At a meeting of the and Area Forum held on Thursday, 15 January 2015 at 7:30 pm at the Brentford Free Church, Road, Brentford. Present: Councillor Ed Mayne (Chair) Councillor Mel Collins (Vice-Chair) Councillors Ruth Cadbury, Peter Carey, Theo Dennison, Katherine Dunne, Tony Louki, Sheila O'Reilly, Sue Sampson and Myra Savin 51. Apologies for Absence, Declarations of Interest and any other Communications from Members

Apologies received from councillors Curran and Green. Apologies for lateness were received on behalf of councillors Cadbury and O’Reilly (who arrived shortly after this announcement).

Declarations of Interest:

Agenda Item 6 – Brentford North CPZ Proposed Extension: Councillor Dennison declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item and confirmed that he would not be taking part in the discussion on the matter.

Communications from members: Councillor Collins expressed members’ deep sadness at the death of a resident at Lambert Lodge, Brentford following the recent fire at the property. Members wished to send their sympathies to the family of the deceased.

52. Municipal appointments update

The Area Forum noted Councillor Sampson’s appointment to the Planning Enforcement Sub- Committee.

53. Local Policing Update - Insp. Steve Edwards

See submitted police update report, Agenda Item 13.

Inspector Steve Edwards and Sergeant Alan Boyle attended the meeting to update members on local policing matters, drawing attention to the Metropolitan Police Service wide consultation on raising confidence in policing. ’s officers were focussing on improved communication using letter drops to residents with updates on police initiatives, an increased presence on social media and in local media editorials. The decision to target specific areas depended on a number of factors including crime trends in a particular area and seasonal changes such as longer winter evenings or festivals such as Christmas/ Diwali/ Eid. The police was also raising the visibility of officers on the borough’s high streets, using not only local police teams but detectives and special teams.

Sgt. Boyle assured members that no specific crime hotspots had been identified on & Spring Grove ward and that burglary reports were very low. He confirmed that the mention of burglaries of unoccupied premises for the ward in the submitted report referred to burglaries of vacant or derelict properties. When a burglary was reported police made every effort to follow it up within 24 hours. Reports of Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) were sporadic across the ward, although positive feedback had been received from residents, which helped focus police efforts to tackle this behaviour.

Sgt. Boyle noted that Sgt. Ron Neil would be best placed to update members on the cannabis farms identified on the ward. He made specific reference to a report of trafficking from an address off Hounslow High Street where police colleagues had forced entry and discovered six rooms full of cannabis plants. Arrests had followed and the ‘farm’ had been shut down.

Police colleagues on Isleworth ward were being supported by staff in neighbouring Hounslow South ward to ensure visibility of police patrols. Ward officers had detained four individuals in relation to possession with intent to supply cannabis, as a result of a resident’s submission of CCTV footage. Officers had visited shops in the vicinity of Isleworth mainline station to ensure they met the conditions of their licenses and were also working with colleagues at South West Trains on reducing ASB.

Albany Parade and Brentford High Street were the focus of ongoing targeted efforts by local police in response to concerns raised by residents. Insp. Edwards assured members that officers were aware of residents’ concerns in relation to the misuse of mopeds on the Clayponds Estate and along Lionel Road and were working to tackle this issue.

Members were assured that the issue of prostitution was dealt with very seriously by police, both in terms of the victims and trafficking of individuals. Officers noted that targeting identified brothels required time and resources, ensuring that support networks were in place to help the victims and working with the Local Authority to close down the brothel.

When asked whether there were plans to extend the Pubwatch scheme, and whether this could incorporate off licenses in an effort to tackle street drinking, Insp. Edwards stated that this was unlikely, as the scheme focused on the night time economy. Hounslow Central and were the areas identified with the highest incidents of alcohol related violence and the police licensing officer liaised with colleagues at the Council on isolated cases to achieve a positive outcome. As the Pubwatch scheme had not yet been fully developed, officers suggested that a more detailed update could be provided in a few months’ time.

Officers confirmed that the bike marking initiative scheduled for 22 January at Brentford Market would be extended, as it had proved a very effective crime prevention tool. In response to concerns about speeding along Boston Manor Road Insp. Edwards indicated that, although he had not been aware of the issue, there were enforcement options available to the police. He confirmed that he would report concerns back to his colleagues in the roads and traffic enforcement unit.

Resolved: That the update provided by Insp. Steve Edwards and Sgt. Alan Boyle be noted.

54. Open Forum

The following questions had been submitted in writing prior to the meeting:

1. Question submitted by St John’s Residents Association: “How much S106 money is currently available to spend on Air Quality Monitoring in the IBAF Area and Boroughwide? How much has been spent in the past 12 months and how much is proposed to be spent in the next 12 months?” 2. Question submitted by the Friends of Isleworth Public Hall: “Members of this Forum will be aware that Isleworth Public Hall is owned by a charitable trust (Vestry Hall, Reading and Lecture Rooms, charity registration number 1075734) of which the sole trustee is Hounslow Council. As such responsibility for decision making and oversight rests with the whole Council. This legal structure has a number of consequences; one is that decisions relating to Isleworth Public Hall cannot be delegated to officers or made by committees of the Council (including Cabinet) as responsibility rests with all Councillors. Secondly when Councillors take decisions they should be advised they are acting as the Trustee. They must therefore put the interests of the Charity before any other, possibly conflicting, interests the Council may have.

It is noted that letters signed by Council officers dated 24th November 2014 indicated, inter alia, “The Council has decided to offer the management of Isleworth Public Hall to a new charity formed by interested parties from the local community in Isleworth”. In view of this, please confirm what procedures were observed to arrive at this decision and are in place to ensure that all decisions about the future of Isleworth Public Hall are properly taken to accord with the Council’s role as Trustee.” These questions had been passed to the relevant Council officers for response. Whilst a response was not available for the meeting itself, members acknowledged that those responses would be sent to the applicants and copied to members as soon as they were available. A copy of the responses would also be included with the minutes of this meeting.

Whilst acknowledging the submission that the Council was the sole trustee of the Vestry Hall, Reading and Lecture Rooms charitable trust, the Chair reminded members that advice from the Council’s Legal Services had been that the Cabinet, as the executive decision making body of the Council, had been correct in making its decision. Friends of Isleworth Public Hall representatives were encouraged to raise any concerns they had with the Charities Commission.

[Following the meeting the following response was circulated to members and sent to the Friends of Isleworth Public Hall]:

The decision to offer the management of Isleworth Public Hall to a new charity formed by interested parties from the local community in Isleworth was taken by Cabinet in the Council's role as corporate Trustee on 14th January 2014. Cabinet agreed to:

1. Work with the Isleworth Public Hall Consortium as the preferred bidder with a view to appointing them to manage Isleworth Public Hall on a 5-year lease, subject to satisfactorily demonstrating the ability to realise their proposal, and appropriate due diligence. 2. Give notice to Fusion Lifestyle Ltd of the prospects of removing the management of Isleworth Public Hall from the current contract with the Council, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of recommendation 1 above, with effect of April 2014. 3. Delegate to the Director, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment responsibility for finalising terms and conditions, and entering into contract with the Isleworth Consortium, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of recommendation 1 above.

Subsequently, the decision to offer the Isleworth Public Hall Consortium (Activebase) a 5 year full repairing and insuring lease for the community management of Isleworth Public Hall has been made by the Director for Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment.

The basis for using this procedure to make decisions about Isleworth Public Hall is that all decisions concerning the Vestry Hall, Reading and Lecture Rooms charitable trust must be taken by Hounslow Council as sole corporate Trustee. By a scheme made by Order of the Board of the Charity Commission dated 14 October 1938, the Isleworth Public Hall and land to its rear was originally vested in the Council of the Borough of and Isleworth, the London Borough of Hounslow’s predecessor. Accordingly, the property is held on trust by the Council for the purposes of section 125 of the Local Government Act 1933 which reads as follows: “A principle council may acquire or provide and furnish halls, offices and other buildings, whether within or without the area of the authority, for use for public meetings and assemblies”. That decision-making power is delegated by the operation of law, to the Council’s Cabinet.

55. Brentford North CPZ Proposed Expansion - Design Consultation Results

See report from the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment, Agenda Item 6.

Mark Frost, Head of Traffic and Transport, introduced the submitted report and invited questions and comments. He confirmed that the implementation of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) would include double yellow lines at junctions.

In response to concerns raised about the condition of the road surface along Challis Road, which was reported as being used for rat running between Windmill Road to Ealing Road, Mr Frost agreed to check with colleagues in Hounslow Highways to see if the planned resurfacing could be twinned with the implementation of the proposed CPZ without causing any unnecessary delay to the introduction of long-awaited parking controls.

The Chair moved approval of the officer’s recommendations, seconded by Councillor Collins and unanimously agreed by all present (with the exception of Councillor Dennison who had declared an interest in the item at the beginning of the meeting).

Resolved: Members considered the results of the design consultation undertaken and by majority vote agreed that: (a) All roads consulted in the expansion area should be included in the Brentford North (BN) Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), namely Challis Road, Clayton Crescent, Clements Place, Ealing Road, Junction Road, South Ealing Road, Whitestile Road, Windmill Road and residents of York Parade; (b) The operational times of the zone would be the same as the existing BN CPZ, Mon – Fri, 10-11am and 3-4pm; (c) Officers should proceed with the formal (statutory) consultation to amend the existing BN CPZ Traffic Management order (TMO) to include the roads and residents listed in (a) with the operational times listed in (b); (d) Officers, where possible, should resolve any objections received to the formal (statutory) consultation and implement the scheme. In the event of any objections remaining unresolved, it was agreed that the Chair of the Forum should be given delegated authority to consider these objections in consultation with the Ward Councillors and the relevant chief officer and then to consider whether or not to confirm the TMO; (e) The costs associated with the recommendations of this report detailed at paragraph 3.7 should be funded from the Section 106 agreement (Scheme 352) formally known as the Wallis House Development; (f) Residents and businesses of the consultation area should be informed of the Forum’s decision.

56. North Street/ Church Street, Isleworth traffic calming proposals

See report from the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment, together with Appendix A, circulated at the meeting and included with the electronic agenda pack for reference, Agenda Item 7.

The Chair acknowledged that this was a long-standing issue and that the 6-month trial undertaken in 2014 had generated much debate on options for traffic calming. Mark Frost, Head of Traffic and Transport, introduced the submitted report and drew members’ attention to the outlined consultation area (Appendix A).

Mr Frost noted the scale of the work required under the proposals, drawing attention to the officer resources that would be required and the subsequent impact on other schemes under consideration. He added that some traffic modelling had already been carried out, which indicated that traffic flows along Twickenham Road could be significantly impacted depending on the chosen option. Transport for London could veto a scheme where journey times were significantly impacted.

In response to questions the following comments were made: When it was suggested that residents of new residential developments along Twickenham Road should be consulted, particularly as they would not be eligible for parking permits within the area, Mr Frost assured members that, should the initial consultation with those residents directly impacted by the proposals result in support for the implementation of traffic calming, further detailed consultation would be carried out with a wider list of individuals and statutory partners at a later stage in the process. The Chair proposed that the Isleworth and Syon ward councillors could be involved in the decision on which roads to include in the initial consultation. Councillor Dennison suggested the inclusion of Harmony Estate and Busch Close, acknowledging that the results from Harmony Estate could be kept separate to the final consults to ensure that the outcome reflected the views of those directly impacted by the proposals. By the time the results of the consultation were known, further detail (possibly including photographs to help residents visualise what the road closures would look like) on the design would be available, which would allow those affected to review in detail the impact of the proposals. Officers were asked to include an assessment of the vehicular traffic accessing Park Road from London Road bound for the site. Councillor Sampson confirmed that access to the Syon Park Hotel from London Road was for deliveries only. She added that there had been reports of lorry drivers getting lost as a result of outdated satellite navigation systems. Officers would be working with ward councillors to rationalise the possible options for consultation. It was suggested that, as both Church Street and North Street were linked by Manor House Way, one option to mitigate rat running would be to consult on the possible stopping up of Manor House Way. Mr Frost confirmed that current budgetary restrictions ruled out the option of consulting on a removable barrier, which would be more expensive to maintain and manage in the longer term than a fixed barrier. When asked whether the consultation could include journey times in relation to the proposed one-way routes, Mr Frost confirmed that officers were able to glean information from the transport models of the recent Twickenham Road works, which illustrated the impact on traffic flows for local roads. When asked whether a contra flow could be introduced on one-way streets for cyclists, Mr Frost suggested that this would be very complicated to fit into the scheme, notwithstanding the need to seek approval from the Department for Transport. It was suggested that the issue of rat running along Church Street could be mitigated by improvements on Twickenham Road, such as the removal of the traffic lights at the junction with Town Field Way.

Councillor Sampson moved approval of the officer’s recommendations, subject to the amendment of Paragraph 6.1 to replace “Ward Councillors” with “Isleworth and Syon ward councillors”, seconded by Councillor Mayne and unanimously agreed by all members present.

Resolved: Members considered the matter and by majority vote agreed that: a) Officers, in consultation with the Isleworth and Syon ward councillors, should finalise the public consultation documentation and agree the area of public consultation; b) Officers should conduct a public consultation for a period of four weeks; c) The results of the public consultation should be reported to a future meeting of this Area Forum for consideration.

57. Twickenham Road CPZ results

See report from the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment, Agenda Item 8.

Mark Frost, Head of Traffic and Transport, confirmed for members that the consultation would take place with all frontages eligible for parking permits in the CPZ as it currently stood.

Councillor Cadbury joined the meeting at this point.

The Chair moved approval of the officer’s recommendations, subject to the amendment to insert “in consultation with ward councillors and the relevant chief officer” at Paragraph 1.1(b). This was seconded by Councillor Sampson and agreed by all councillors present, with the exception of Councillor Ruth Cadbury who had arrived at the meeting during this item and, therefore, did not take part in the vote, and Councillor O’Reilly who had stepped out of the meeting and was not present for the vote.

Resolved: Members considered the outcome of the consultation and by majority vote agreed that: (a) The operational times of the Twickenham Road CPZ (Zone WM) should be extended to 8 am to 8 pm, Monday to Sunday, subject to satisfactory statutory consultation; (b) Authorised officers should proceed with the advertising and making of the amendment to the Zone MW Traffic Management Order (TMO) and that any objections received that remain unresolved should be referred to the Chair of this Forum, in consultation with ward councillors and the relevant chief officer, for resolution; (c) The costs associated with the recommendations of this report detailed at Para 4.1 should be funded from the Planning Section 106 contribution from the former West Middlesex Hospital Development (Scheme 359); (d) Residents of the CPZ should be informed of the Forum’s decision.

58. Boston Manor Road: Cycle Improvements consultation update

See report from the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment, Agenda Item 9.

Mark Frost introduced the submitted report, noting that Option A was ambitious and aspirational, whereas Option B would serve to improve the current situation. He added that the opportunity to consult at an early stage had helped officers to design a scheme that he hoped would address each of the concerns raised by residents. He assured members that officers wished to realise a scheme that would mitigate concerns raised and that would not result in the loss of parking spaces.

Officers acknowledged residents’ concerns on the omission of a third option inviting residents to give reasons why they did not wish to vote for either option but pointed to the fact that further consultation was proposed (4.3 of the recommendations).

In response to questions the following points were made: An example of a good quality scheme, similar to that proposed, could be found in Raynes Park. Whilst it was acknowledged that cyclists would have to cross the road to use the cycle track, it was considered that the incorporation of high quality surfaces, linked to segregated tracks on the A4 and other quiet routes, would make the scheme worthwhile. It was acknowledged that further design work was required at either end of the current proposed scheme, and at the safety of the transition between the proposed cycle scheme with the traffic scheme at the hump bridge at Boston Manor tube station. Officers agreed to look at concerns in relation to speeding along Boston Manor Road in connection with the mini roundabout at the junction with Swyncombe Avenue. It was acknowledged that the cycle path would narrow the operating width of the carriageway and that police colleagues would review the matter in relation to enforcing the speed limit. Hounslow Highways was contracted to clean and maintain the cycle paths along the A4. Concerns about cyclists using the ‘jug handle’ (Boston Park Road) on the northern side of the A4 to travel westward into the Sky complex across the pavement when there is a two- way cycle path available on the southern side of the A4.

Mr Brian Snowdon addressed the Area Forum with the permission of the Chair and made the following comments: The proposal didn’t take into account the differing nature of the northern (primarily residential) and southern (primarily commercial) sectors of Boston Manor Road had different needs. It was felt that the higher accident statistics recorded for the southern sector were disproportionately affecting the overall statistics for the section north of the A4. The results recorded for the consultation underplayed the objections raised by residents living north of the A4. Officers were invited to review the counter proposals submitted by residents such as the removal of the pedestrian refuge at , the proposal to refurbish existing cycle lanes and reduce the excessive length of the two bus stops (originally been intended to accommodate ‘bendy buses’), which would result in producing a further four to six parking bays. Mr Snowdon questioned why the two sections of the road had not been dealt with in accordance with their own individual needs. Residents along the northern section believed that Option A was unacceptable and that comments on Option B should be acknowledged. Option A proposed the removal of the grass verge on the western side of the road, which would lead to further objections in relation to car parking. Seeking clarification on the exact points at which the traffic audit was recorded, Mr Snowdon claimed that a large number of cyclists travelling northbound turned right along Swyncombe Avenue. Mark noted that he would look into the detail of the traffic survey following the meeting.

In response Mark made the following comments: Most cars and cyclists travelling north travelled the full length of the route. Continuity was required for cyclists between Boston Manor tube station and the A4. Officers believed they could realise everything that residents had requested through a better design of Option A. When asked why access to Boston Manor Park had not been considered, Mark indicated that the general view was that cyclists felt safer during hours of darkness travelling in well lit areas rather than through dark parkland.

Mr Mike Bawden proposed that the crossing at Blondin Park should be a pelican crossing. Mark Frost acknowledged that the proposals did not specify what would be used but noted that it would depend on the criteria used. Mark wished to amend the recommendation 4.1 c) to delete the word “zebra” and replace it with “controlled”.

Tom Beaton commented that Option A separated cars from cyclists and asked whether officers had access to any research on the area. He asked why a third option had not been included that proposed single segregated lanes on both sides of the road. Mark confirmed that this option had been considered and, whilst it was always the preferred option, the implementation costs would be prohibitive and it would have necessitated the removal of the southbound bus lane.

The Chair invited members’ debate on the matter. Mark assured members that officers would look at the start and end points. Referring to the consultation results he confirmed that the inclusion of the signatories on the subsequent petition had skewed the results. He also pointed out that those consulted included individuals who did not live on Boston Manor Road. Members were reminded that further consultation would follow.

Councillor Cadbury moved the officer’s recommendations. Whilst she was not convinced on Option A because of the increased investment required and the concerns raised this evening, she was assured of the potential for strong benefits including the opportunity to improve Swyncombe Avenue and to look at a route into Boston Manor Park and review of the existing CPZ. Councillor Dunne seconded the motion with the comment that many of the queries raised should be investigated in the next consultation stage.

The motion was carried by majority vote, with Councillor Collins abstaining and councillors Carey and O’Reilly voting against the motion.

Resolved: That officers progress with detailed design work for Option A, subject to the following: a) A review of the existing ‘BM’ Controlled Parking Zone, including consulting the residents of Boston Gardens. This should include a review of existing dropped kerbs, and opportunities for additional parking spaces off street. b) Development of a design option which is parking neutral; i.e. does not reduce the existing total length of CPZ bays within the BM zone. This will include looking into use of the second footway/grass verge on the western side of the road (from the Swyncombe Avenue junction northwards) and a review of the length of existing bus stops. c) A review of potential locations for new controlled crossings. d) Careful consideration of pedestrian / cyclist interaction, particularly at bus stops and for residents accessing vehicles. That, subject to successful resolution of the above, a detailed design would be presented to councillors for decision at the Isleworth and Brentford Area Forum, likely in the summer of 2015. That the design would be made available ahead of the meeting and that officers would continue to engage with ward councillors, residents, community groups and local businesses throughout the design process.

59. Brentford Creek Environmental Improvement Works

See report from the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment, Agenda Item 10.

In acknowledgement of the fact that the improvement plans were brought this meeting in September 2010, Councillor Dennison proposed that the matter should be delegated to Syon ward councillors, in consultation with the relevant officers, so that members could revisit the site to ensure that the plans were still relevant in light of the proposed development at the Land South of the High Street site. This was seconded by Councillor Collins.

The motion proposed by Councillor Dennison was carried by majority vote with no objections as follows: In favour: Councillors Louki, Dennison, Dunne, Sampson, Cadbury, Savin and Collins. Abstained: Councillors Carey, O’Reilly and Mayne.

Resolved: Members noted the contents of this report and by majority vote agreed that: a) The environmental improvements at Brentford Creek, as detailed in the design “Brentford Creek, General Agreement” shown in paragraph 3.2 of the submitted report be approved in principle, subject to a review by Syon ward councillors in consultation with officers to ensure that the proposals were integrated with the proposed development at Land South of the High Street, Brentford; b) The decision to approve the proposals should be delegated to the Chair in consultation with Syon ward councillors and the relevant chief officer.

9.55pm – Councillor Sampson proposed the suspension of Standing Orders in order to complete the business on the agenda, which was supported by all members present.

60. Planning Applications called in by members

See report from the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment, Agenda Item 11.

Councillor Collins noted that he had called in the application for the reasons stated in the submitted report, asking members to support his proposal that the matter is passed to Planning Committee. Councillor Sampson seconded this motion, which was unanimously supported by members present.

Councillor O’Reilly left the meeting at this point.

Councillor Louki sought clarification on the status of the application for 489 London Road. Mark Frost confirmed that, since the reports had been published, the applicant had offered mitigation in respect of the loading bay and servicing times, which had led the officer to recommend approval of the application. Members present supported the proposal to determine the application at Planning Committee.

Resolved: That the applications in the submitted report be determined by members at the Planning Committee.

61. Small Grants Report

See report from the Third Sector Partnerships Manager, Agenda Item 12.

Members considered the monitoring overviews for 2013/14 and 2014/15 and the Small Grant applications received as set out in Appendices A and B of the submitted report and agreed to award funding amounting to £500 to St Faith’s Church & Hall (Parish of Brentford) based on the application and information provided.

Resolved: That the Small Grant applications received as set out in Appendices A and B of the submitted report were considered. That the Area Forum awarded funding of £500 to St Faith’s Church & Hall (Parish of Brentord) at its discretion based on the application and information provided in Appendices A and B.

62. Area Forum Action Plan update - Councillor Mayne

See draft Action Plan, which was circulated to members at the meeting and attached to the electronic agenda pack following the meeting for reference, Agenda Item 5.

Dominic West proposed that an integrated corridor approach, which included the cycle superhighway proposals and footway schemes, was what residents wanted.

In response to Mr West’s concerns that no consultation or discussion on the 20MPH proposals had been held at this Area Forum, Mark Frost confirmed that a consultation on a boroughwide 20MPH was planned for late spring once work to confirm the location of the proposed schemes was completed.

Resolved: That the draft Action Plan should be noted.

63. Minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2014 and Matters Arising

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2014 be agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Matters Arising:

Minute 39: Brook Road South, Brentford: Members were informed that the consultation on the Brook Road South CPZ had been completed and results showed overwhelming support for the proposals. It was confirmed that no time delay would be imposed on the implementation of the operational times of the CPZ in Hamilton Road and Westbury Place and it was hoped that the implementation of the scheme could be initiated in March.

64. Date of next scheduled meeting - Thursday 5 March 2015

That the date of the forthcoming meeting be noted.

65. Consultation on Citizen Engagement

Councillor Dennison reminded members that the consultation would be open until January 23rd 2015 and that further responses were welcomed.

The meeting finished at 10:12 pm. The minute taker at this meeting was Kay Duffy