Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Ian Payne and Councillor Nicholas Bennett J.P. attended as alternate.

 

Concerning Item 7g, there were personal interest declarations in respect of the Chairman, in view of his nomination to membership of the Countryside Consultative Panel, the Vice-Chairman, in respect of her nomination to membership of the of the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel, and Councillor Peter Fookes, also in respect of his nomination to membership of the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing four working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure that questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 27^th June 2012.

There were no questions.

 

The Part 1 minutes were agreed.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to the Portfolio Holder must be received in writing four working days before the date of the meeting. Therefore please ensure that questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 27^th June 2012.

Four questions were received for oral reply by the Portfolio Holder, one on behalf of Alexandra Infants School Parent Teacher Association and three from Councillor Julian Grainger. Three questions were also received from Mr Colin Willetts for written reply. Details of the questions and replies are at Appendix A.

 

To note Part 1 decisions of the Portfolio Holder made since the previous meeting of the Committee.

Members were provided with Decisions of the Portfolio Holder taken since the Committee’s previous meeting on 17^th April 2012.

 

Rather than include Decisions on future meeting agendas, the Chairman preferred that Committee Members be advised of the Decisions solely by email.

 

Concerning Decision ENV11048 (“Proposal for Provision on Enforcement Services”), the Chairman advised that the start time for a six month trial with XFOR for the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices was more likely to be August 2012 rather than 1^st June 2012.

 

 

The Environment Portfolio Holder to present scheduled reports for pre-decision scrutiny on matters where he is minded to make decisions.

Report ES12087

 

The 2011/12 provisional outturn position for the Environment Portfolio indicated an underspend of £766k against the controllable budget of £36,342k, representing a 2.1% variation. If three carry forward requests totalling £248k were excluded, the underspend comprised £518k.

 

Report ES12087 outlined details of the variations.

 

In response to an enquiry from Councillor Peter Fookes on the extent of parking fine payment, Members were advised that the Council benchmarked its success in collecting PCN fines; over the past three years Bromley had consistently been amongst the top authorities for fine collection, and on immediate payment timescales. Online improvements helped motorists to check for themselves the validity of an infringement.

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Julian Grainger, Members were further advised that a motorist might have to pay more than the original fine following unsuccessful challenge of a penalty. Amounts paid beyond the original discount rate had not been tracked. Concerning the Parking Enforcement Guidelines, the Council’s approach was for people to feel that parking enforcement was fair and just with an aspiration of having fewer contentious disputes.

 

Councillor Nicholas Bennett enquired how Bromley compared with other authorities on unpaid fines. Members were advised that much work had been undertaken on this with the Council’s Audit team. More parking tickets were now being waived; but many less cases are written off. The increase in the value of fines waived was more than outweighed by the reduction in fines written-off. Officers waive fines where there are sound reasons but are firm on genuine offenders. Officers sought to reduce the number of appeals to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) although for those cases that went to appeal, Bromley had a good record of winning. It was also confirmed to Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher that the assistance of bailiff agencies was sought in respect of unpaid fines.

 

Councillor David Jefferys offered his congratulations on the Portfolio’s financial management but noted increased expenditure of £88k for additional emergency tree works. He questioned whether the budget for this had been reduced too much given an expected increase in gales with a changing climate. It was explained that the gales took place near the end of the financial year and Councillor Jefferys felt that it was perhaps a matter of looking at a better phasing of the budget.

 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the 2011/12 provisional outturn position for the Environment Portfolio.

 

Report ES12088

 

Based on financial information to 31st May 2012, the 2012/13 budget for the Environment Portfolio was projected to balance at year end.

 

Details were provided of the 2012/13 projected outturn with a forecast of projected spend for each division compared to the latest approved budget. Background to variations was also outlined.

 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the latest  2012/13 budget projection for the Environment Portfolio.

 

Report ES12096

 

Details were outlined of proposed actions and work for those Member Priority Initiatives related to the Environment Portfolio i.e.

 

• £750k for footways, highways and general improvement projects;
• £250k related to support for ’Friends’ Groups;
• £150k to renew/replace the Council’s community recycling sites; and
• £70k to encourage physical activities in parks (a public health led initiative with scheme management by Environmental Services)

 

Concerning the £70k to encourage physical activities in parks, Councillor Fookes enquired about any outside sponsorship of the outdoor gym schemes. The Chairman clarified that Environmental Services had the delivery role for the schemes and the Director indicated that the client role was with Public Health. The Portfolio Holder indicated that he would like to see the extent of popularity for the schemes and the demand for them. Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher asked for a report back at some point to indicate how successful the schemes prove to be.

 

Responding to enquiries/comment from Councillor Grainger, the Director indicated that proposals for the 2013/14 planned highway maintenance programme would be reported to Members in the coming autumn (allocations from the £750k not proposed for 2012/13 could be considered at that time). The Director referred to real nappies advising that disposable nappies were not recyclable. The Director also referred to making the best use of Bring Sites. He indicated that spend against the Member Priority Initiatives would feature in budget monitoring reports.

 

Responding to a question from the Chairman on proposed support for Friends’ Groups, the Portfolio Holder indicated that he would like to see the funding last as long as possible; he suggested a possible mechanism by which Friends’ Groups might bid for small amounts of funding, for example, to help in applying for grant funding.

 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree:

 

(1)  the completion of the highways maintenance schemes identified in paragraph 3.5 of Report ES12096 within financial year 2012/13 and the allocation of any resources remaining from the £750k be the subject of a further report in September 2012;

 

(2)  the proposed areas of spend related to Friends identified at paragraph 3.8 of Report ES12096;

 

(3)  to the improvement of Bring Sites within the borough as identified at paragraph 3.11 of Report ES12096, following consultation with appropriate Ward Councillors;

 

(4)  that authority be delegated to the Director of Environmental Services, in consultation with the Environment Portfolio Holder, for implementing delivery of the investment in Bring Sites (£150k) and Friends (£250k), as set out at paragraphs 3.7 to 3.12 of Report ES12096; and

 

(5)  that an update on spending against the Member Priority Initiatives (as related to the Environment Portfolio) be included in budget monitoring reports for the Portfolio.

 

Report ES12093

 

Following previous trials, TfL had granted full access for motorcycles to be used in bus lanes on the majority of London’s red routes from 23rd January 2012. Within Bromley there was only one TfL bus lane (Bromley Common, A21) and other bus lanes in the borough did not have such an exemption for motorcycle use. A decision was sought on allowing motorcycle drivers to use dedicated bus lanes throughout the borough.

 

Report ES12093 also outlined ongoing improvements to motorcycle parking borough-wide.

 

The Head of Traffic and Road Safety indicated that it was not appropriate for paragraph 3.5 of Report ES12093 to suggest there would be improved safety for motorcyclists if they were to use the borough’s bus lanes – research had not stated this, although journey times for motorcyclists could be reduced and congestion for them removed. It was also highlighted that Bromley Cyclists were not supportive of extending motorcycle use to all of the borough’s bus lanes; there was concern from cyclists that they might be more vulnerable by such a development.

 

The Chairman enquired whether it was necessary to change bus lane signage or simply choose not to enforce existing signage. In response, Members were recommended to support signage change to avoid confusion. Members were also advised that the one off cost to make signage amendments and to advertise alterations to the Traffic Management Order could be closer to £4k rather than £10k. Councillor Grainger supported a change of signage although was not necessarily supportive of the assessment by cyclists.

 

Concerning motorcycle parking, Councillor Grainger questioned why two motorcyclists parking their motorcycles in the same bay should both incur a Penalty Charge Notice. He also opposed the conversion of busy car park bays to motorcycle bays preferring odd spaces of car parks, not suitable for car parking, to be used for motorcycle parking. 

 

The Head of Traffic and Road Safety indicated that most land provided for motorcycle bays in Council surface car parks was space which would otherwise not be used. In response to a question from Councillor Fookes on whether a decision to implement the proposal would be reviewed, it was confirmed that casualty statistics would be monitored. Councillor Nicholas Bennett felt that it was safer for motorcyclists to travel in a bus lane. He also felt that motorcycle parking bays should be in designated places and sited in a good position within open space. Councillor Reg Adams felt that the recommendation to the Portfolio Holder should indicate that motorcyclists be permitted to use a moving motorcycle in all of Bromley’s bus lanes. 

 

Some further questions were asked by Members. Councillor Nick Milner asked whether some taxis were eligible to be used in some bus lanes and not others - it was agreed to confirm the position following the meeting. The Vice Chairman asked if it was possible to park motability scooters in motorcycle bays or whether other parking bays were set aside for such vehicles. Again, it was agreed to confirm the position  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7d

Report ES12089

 

Following the Executive’s support for funding additional Bromley Town Centre parking capacity due to the closure of Westmoreland Road Car Park, Report ES12089 provided details on each of the sites being taken forward to assist with replacing spaces lost.

 

The Assistant Director (Transport and Highways) requested the inclusion of a further recommendation to the Portfolio Holder that works to St Blaise Car Park as outlined in Report ES12089 be agreed. He was confident that the Car Park’s present capacity could be retained for the future. 

 

Paragraph 5.1 of Report ES12089 included an indication of the number of town centre spaces to be provided, all of which contributed to measures for replacing those spaces lost due to the Westmoreland Road Car Park closure.

 

Although some 580 parking spaces would be lost in passing Westmoreland Road Car Park to its developers in September 2012, the car park’s top two decks were not normally used (except during the Christmas period) and the loss of capacity would be nearer to 400 spaces rather than 580. The further spaces proposed would not completely provide for the 400 lost but the public could also use the Ground Floor levels of the Civic Centre Car Park over the Christmas period when staff had an option to park at the Adult Education College. The primary intention was to have Phase 1 of parking provision completed before Christmas 2012. The Chairman indicated that current economic circumstances suggested that parking capacity would not be fully utilised in any case.

 

For the future, it was indicated that there would be some additional parking at Site G but it was important to have Phase 1 completed. The Chairman indicated that no further spaces were planned until the financial position improved, although on completion of the Westmoreland development in 2015, he advised that it was proposed to have about 300 extra parking spaces. 

 

Councillor Fookes enquired whether any thought had been given to working with the private sector for parking provision. The Chairman had suggested to the Executive and Resources PDS Committee that staff be charged to park at private car parks; however, the Assistant Director confirmed that there was private sector little interest in such an approach.

 

The Vice-Chairman suggested there would be a parking impact from online shopping and she highlighted competition from shopping centres with free parking. The Assistant Director was confident that the provision funded by the Executive would satisfy medium term demand. The speed and recovery of the economy would be part of considerations for any Phase 2 parking provision next year. There would be a natural break point at Christmas and rather than accept that a Phase 2 would take place, Members could take a view.

 

Councillor Grainger hoped that there would not be a loss of parking space from kerb build out. He also felt that recovery was unlikely if customers did not have parking provision to begin with - people might go elsewhere and not return.

 

Councillor Bennett highlighted that there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7e

Report ES12086

 

Report ES12086 recommended the final draft of the Environment Portfolio Plan for 2012/15, including information on performance in 2011/12.

 

Initially a number of questions were put to the Portfolio Holder and his responses and those of officers providing detailed advice covered a number of points including those summarised below:

 

• Achieving excellence for residents is paramount;
• Concerning the new street cleaning contract, contingency measures/funding could be utilised if necessary;
• From the Portfolio Holder’s observations there was an improvement in street cleaning;
• Residents, Street Friends and Councillors could report street cleaning concerns as necessary;
• For street cleaning there was the challenge of the new contract - there had been significant changes in the contract and a preliminary assessment could be provided at the Committee’s meeting in November;
• Concerning how expansion of the Street Friends scheme and forging greater links with Friends of Parks could be measured i.e. qualitative and not just quantitative, it was explained that the aim for the coming year was a “broad brush” objective for Friends;
• Rather than have a suggested new measure for detritus based on a lack of litter, it was recommended that the same definitions are used as other authorities and by so doing there was a keenness that Bromley is seen to be ahead of others on its performance of this measure – a value judgement of detritus against litter was not being sought but instead officers would report on both;
• CIPFA statistics indicated that Bromley was the best performer amongst similar boroughs for street cleaning and demonstrated best value for money.

 

In further debate more questions were asked and points made. Councillor Bennett indicated his support for the Portfolio Holder’s general views on targets. Councillor Bennett was not supportive of the 2012 target for people killed/seriously injured (KSI) in road accidents (NI147) at no more than 123 when the actual figure for 2011 was 81. 

 

Concerning an aim for the coming year of lobbying for extensions of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and Tramlink into the borough, Councillor Bennett felt that more flesh was needed to the body of this and that it should be a matter for discussion. Councillor Bennett also asked that references to “transportation” be removed in favour of “transport” and felt that there could be reference in the Plan to the removal of street signs and clutter. He advised that the Beckenham and West Wickham Working Group had recommended a reduction of street clutter and by way of example highlighted that a bus stop could be affixed to a lamp post; a street scene policy was needed he felt. 

Responding to Councillor Bennett’s points, the Portfolio Holder highlighted that KSI rates were falling much faster. The figures were “re-tightened” last year and TfL were going to review their approach; officers indicated that Members should expect to see refreshed targets next year. 

 

On DLR/Tramlink, the Portfolio Holder reported that he had met TfL representatives and had discussed issues and relative merits of Tramlink coming into the borough. The Portfolio  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7f

Report RES12114

 

Members supported nominations to the Countryside Consultative Panel and the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel for 2012/13.

 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to confirm that:

 

(1)  Councillors Julian Benington, William Huntington-Thresher, Gordon Norrie and Richard Scoates be appointed to the Countryside Consultative Panel for 2012/13; and

 

(2)  Councillors Peter Fookes, Ellie Harmer, Alexa Michael, Sarah Phillips and Harry Stranger be appointed to the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel for 2012/13.

 

Report ES12091

 

Members were updated on work carried out by the Environmental Services Department working in partnership with Friends (volunteers) of the Borough.

 

Councillor Fookes enquired whether Payback teams could undertake activities such as weeding paths. The Director indicated that Payback contracts had recently been let and that it should be possible to consider how to use teams more effectively.

 

Councillor Jefferys highlighted certain work at local woods in his ward and Councillor Grainger referred to the work of Friends being appreciated by residents. He asked what provision existed for conveying thanks and for monitoring the success and development of Friends. Noting earlier comments that the number of Friends of Parks groups had begun to plateau with the numbers of Friends having seemingly slowed down, Councillor Grainger felt that income for the Groups could also plateau, taking a view that it was the number of volunteer hours which the Council could take comfort on. Councillor Grainger also highlighted that a number of village halls were run by community groups and he enquired whether village halls could also be involved with the Friends work. 

 

In response to Councillor Grainger’s points, Members were advised of the People in Parks awards and a “hero” award which was starting as a means for thanking individual volunteers. On grant funding, it was felt conceivable that grant could diminish and it was confirmed that volunteer hours could be measured. On village halls, officers could impart their experience but it was felt that Community Links could provide advice and assistance.

 

To maintain goodwill, Councillor Grainger asked if there would be sufficient resources for localised thanks. The Portfolio Holder referred to the previous day’s Snow Conference. He supported a cash award but highlighted that a certificate could be well received. Concerning village halls, the Portfolio Holder referred to a small rolling fund within the Renewal and Recreation Portfolio. If it were possible to involve Friends with village halls and expertise could be used to obtain grant funding and if more money could be levered in perhaps involving a part funded post for the area, he felt that the concept should be developed.

 

In response to an enquiry from Councillor Bennett, it was indicated to Members that the strategy to obtain Friends was successful as no rigid model was imposed. Officers enabled a group to be formed and would “walk” with a Friends group for the first year so that they could move forward. Councillor Grainger suggested that a new small group should not learn to run before walking and suggested they start with activities such as litter picking and then bulb planting. More adventurous activities could then follow.

 

Councillor Bennett asked if a list of Friends Groups could be provided.

 

It was felt that thanks should be extended to officers for their work with Friends and to Friends themselves for their hard work in fund raising and in parks and green spaces. A question was asked on whether more of the rivers in the borough could benefit from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report ES12084

 

In considering the Committee’s 2012/13 Work Programme it was agreed to continue the Working Groups outlined below for one or two meetings each to conclude their existing terms of reference and then consider new working groups or updated terms of reference.

 

Waste Minimisation – one or two meetings to be convened to review the success of textile collections, green garden waste collections and food waste collections from flats.

 

Transport Priorities – one or two meetings to be convened in the late summer, to consider the Bromley transport priorities particularly relating to tram and DLR.

 

Parking – a further meeting to be convened in the autumn to consider the impact of the revised parking charges agreed last municipal year.

 

Street Cleaning Working Group – a further meeting to be convened shortly after the summer break to review the implementation of the new contract. Although the Group’s membership was extant the Chairman invited any Committee Member to contact him should they wish to join the Group.

 

The Chairman also invited Members to inform him of any external scrutiny that might be considered beneficial to take forward. He also confirmed that the current membership of Environment PDS Working Groups would be circulated following the meeting.

 

Councillor Grainger felt there was a case for a number of working groups to consider specific issues e.g. crossover policy. He also felt that the transport statement/policy work should be a higher priority although the Chairman indicated that it would not be a high priority until the next LIP statement. 

 

Referring to the former Public Transport Liaison meetings, Councillor Bennett had found the meetings useful but indicated that they could have been publicised more effectively and the public invited to attend. Concerning external scrutiny, Councillor Bennett suggested looking at the proposal that network rail lines in London be re-branded as part of the overground network.

 

The Chairman agreed that the format of the Public Transport Liaison meetings should be reviewed. At the last such meeting, some of the public transport operators highlighted the success in other boroughs of annual public meetings, in addition to the non-public liaison meetings. However, with the change of officer roles, the ability to support these meetings and their value needed to be reviewed.

 

The Chairman also sought views on the participation at future Committee meetings of a Bromley Youth Council (BYC) representative. Councillor Grainger was not supportive of a BYC representative being formally co-opted but instead suggested that a representative be invited to attend meetings. Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher had no objection to a BYC representative being part of the Committee but felt that any representative should not have voting rights. The Portfolio Holder indicated that representatives of Friends organisations would have a greater case for representation on the Committee. Councillor Adams supported the views of Councillor Grainger. Councillor Bennett highlighted that there was a non-voting BYC Co-opted Representative on the Education PDS Committee which he saw as an advantage. Councillor Jefferys felt that it was necessary to consider the matter and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Chairman to move that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

The previous Part 2 minutes were agreed.

 

To note a Part 2 decision of the Portfolio Holder made since the previous meeting of the Committee. 

The Part 2 Decision of the Portfolio Holder taken since the Committee’s previous meeting was noted.

 

 

QUESTION TO THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FROM NIKI LANGRIDGE AND DAN SCUDMOREREPRESENTING ALEXANDRA INFANTS SCHOOL PTA FOR ORAL REPLY

 

1.  Will you fund, or explain why you are not funding, the crossing assistant outside Alexandra Infants School next academic year given that:

 

(a) pupils are 4 to 7;

(b) outside the school are parked cars on both sides of a main road meaning the children are not visible to oncoming traffic; 

(c) there is no controlled pedestrian crossing nearby;

(d) the double roundabout at the nearest road junction is especially hazardous;

(e) investigations made last year did not provide any feasible alternative?

 

Reply

 

£ 2000 of LBB/TFL funding remains available to subsidise each of the 48 previous School Crossing Patrols for schools who wish to access it to help maintain/reinstate their service.

 

33 schools so far have, with a further school about to join that number, already taken advantage of this subsidy.

 

I very much hope that Alexandra will continue to remain part of that bloc.

 

Supplementary Question

 

Mr Scudamore enquired whether the £2000 subsidy would be an ongoing commitment.

 

Reply

 

Although there were no guarantees, the Portfolio Holder indicated that support for retaining patrols would remain as long as TfL subsidy continued.

 

--------------------

 

QUESTIONS TO THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FROM COUNCILLOR JULIAN GRAINGER FOR ORAL REPLY

 

Highway Schemes

 

1.  Under what circumstances in law can a Member’s decision on a highways scheme be vetoed (i.e. proceeded with or not proceeded with) by a Highways Officer of this Council?

 

 

 

 

 

Reply

 

Highway officers have no power to veto a Member’s decision per se. If there is some aspect of the way the decision has been taken which is procedurally defective, or if implementation of an otherwise properly taken decision would be unlawful or counter to the Council’s or the Public interest, then the officer has a professional duty to refer back to the Member for review with appropriate advice.

 

--------------------

 

2. In what parallel universe would deflecting vehicles to the right (i.e. towards oncoming traffic) be considered adding to road safety?

 

Reply

 

If, as I believe, you are making reference to the kerb realignment on one corner of Stapleton Road, it has been installed to improve safety at the new roundabout, for all road user Groups (i.e. pedestrians, motorists and cyclists).

 

Supplementary Question

 

In a brief supplementary question Councillor Grainger referred to cyclists going to the right and he sought further explanation on the merits of the approach taken.

 

Reply

 

In reply, the Portfolio Holder indicated that professional officers were content with the latest Department for Transport advice on such matters.

 

--------------------

 

3.  How does narrowing a road:

 

a) reduce the likelihood of colliding with pedestrians, street furniture or other vehicles?

 

Reply

 

Sevenoaks Road and Stapleton Road are both slightly narrower in order to provide better safety for pedestrians crossing the mouth of Stapleton Road (less time in the road, better sightlines) and for cyclists passing along Sevenoaks Road (less likelihood of a car trying to squeeze past just prior to the roundabout).

 

 

 

 

b) reduce congestion?

 

Reply

 

The new roundabout was installed at your personal request to reduce congestion by allowing greater priority for drivers turning right

into Stapleton Road. Narrowing the road(s) marginally in itself will have no impact on congestion.

 

Supplementary Question

 

Councillor Grainger enquired how pedestrian safety could be enhanced by narrowing in approach to a school. He exemplified a load sweeping over the kerb and a long trailer clipping the pavement. He felt that there were also other locations where road narrowing reduced the manoeuvrability of cars which he indicated could cause an accident.

 

Reply

 

Concerning large vehicles sweeping around corners, the Portfolio Holder indicated that this should be left with officers to consider at the scheme’s six month review.

--------------------

 

QUESTIONS TO THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FROM MR COLIN WILLETTS FOR WRITTEN REPLY

 

1.  Having had no response from the Head of Traffic and Road Safety via an email sent 13/6/12 on behalf of Mrs Skeggs, Old St Paul's Cray Residents Society re Selco & Co in Sandy Lane, their 'goods inward' yard is not large enough to accommodate HGV stock deliveries, consequently HGVs are parking on part footway/opposite each other leaving very little room for the ordinary motorist to access (in safety) from Sandy Lane on to the Ruxley roundabout. Could the Portfolio Holder assist in resolving this long running parking problem/obstruction to the footway possibly by way of parking restrictions?

 

 

Reply

 

This matter is already under assessment and review by Cllr Peter Fortune of Cray Valley East Ward very ably supported by Ms Sondra Vernau, the RA Chairman of OSPCVRA, who first drew the relevant issues to our attention.

 

Both have recently met with Selco to discuss their concerns and continue to monitor the situation (which I am advised Selco have expressed willingness to help address) closely, ahead of any formal changes to the status quo locally, which it might or might not prove necessary to progress.

 

As an aside, I am further led to understand that Mrs Skeggs attended the recent OSPCVRA meeting held on 7^th June in person, where an update to this effect was given.

 

 --------------------

 

2.  During the McDonalds Public Inquiry it was recognised that should the application be approved that some form of parking restrictions might become necessary due to the increase of traffic using the restaurant. Since this has proved to be the case in that cars/HGV's are parking (on South side) opposite Nos 2d-4 Broomwood Road resulting in problems with access (particularly from) the drives of Nos 2d, 2c, 2b, 2a which further leads to large tailbacks and queues forming to turn into Sevenoaks Way, could the Portfolio Holder install waiting restrictions in consultation with the residents to alleviate the traffic congestion and vehicle obstructions at this location?

 

Reply

 

Possibly, subject to the opinions expressed at consultation by those residents in question.

 

Given the potential for displacement any such action would most likely cause for other households currently unaffected by the problems that you point to, it would be helpful if the LCRA would identify the extent of the survey area it would like to see covered.

 

 --------------------

 

3.  Could the Portfolio Holder via the Director of Environmental Services contact Network Rail to remove or paint over the mass of graffiti (insitu three months) daubed over the top of the bridge span Cray Avenue jcn Station Approach?

 

Reply

 

Of course.

 

If the LCRA would please provide us with any reference numbers from your previous contacts / chasers to Network Rail I shall be very pleased to do so and enquire as to the reason for their lack of actions to date.

 

--------------------