Apologies for absence were received from Borough Councillor Brown.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2012 to be submitted for signature. All minutes are available on the Council’s website.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2012 were submitted and signed.

There were no matters arising.

Report of the District Manager

The purpose of this report is to advise members of the current status of petitions, to advise members of any objections to traffic regulation orders and to inform the Panel of any other local issues of importance.

The Panel received a report of the District Manager setting out the current status of petitions, information on any objections to Traffic Regulation Orders and other local issues.

Petition- Rosslyn Road

The Chair, County Councillor Giles-Medhurst, invited the Petitioner, Mr Johns, to present a petition relating to waiting restrictions on Rosslyn Road. Mr Johns said that he was the Chair of Crakers Mead Ltd which was the block of flats opposite the Gade Car Park. The petition asked that the double yellow lines removed in 2009 be reinstated. Visitors to the night-time economy now parked on the single yellow lines rather than in the Gade Car Park to avoid paying. Before the single yellow lines were introduced there was no reason for revellers to pass through Rosslyn Road. Nuisance was caused by inconsiderate parking, litter, noise and congestion. There was a concern that access to the care homes by emergency vehicles could be hindered. The petition had been signed by 73 residents; everyone who was asked signed the petition.

The Chair noted that at the time that Rosslyn Road was changed to single yellow lines, Upton Road had had double yellow lines added.  

The District Manager thanked the petitioner and reported that he had not yet had a response from the Police who had originally requested the change. He was happy to press the Police again. Coaches were intended to park in Rosslyn Road and consideration would need to be given about where they could go. Officers would investigate the issue.

Borough Councillor Martins said that as a ward councillor he had had numerous complaints about residents being unable to access their properties. He noted the antisocial behaviour associated with the problem and said that enforcement was the key issue. He asked whether coaches-only parking could be created.

Borough Councillor Dhindsa noted that a petition had been received by full Council last year relating to the Gade Car Park. By reinstating double yellow lines the problem would be relocated into Park and Vicarage. People would walk further to their cars and make more noise. There was already a shortage of parking spaces in Vicarage.

Borough Councillor Sharpe referred to enforcement in Upton Road, and advised that the Council had a light-touch approach to enforcement at night. Residents who were unable to park would not want to be ticketed overnight. If a nuisance was being caused, however, the Police and the parking shop should be informed. He suggested that the authorities discussed how the issue could be ameliorated.

The Vice Chair, Borough Councillor Wylie, outlined how the Council had come to be responsible for parking enforcement. He explained that cost was another factor in not having 24-hour enforcement. Changing yellow lines was a statutory procedure that could take some time.

Borough Councillor Rackett reported that he had checked the electoral register and there were over 70 residents in Rosslyn Road and approximately 20 people in residential homes.

Borough Councillor Sharpe encouraged all residents to report any antisocial behaviour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Report of the Area Highway Development Control Manager

This report advises the Panel of schemes which are funded by S106 contributions held by HCC. It reports on allocations planned for the coming financial year and lists new contributions received by HCC to allow members to suggest possible uses.

The Panel received a report of the Area Highway Development Control Manager including the financial position and proposed uses for transport and highways Section 106 (S106) monies held by Hertfordshire County Council.

                   The District Manager referred to Appendix A which showed the S106 contributions for the financial year 2011/12. There had been a discussion at the last meeting about how the £250K put aside should be allocated. Officers from Herts Highways had met with Members who had made some suggestions for how the funds could be used. These included extending the scheme in North Western Avenue to the whole road, improving management of traffic and pedestrian movement in Grandfield Avenue and Bellamy Close, further changes to traffic calming on Nascot Wood Road and a modest contribution to the W30 bus service.

                   Following a question from Borough Councillor Dhindsa, the Head of Planning explained that a strategic taxi rank review had been undertaken and new ranks had been installed in the Harebreaks, Church Road and Albert Road South. The funds spent covered the cost of the TROs and signage.

                   County CouncillorBell reported he was pleased with the proposed work on Printers Avenue and the contributions towards the W30 bus route.

                   Following a question from the Chair, the District Manager explained that the column in Appendix B marked ‘S106 fixed costs’ covered the cost of officer time in administering the S106 process.  He would ask for more detail from the appropriate officers. He advised that the fixed costs of the feasibility stages were greater than for the design and implementation stages.

                   The Vice Chair underlined the need for a transparent methodology and he suggested that the issue be discussed with the Finance department at HCC.

                   The Chair asked about the timetabling for the work on Courtlands Drive as Cabinet had agreed the scheme already. He could not understand why the scheme was delayed.

                   The Vice Chair noted that the report asked whether the Panel wished to continue receiving the traffic light report. There was agreement that Members did still want to see the report.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted and that the Panel continue to receive the traffic light report.

Report of the Lead Assistant District Manager

This report provides information about local works programmes that are client managed by the Herts Highways Watford area team. This includes the Discretionary budget, approved section 106 funds for local schemes and the Super CAT2 maintenance budget. The report also provides an update on the local schemes as part of the forthcoming Highway Locality Budget for the 2012/13 year.

The Panel received a report of the Lead Assistant District Manager which provided information about local works programmes that were client managed by the Hertfordshire Highways Watford area team, including Discretionary Budget, approved Section 106 funds for local schemes and the Super CAT2 maintenance budget.

The Lead Assistant District Manager reported that all the discretionary programme works had been completed except Orphanage Road and Radlett Road. In addition, the Super CAT2 works had also been completed. He referred to the Locality Budget spend in Appendix D. There were 24 schemes that had been identified and were awaiting cost codes.

Following a question from County Councillor Scudder, the Lead Assistant District Manager confirmed that the deadline for discounted schemes had now passed. He added that if it was received before June works could be implemented under the 84-day scheme which had a smaller discount.

The Chair noted that HCC was changing contractor and it was not anticipated that any new work would be started under the current contractor.

In response to a question from Borough Councillor Khan, the District Manager explained that the consultation had shown an even split between residents who wanted a one-way scheme on Dell and Elm Roads and those who did not. As the Member for the division, County Councillor Brandon had had the casting vote and had decided not to proceed with the scheme.

Report of the District Manager

Note to the Highways Joint Member Panel.

The Panel received a report of the District Manager which noted that the comments made by the Panel had been fed back. A statement from the Executive Member for Highways and Transport was circulated to the Panel.

The Chair said that it was his understanding that the way the Highways briefings worked in Dacorum, a pilot area for the scheme, was that officers gave a PowerPoint presentation twice a year and no decisions were made.

The District Manager responded that the presentation could be as interactive as Members wished. All district councillors would be invited to attend.

Borough Councillor Sharpe expressed his dissatisfaction with the proposal. All district councillors were welcome to attend the Joint Member Panel (JMP) meetings at present. He felt that the views expressed by the Panel had not been taken on board. He was concerned about the lack of accountability and the lack of debate and decisions. There needed to be engagement with county and borough Members on highways issues. He hoped the plan would be reconsidered.

CountyCouncillor Bell concurred; he felt it was the opposite of localism. The JMP in Watford worked well. He said more details were needed and asked who would chair the briefings.

Borough Councillor Rackett suggested that as the Mayor appointed Members at annual council, it would be useful to know before then. He said that the JMP was not perfect but the replacement was unsatisfactory.

The Chair noted that the Members had been in favour of continuing and the model worked particularly well in an urban area like Watford. He referred to the petition that had been presented to the meeting.  As it was in his division, under the proposed arrangements, he alone would respond to it.

Borough Councillor Johnson agreed with the comments; he said that he did not understand how the proposal promoted localism. 

Borough Councillor Rackett suggested that the Borough Council appointed six Members at annual council.  The county councillors and highways officers would then be invited to the meetings.

The Vice Chair added that he was aware that the JMP could sometimes blur the responsibility for highways issues but highways was an important matter for councillors from both authorities. He felt that consultation needed to be meaningful and the proposals had a democratic deficit. The public expected councillors to hold officers to account. He noted the issue of public transport which affected both councils and highlighted the need for user involvement in these discussions.

Borough Councillor Rackett moved the following motion which was seconded by the Vice Chair:

That the Borough should lead on the establishment of a Highways Panel and that we formally object to moving to a Highways Liaison Briefing instead of a JMP.

On being put to the Panel, this was AGREED.

RESOLVED –

that the Borough should lead on the establishment of a Highways Panel and that Members formally object to moving to a Highways Liaison Briefing instead of a JMP.

Report of the Forward Works Programme Manager

Note to the Highways Joint Member Panel.

The District Manager informed the Panel that, as they were meeting before the Works Programmes were available, officers would send the papers to Members by email. He asked that Members return any comments by the end of April.

Following a question from the Chair, the District Manager confirmed that the papers would not be the same as those which went to Cabinet, as they contained additional appendices highlighting changes and Member comments.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

Report of the Lead Assistant District Manager

This item summarises progress on the delivery of the Integrated Works Programme and other programmed works on the highway network in and around the borough carried out by Hertfordshire County Council, Watford Borough Council and third parties.

The Panel received a report of the Lead Assistant District Manager which summarised progress on the delivery of the Integrated Works Programme and other programmed works on the highways network in Watford.

The District Manager advised that the information in the papers was identical to that sent to Members by email. He asked if Members still wanted to receive the information with the agenda. The Vice Chair responded that the information should be in the papers as a matter of public record.

The Chair referred to Appendix A2, and asked why all the Highways Locality Budget schemes were not included. The District Manager clarified thatAppendix A1 contained the list of schemes to be delivered over the next six weeks. The A2 list should contain all the schemes for the remainder of the financial year but this list was incomplete as the Highway Locality Budget schemes were still awaiting finance codes and budget to be attached to them before they would appear.

Following a question from the Chair about the Vehicle Activated signs on the A41, the District Manager responded that this scheme was being paid for from S106 monies which could carry over into a second year. He noted that there had been a push to install intelligent transport strategy in Watford and this had caused a further delay.

The District Manager referred to Table 2 in Appendix C and noted the schemes to introduce 20 mph zones.

CountyCouncillor Scudder referred to the motion that had been passed at full council in Watford on 21 March 2012 to support the implementation of 20mph zones in residential roads. This would avoid the need for expensive speed-reduction measures in specific roads.

Borough Councillor Rackett added that a letter would be sent to HCC signed by all the party group leaders. In the roads being considered in the report, public consultation had shown support for physical measures. These roads had peculiarities in that they were long one-way streets which encouraged the build-up of speed.

The District Manager referred to Table 3 in Appendix C, He drew the Panel’s attention to the projects related to the Croxley Rail Link. There were pedestrian and cycle routes between Ascot Road station and WatfordBoys Grammar School and between Watford Hospital Station and Hagden Lane. County CouncillorBell said he supported these measures.

The District Manager explained that the Market Street cycle route had been identified as part of the South West Herts Cycling Strategy. The Chair added that preliminary designs were being developed and the scheme could be implemented the current financial year. He noted that it was only between the High Street and Exchange Road.

Borough Councillor Sharpe said he was pleased that the idea of a contraflow was being pursued. The problem was that it was not possible to cycle down Market Street from West Watford.

The Chair noted that the scheme would be subject to a safety audit. He understood that the implementation of the route was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Report of the District Manager

This report advises the Panel of the performance of Hertfordshire Highways in the Borough of Watford

The Panel received a report of the District Manager which advised on the performance of Hertfordshire Highways in the Borough of Watford. 

The Chair informed the Panel that he had had an exchange of emails about the recent problems with the street lighting. There appeared to be an issue with the sensor on the lighting columns. It was anticipated that the problems would be resolved by the end of the week. The manufacturer was investigating the problem.

Councillor Bell added that it was unacceptable in his view. Further work had been stopped in implementing part-night lighting until the issue was resolved.

The Chair said that although the manufacturer would have to cover the costs there was also the cost of officer time.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

10 July 2012

10 July 2012

The Chair said that on behalf of the Panel he wished to thank Councillor Wylie for his input and expertise at the JMP. Councillor Wylie had chaired the Panel and was stepping down as a councillor.