Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2020 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2020 were agreed as an accurate record.

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.

There were none.

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.

The Chair informed the meeting that item 6 on the agenda (Cheyne Walk Area – Objections to the Proposed Extension of the Free Parking Zone) would be taken first.

The Committee considered the objections received from the public following the formal consultation process on a proposal to extend the existing Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (West Permit Zone) to Sussex Road with a combination of Shared-Use Permit/Pay via Ring-Go (8 hours maximum stay) bays and single yellow lines operating from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday, and to Sunny Nook Gardens with Permit parking only, operating during the same hours.

The Parking Design Manager informed Members that the report provided details on objections which had been received on the proposed extension of the zone. It was recognised that nine objections had been received, however officers recommended with proceeding with the scheme to relieve parking pressures in the area which would increase once new developments were occupied.

In response to questions the Parking Design Manager confirmed that the results of informal consultations were normally included in reports, however stated that in response to the informal consultation there had been 32 responses from Sussex Road, 17 in favour and 15 against, and seven responses in Sunny Nook Gardens, four in favour and three against. It was noted that objector 1 in the report had stated that they had changed their mind and was now against the proposal, however it was stated that if the council continued to re-consult it would get different results every time.

The Parking Design Manager confirmed there were a group of parking bays on Moreton Road and that it was proposed that these bays be moved from the South Permit Zone to the West Permit Zone. It was noted that these bays were under-utilised whereas the northern part of Sussex Road often suffered from heavy parking. The officer stated that parking stress should ease with the introduction of controlled parking in the area.

Councillor Clancy informed the Committee that he lived in the area, but did not live in the roads affected by the proposals. Concerns were raised that a resident had notified the council that they had changed their mind and as such the vote was tied in Sussex Road. It was further noted that objections had been received from businesses which were already under pressure due to the covid-19 pandemic and that the council should not implement a scheme which would cause further pressure.

In response, the Parking Design Manager informed Members that the consultation had taken place in January and February 2020 and so had not been impacted by covid-19. Whilst it was noted that objections had been received from businesses, many of them in the local area had off street parking and that parking controls should make it easier for businesses and their customers to park in the area. The Committee noted that some vans parked on yellow lines which also caused issues for buses to pass down the road and so it was anticipated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/20

The Committee considered the objections received from the public following the formal consultation process on a proposal to extend the existing Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (free parking area) into Cheyne Walk, Carlyle Road, Annandale Road and Fryston Avenue.

The Parking Design Manager explained that the proposals sought to manage commuter parking which was experienced in the area. Following the informal consultation in 2019 it had been decided to proceed, including Fryston Avenue, with the scheme. During the formal consultation an objection was received from a resident in Fryston Avenue and it was proposed that the zone should not be extended to include this road.

The Committee noted that there was an area at paragraph 12 of the report and that it was recommended to proceed with the proposed scheme with the exception of Fryston Avenue.

The Committee Clerk read the following statement, submitted by Daniel Golberg, an objector from Carlyle Road:

“I maintain my objection to the extension of the CPZ to cover Carlyle Road. I note from the document pack for the meeting that the feedback from the informal public consultation dating from October last year resulted in 7 households in favour and 5 against the proposal, a narrow majority in favour. I believe that the proposals were poorly presented with no key entered on the plans to identify the notations on the plan. This resulted in the plans being not properly understood by residents, in particular how many households would no longer be able to park in front of their own houses. This amounts to 13 out of the 22 houses on the road.  There was also no indication of how many parking places would be lost as a result of the proposals, which was confirmed as 10 in your email to me and as 6 in the document pack.

The informal survey conducted by a resident in Fryston Road recorded that 3 residents in Carlyle Road supported the scheme but 4 objected to the scheme. Although your response says that consultations organised by residents should be treated with caution, the majority of residents responding in Carlyle Road were against the proposal. Fryston Avenue has been excluded from the plans and I think Carlyle Road should be given the same opportunity.

I request that the committee instruct that a new official survey be carried out to establish the current views of the residents in Carlyle Road. This should be accompanied by properly annotated, clear plans along with explanatory notes clarifying the  impacts of the proposals including loss of parking spaces and environmental impact -yellow lines and signs at both end of the road.

Finally I note that Section 12 of the report states that ‘The recommendation is not to proceed with the proposed scheme as there isn’t widespread support for the scheme among residents….’ I support this recommendation but I fear that this has been included in error.”

Councillor Jeet Bains addressed the Committee, in his capacity as a Ward Councillor, and clarified that he lived  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/20

The Committee considered the objections received from the public following the formal consultation process on a proposal to extend the existing Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (North Permit Zone) into the Dunheved Roads area with a combination of Shared-Use Permit/Pay via Ring-Go (8 hours maximum stay) bays and single yellow lines operating from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday.

The Parking Design Manager informed Members that the council had originally proposed introducing 8am – 8pm Monday – Sunday operation hours, however this had been opposed by residents and so the council had re-consulted on 9am – 5pm Monday – Saturday operating hours. Only one objection had been received in this consultation.

It was noted that this area was surrounding by roads with controlled parking restrictions and that it was close to Croydon University Hospital and Croydon Mosque.

In response to Member questions the Parking Design Manager confirmed that the council had only consulted on the timings on this occasion as it had previously consulted on the proposals. The officer also confirmed that there was flexibility to enable mourners to park to attend funerals at places of worship.

The Chair noted that controlled parking had been introduced in the surrounding roads and that it had been clear that restrictions would be required in this area, however residents had objected to longer operating hours. It was stated that the consultation responses, with 81% in support of the proposals, had shown that the current proposals were appropriate.

RESOLVED: That the Traffic Management Advisory Committee agreed to

recommend to the Acting Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and

Regeneration (Job Share) that they:

1.    Consider the response received to the formal consultation to extending the existing Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (North Permit Zone) into Dunheved Roads North, South, West and Close and Sharland Close with a combination of Shared-Use Permit/Pay via Ring-Go (8 hours maximum stay) and single yellow lines operating from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday.

2.    Make a minor adjustment to the existing disabled bays and loading bay in Dunheved Road South as shown on Plan PD – 421b.

3.    Agree for the reasons detailed in this report to extend the Croydon Controlled Parking Zone (North Permit Zone) into the Dunheved Roads area as shown on drawing number PD – 421a.

4.    Inform the objector of the above decision.

The Committee consider implementation and operation of the 10 new School Streets, outlined in the report.

The New Business and Projects Manager explained that the report sought the agreement to proceed to the next stage of introducing school streets at ten locations and not proceed with one location. The council had consulted up to 300 meters away from the school to understand residents’ views in the surrounding areas. The consultation had found 53% of residents were in favour of the proposals, with views ranging from strongly in favour and very strongly in favour in the proposed zones and very strongly in against to very strongly in favour outside the zones.

The officer noted that it was proposed to introduce the zones in September 2020 using Experimental Orders which would allow the council to respond to any traffic orders implemented within the areas and enables residents to share their views ahead of a report going to Traffic Management Advisory Committee to consider ahead of a final decision.

The Committee noted that the proposals were in line with Department for Transport guidance to support more active travel.

Councillor Margaret Bird addressed the Committee, in her capacity as a Ward Councillor, and acknowledged that there were significant problems experienced at Keston Primary School in relation to school traffic however stated that a School Street was not the right solution for that area. The Committee were informed that the road was a through-road and the next roads along were too narrow to accommodate the additional traffic. It was further noted that the 404 bus route goes down this road which would be disrupted.

Councillor Bird raised concerns that the consultation had asked closed questions and so had not enabled residents to fully express their views. Furthermore it was noted that a GP practice was sited on Court Avenue and the proposals would restrict patients, many of whom were elderly, from accessing the GP practice at school drop off and pick up times as they would not be able to travel down Keston Avenue.

Councillor Bird concluded that it was not reasonable to impose the proposed restrictions when 72% of residents were opposed and that the council should look to proactive enforcement to find an alternative solution. It was stated that when she had previously visited the school she had spoken to enforcement officers who had been resistant to intervene as they did not want to be verbally abused by parents.

Following the points raised by the speakers, the New Business and Projects Manager confirmed that Keston Avenue was a through-road, however there were alternative roads that could be used to travel between Coulsdon Road and Caterham Drive. Furthermore, it was stated that School Streets which had been implemented elsewhere had demonstrated a 25% reduction in car usage within a few months of implementation.

In response to concerns that the consultation had been closed it was noted that there had been a question of whether the respondent supported or opposed the proposal, but that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/20

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 item was not required.