of the CPZ in the Princess Road area. She noted that local residents of the Bensham Manor area had not been consulted before the implementation of the Princess Road area CPZ. There was a mix of vehicles owners in the area, namely; local workers, retired residents and young families, who would struggle to find a parking space after returning home after 1700 hours. Currently there were issues of dumped vehicles; untaxed cars, car sellers using the area and large vans, who were parked for long periods of time.

In response to the queries raised by the resident, the Parking Design Manager explained that the proposed 0900 hours – 1700 hours was replicating the existing CPZ in neighbouring areas, as changing times in neighbouring streets can confuse drivers. If the hours were to be extended, this would need to go through the informal consultation period again; therefore, he suggested that it was agreed to formally consult on the hours stated in the report and then this could be monitored when implemented and extended in the near future if needed.

Councillor Jewitt agreed with the Parking Design Manager and enquired how long the delay would be to extend the CPZ operational times. The Parking Design Manager noted that organising the informal consultation for different operational hours would delay the scheme by at least three months and it could not be guaranteed that the informal consultation results would be ready for the Traffic Management Advisory Committee in October 2019.

Councillor Clark noted that after hearing the resident speak it was clear that a CPZ was needed in the area and the Committee should agree to recommend that the scheme proceeds to the formal consultation stage and the times could be reviewed at a later date. The Parking Design Manager noted that there were no further proposals for Crystal Palace FC event day parking restrictions in the Bensham Manor area; however, following from the granted planning permission of the new viewing stand, the parking officers would be considering amendments to the existing CPZs in the affected areas.

The Chair urged the parking officers to review the CPZ operational times after it had been implemented for six months, following the formal consultation and agreement. The Parking Design Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/19

This report includes the engagement with 93 junior and primary schools; the receipt of 31 School Street requests; the identification of 11 favourable locations; and the selection method for proposing School Streets in an initial 8 locations.

The Traffic Management Advisory Committee considered the report which included the engagement with 93 junior and primary schools; the receipt of 31 School Street requests; the identification of 11 favourable locations; and the selection method for proposing School Streets in an initial eight locations.

Councillor Ben-Hassel addressed the Committee in her capacity as a Ward Councillor and explained that the residents of Norbury & Pollards Hill had expressed strong support of the school streets scheme on the grounds of safety and air quality. She expressed concern for the low response rate to the informal consultation and requested that officers provided Local Councillors with key facts to disperse to residents. She also queried whether there was a long-term plan to track the air quality in the area. In response, the Head of Parking noted that a FAQ document had been produced for parents and residents. It was also clarified that the officers were unable to monitor hospital admissions affected by air quality; however, air quality surveys were being completed before and after the scheme and one survey a year after implementation.

In response to Councillor Hoar the Head of Parking Services explained that formal consultation would include with the selected schools, parents of the school pupils, and the local area, which would be approximately a 200 meter radius from the school to ensure directly and indirectly affected residents were included. It was added that a very low response had been received in some areas that were informally consulted, which had affected the statistics in the report; however, all letters were hand delivered.

The Head of Parking Services explained to the Committee that they were unable to estimate the income from fine paying as the school streets scheme was being accepted across wider London; therefore, as more Councils adopted it, the compliance would be higher.

Councillor Ali noted that if the scheme was implemented, Croydon would be one of the leading Boroughs with the school streets scheme and this was very positive. He explained that the finance should not be a concern as the scheme was being proposed for positive reasons, including; ensuring road safety, improving air quality, and improving congestion. He noted that there had been appropriate communication and press explaining these reasons and thanked the officers for their hard work. The Chair seconded Councillor Ali’s comments.

It was confirmed that if a positive response was received through the formal feedback process and the Traffic Management Order (TMO) was agreed then the scheme would be implemented as permanent and not on a trial basis.

In response to Councillor Hoar it was explained that the 90 minute window was being proposed to introduce a uniform approach to the school streets scheme; it was also confirmed that sites that hosted just secondary or primary schools would have a slightly shorter window of time. The timings were also recommended as a result of the consultation with the schools and local residents. The Head of Parking Services also noted that following the trial schemes, there had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/19

The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

This was not required.