(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Officer Delegated

If you require further information about a published decision please contact the officer whose name is on the relevant report.

OFFICER DELEGATED DECISIONS - PUBLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 3 OF THE OPENNESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES REGULATIONS 2014

Items received for Publication as at 29 March 2018

1. DDN 380 Mental Health Placements Manager post (Pages 1 - 3) 2. DDN 381 Traffic & Transport Service Structure Amendment (Pages 4 - 5) 3. DDN 382 Change Safeguarding Adult Review Coordinator Post from

a fixed-term to a permanent post (Pages 6 - 8)

4. DDN 383 Create one additional DoLS Officer post in the Deprivation

of Liberty Safeguards service (Pages 9 - 10)

5. DDN 384 Amendment to Cabinet Reports: REG393 12.07.16 Schools

Capital Maintenance Programme 2016-17;REG293 07.07.15 School Capital Maintenance Programme 2015-16; REG189 01.04.14 School Capital Maintenance Programme 2014-15; Allocate Contingency to the School Capital Maintenance Programme 2017-18 and to modify the programme to enable urgent works

(Pages 11 - 14)

6. DDN 385 Boston Manor Road – Objection to proposed extension to

Resident Parking Bays at Nos. 123,125 and 127 Boston Manor Road (Pages 15 - 17)

7. DDN 386 Augustus Close & Justin Close (part), Brentford - Proposed

Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Results of Detailed Design Consultation

(Pages 18 - 23)

8. DDN 387 Dementia Project Officer: New role being created for a 1

year secondment (Pages 24 - 25)

Items exempt from publication These items are exempt from publication as defined in the Paragraphs 1-7 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Mary Harpley, Chief Executive London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN

Date of Publication: 29 March 2018 If you require further information about the publication schedule please contact Chaspal Sandhu, Democratic Services Tel: 020 8583 2065 Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 3

Chief Officer Decision

[Written Statement – Regulation 13(4) Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)

(Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012]

Directorate

Children and Adults

Name and title of Chief Officer1

Mun Thong Phung

Date

02.03.18

Title for decision

Mental Health Placements Manager post

Key decision2

No

Forward Plan reference3

N/A

Decision

(To be recorded as soon as practicable and be available for inspection along with all background papers that have been used to inform the decision unless exempt from publication. If exempt include details of the exemption relied on here. Decision to be retained indefinitely in accordance with Records Management Policy)

To establish a new post of Mental Health Placements Manager within the Wellbeing, Recovery and Placements Team.

Reasons

Mental Health placements represent a growing area of activity for the Council, both in terms of placement numbers and overall cost. This upwards trend is to be expected, given the direction of travel in mental health (as for other ASC client groups) is for more people to be supported out of hospital for more of the time. In this context, placements play a vital role, both in providing a first step down from inpatient care and/or helping to prevent the need for admission. The majority of mental health placements commissioned by LBH are spot purchased and funded jointly with Hounslow CCG. There are currently around 80 placements of this kind and a further 40 (approx.) which are funded exclusively by LBH. Over the past 12-18 months, many improvements have been made both to the mental health placements function and to hospital discharge arrangements. The starting point for these improvements was the creation of two specialist social work posts with specific responsibility for hospital discharge and placements work, recognising that the job is done far more

1 Authorised officers are a Director, Assistant Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer. 2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings that is/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates OR is significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. 3 At least 28 days’ notice on the Forward Plan is required where decision is a key one

1

Agenda Item 1

Page 2 of 3

effectively by staff dedicated to this area of work. Capacity has recently been boosted with the addition of two social work assistant posts to assist with placement reviews, assessments and discharge-related support tasks. The final improvement now proposed is to replace one of the specialist social work posts with a new post of MH Placements Manager, to take overall responsibility for the placements function and supervision of relevant staff, so ensuring this vital area of work is effectively led and coordinated. A second key rationale for the proposed new post is to add much-needed capacity and expertise in terms of market shaping/development and supplier relationships. Working alongside joint commissioning colleagues, the MH Placements Manager will be responsible for building and maintaining an effective relationship with the market and negotiating with and supporting placement providers to deliver services which meet the Council’s requirements in terms of user needs, quality and value for money. The MH Placements Manager will also take a lead in identifying gaps in the range of provision available for Hounslow clients, developing market intelligence and finding ways to directly improve supply. Further details of the role are provided within the job description attached. The introduction of this new post is expected to bring significant benefits both in terms of the Council’s ability to control/ manage potentially escalating costs relating to mental health placements and the quality of service and outcomes delivered to residents.

ls of alternatives considered and rejected

Remaining as is – will not deliver the above improvements, particularly in relation to the market shaping function.

Factors taken into account (i.e. include here consideration of:

• public sector equality duty,

• biodiversity duty and

• crime and disorder implications of decision)

Name and title of any Cabinet member consulted

Member conflict of interest

Comments on behalf of the Chief Financial Officer (Key decisions only or where considered by the Chief Officer to be required)

Comments on behalf of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance (Key decisions only or where considered by the Chief Officer to be required)

2

Page 3 of 3

Signed

Dated

2nd March 2018

Date decision to take effect4

15th March 2018

End

4 To allow for call in of a key decision by Overview and Scrutiny decision will not take effect until the eighth clear day after the

date it is made.

3

Page 1 of 2


[Written Statement – Regulation 13(4) Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012 and the Openness of Local

Government Bodies Regulations 2014]

Directorate

Chief Executive’s Directorate


Mary Harpley, Chief Executive

Date

20 March 2018

Title for decision

Traffic & Transport Service Structure Amendment

Key decision2

Yes / No If yes set out details including the date and body that delegated the authority to the Chief Officer to make this decision


N/A

Decision


Authorises the amendment to the Traffic & Transport staff structure as outlined below. Creation of the following new post: Job Title: Graduate Transport Project Officer Grade: SC5-SO1 Deletion of the current post Job title: Technician (187509) Grade SC4-SC6

Reasons

The team has recently lost three technician level officers to career progression elsewhere. Recent recruitment rounds for this level of staff has generally led to no more than one appointable candidate. The service is keen to attempt to draw on the market for graduates that peaks in April and May. It is therefore proposed to change one existing technician grade post to a graduate transport project officer in order to test this market. Whilst this role commences at a slightly higher grade, the total additional cost is likely to be negligible and would in any case be recharged in full from capital budgets.

Details of alternatives considered and rejected

Do not recruit – this would represent a risk to the progression of traffic and transport projects at a reasonable timescale, given these generally carry a high profile politically and with local residents. Use consultants instead – this would be more costly then in-house

1 Authorised officers are an Executive Director, Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer. 2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings that is/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates OR is significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. Key decisions apply only to executive decisions. 3 At least 28 days’ notice on the Forward Plan is required where an executive decision is a key one

4

Agenda Item 2

Page 2 of 2

recruitment.





NA


N/A


Yes / No If yes set out details of conflict and any dispensation given by the Chief Executive

Comments on behalf of the Chief Financial Officer (Key decisions, where required under Financial Regulations and/or where considered by the Chief Officer in consultation with the Assistant Director Finance to be required)

The technician post is currently funded by TfL. This position would be deleted and replaced by a graduate transport project officer position. The additional cost of this over the next two years would be around £5k. This can be covered by the TfL ‘LIP’ grant. There is a risk that should the post holder bring with them long service from a previous role or employer significant redundancy costs could be due, however this is unlikely given the entry level nature of the position.

Comments on behalf of the Head of Governance (Key decisions only and/or where considered by the Chief Officer in consultation with the Head of Governance to be required)

N/A

Signed

Date decision to take effect4 20/03/2018

End

4 To allow for call in of a key decision by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, a decision will not take effect until the eighth

clear day after the date it is made.

5

Page 1 of 3

Chief Officer Decision[Written Statement – Regulation 13(4) Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)

(Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012 and the Openness of LocalGovernment Bodies Regulations 2014]

Directorate Children’s, Health and Adults Services

Name and title of ChiefOfficer1

Alan Adams, Executive Director

Date 23/03/2018

Title for decision Change Safeguarding Adult Review Coordinator Post from a fixed-termto a permanent post

Key decision2 Yes / NoIf yes set out details including the date and body that delegated the authority to the ChiefOfficer to make this decision


Decision(To be recorded as soon aspracticable and be available forinspection along with all backgroundpapers that have been used toinform the decision unless exemptfrom publication. If exempt includedetails of the exemption relied onhere. Decision to be retainedindefinitely in accordance withRecords Management Policy)

To change the part-time Safeguarding Adult Review Coordinator postfrom fixed-term to permanent to manage the high number of SARreferrals that have been received. This post is currently due to end inJune 2018.

The post is graded at SO1 and paid under budget code J6Q03.

Reasons A high number of statutory Safeguarding adult review referrals havebeen received in Hounslow since the Care Act 2014 lowered thethreshold for reviews. We anticipate that this increased level of referralwill be sustained going forward. Officers are unable to complete thesereviews within timescales due to the large number. Each case involvesa large amount of administration and report writing.

As per the Care Act 2014, Section 44: Safeguarding adults reviews

(1) A SAB must arrange for there to be a review of a caseinvolving an adult in its area with needs for care and support(whether or not the local authority has been meeting any ofthose needs) if—

1 Authorised officers are an Executive Director, Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer.2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings thatis/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates ORis significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. Key decisionsapply only to executive decisions.3 At least 28 days’ notice on the Forward Plan is required where an executive decision is a key one

6

Agenda Item 3

Page 2 of 3

(a) there is reasonable cause for concern about how the SAB,members of it or other persons with relevant functions workedtogether to safeguard the adult, and

(b) condition 1 or 2 is met.

(2) Condition 1 is met if—

(a) the adult has died, and

(b) the SAB knows or suspects that the death resulted from abuseor neglect (whether or not it knew about or suspected theabuse or neglect before the adult died).

(3) Condition 2 is met if—

(a) the adult is still alive, and

(b) the SAB knows or suspects that the adult has experiencedserious abuse or neglect.

(4) A SAB may arrange for there to be a review of any other caseinvolving an adult in its area with needs for care and support(whether or not the local authority has been meeting any ofthose needs).

(5) Each member of the SAB must co-operate in and contribute tothe carrying out of a review under this section with a view to—

(a) identifying the lessons to be learnt from the adult’s case, and

(b) applying those lessons to future cases.

Hounslow currently have three open reviews, three completed withoutstanding action plans, and a further four pending a final decision toproceed or on hold awaiting the outcome of a CPS investigation beforethey can proceed. Officers have been unable to complete thesereviews within the six-month timescale due to the large number.

Details of alternativesconsideredand rejected

a) Getting in additional business support to manage the SARs.Rejected because higher level of skills needed for reportwriting; confidence and ability to request information andactions from senior officers from across the council and multi-agency partners, high accuracy skills; and ability to summarisecomplex information from a range of sources.

b) SAB Business Manager and Head of Adult Safeguarding andQA continue to manage workload. Rejected becauseconflicting priorities and sheer number of SARs have meantthat we are not meeting SAR completion timescales, which willaffect the quality and effectiveness of the reviews

Factors taken into account(i.e. include here consideration of:

public sector equalityduty,

biodiversity duty and crime and disorder

implications ofdecision)

The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties, in particularwith respect to general duties arising from section 149 of the EqualityAct 2010. Having due regard to the need to advance equality involves,in particular, the need to remove or minimize disadvantages sufferedby equalities groups.

The Council has considered the relevance of the proposal to theprovisions of the Equality Act 2010, in particular for those with thefollowing protected characteristics: age, disability, gender

7

Page 3 of 3

reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex,sexual orientation and the Human Rights Act 1998 .The assessmentconcluded that Equalities Duties are not engaged by this proposal. Theproposal is also compatible with Human Rights Articles and as thereport does not have any significant bearing on the substantiveequality duty it is not considered necessary to undertake an EqualityAnalysis.

Name and title of anyCabinet member consulted

N/A

Member conflict of interest Yes / NoIf yes set out details of conflict and any dispensation given by the Chief Executive

Comments on behalf of theChief Financial Officer(Key decisions, where requiredunder Financial Regulations and/orwhere considered by the ChiefOfficer in consultation with theAssistant Director Finance to berequired)

Comments on behalf of theHead of Governance(Key decisions only and/or whereconsidered by the Chief Officer inconsultation with the Head ofGovernance to be required)

Signed

Date decision to take effect4 06/04/2018End

4 To allow for call in of a key decision by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, a decision will not take effect until the eighthclear day after the date it is made.

8

Page 1 of 2

Chief Officer Decision[Written Statement – Regulation 13(4) Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)

(Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012 and the Openness of LocalGovernment Bodies Regulations 2014]

Directorate CHAS

Name and title of ChiefOfficer1

Alan Adams

Date 23.3.2018

Title for decision Create one additional DoLS Officer post in the Deprivation of LibertySafeguards service

Key decision2 Yes / NoIf yes set out details including the date and body that delegated the authority to the ChiefOfficer to make this decision


Decision(To be recorded as soon aspracticable and be available forinspection along with all backgroundpapers that have been used toinform the decision unless exemptfrom publication. If exempt includedetails of the exemption relied onhere. Decision to be retainedindefinitely in accordance withRecords Management Policy)

To increase the establishment of the Deprivation of Liberty SafeguardsService from 2 DoLS officers to 3 DoLS officers.

Pay grade is PO1 with an annual salary of £31,170 to £33,444 plus on-costs

Cost code is J6QO1 Acct code A241

Reasons Following the 2014 Supreme Court decision (Cheshire West), whichradically altered the threshold at which a DoLS authorisation wasrequired, the number of DoLS referrals processed by LBH has risenfrom c30pa to c700pa. An additional full time DoLS officer wasrecruited and DoLS recording has moved to a new LAS DoLS modulebut this has not been sufficient to cope with the increased demand andto process DoLS in a timely manner, and backlogs of unprocessedDoLS have developed.

Please see attached paper, presented to DLT on 22.3.2018, for fullerdetails.

Details of alternativesconsideredand rejected

No viable alternative was identified which addressed the issue of howto manage the high level of demand within existing resources.

1 Authorised officers are an Executive Director, Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer.2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings thatis/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates ORis significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. Key decisionsapply only to executive decisions.3 At least 28 days’ notice on the Forward Plan is required where an executive decision is a key one

9

Agenda Item 4

Page 2 of 2

Factors taken into account(i.e. include here consideration of:

public sector equalityduty,

biodiversity duty and crime and disorder

implications ofdecision)

Supervisory bodies (effectively the relevant local authority) have a legalduty to complete the DoLS assessment and authorisation processwithin 21 days from receipt of an application. Along with most otherlocal authorities in England and Wales, following the Cheshire Westdecision Hounslow have failed to meet this deadline and are thereforeat risk of reputational damage and of potential fines of up to £30,000per delayed authorisation.

Name and title of anyCabinet member consulted

n/a

Member conflict of interest Yes / NoIf yes set out details of conflict and any dispensation given by the Chief Executive

Comments on behalf of theChief Financial Officer(Key decisions, where requiredunder Financial Regulations and/orwhere considered by the ChiefOfficer in consultation with theAssistant Director Finance to berequired)

Comments on behalf of theHead of Governance(Key decisions only and/or whereconsidered by the Chief Officer inconsultation with the Head ofGovernance to be required)

Signed

Date decision to take effect4 06/04/2018End

4 To allow for call in of a key decision by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, a decision will not take effect until the eighthclear day after the date it is made.

10

~ .. 6~ .. London Borough ,. of Hounslow

Chief Officer Decision [Written Statement - Regulation 13(4) Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012 and the Openness of Local


Directorate Asset Management and Major Projects

Name and title of Chief Michael Sudlow, Director of Asset Management and Major Projects Officer?

Date 26/03/18

Title for decision Amendment to Cabinet Reports REG39312.07.16 Schools Capital Maintenance Programme 2016-17 REG293 07.07.15 School Capital Maintenance Programme 2015-16 REG189 01.04.14 School Capital Maintenance Programme 2014-15 to Allocate Contingency to the School Capital Maintenance Programme 2017-18 and to modify the programme to enable urgent works

Key decision'' No

Forward Plan reference- n/a

Decision This report requests that the Director of Regeneration, Economic (To be recorded as soon as

Development & Environment (REDE) (now the Director of Asset practicable and be available for inspection along with all background Management and Major Projects) approves the following: papers that have been used to inform the decision unless exempt from publication. If exempt include a. the allocation of £1.1m of contingency from previous details of the exemption relied on

programmes (REG393 12.07.16 Schools Capital Maintenance here. Decision to be retained indefinitely in accordance with Programme 2016-17, REG293 07.07.15 School Capital Records Management Policy)

Maintenance Programme 2015-16, REG189 01.04.14 School Capital Maintenance Programme 2014-15) to enable the delivery of urgent projects as part of the 2017-18 Programme.

b. The amendment ofthe 2017-18 programme to change and postpone projects as outlined below including the budget increase of two projects by a total of £106,000.

The total programme budget will not exceed the combined total of

1 Authorised officers are an Executive Director, Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer. 2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings that is/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates OR is significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. Key decisions apply only to executive decisions. 3 At least 28 days' notice on the Forward Plan is required where an executive decision is a key one

Page 1 of 4 11

Agenda Item 5

£3,045,759 + £1,100,000 = £4,145,759 as agreed in this paper.

Reasons BACKGROUND The Cabinet on the 12 July 2016, 7 July 2015 and 1 April 2014 delegated authority to the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment (now the Director of Asset Management and Major Projects) to modify the schemes and budgets if necessary following site investigations provided spend remains within the original financial constraints as follows: REG393 12 July 2016 £3,735,255 REG293 7 July 2015 £3,022,468 REG189 1 April 2014 £2,498,174

In addition, the Single Member Decision REG527 School Capital Maintenance Programme 2017-18 was approved by Councillor Tom Bruce on 14 August 2017. This paper also delegated authority to the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment (now the Director of Asset Management and Major Projects) to modify the schemes and budgets if necessary following site investigations provided spend remains within the allocated budget of £3,045,759.

The outstanding contingencies for the above programmes has now been consolidated and agreed by Finance at £1,365,628. This paper seeks to allocate £1.1m of the outstanding contingency to projects outlined below.

Children, Housing & Adult Services (CHAS) commissioned Corporate Property to deliver the Schools Maintenance Capital Programme. Sheena Poley, Head of Place Planning and Admission, acts as the Client Representative for this programme of works. Sheena Poley has been consulted and has approved the proposed amendments.

The Asset Management Plan Advisory Group (AMPAG) are a group of Head Teachers and LA officers that meets termly to agree planned maintenance programmes to the school portfolio and discuss associated premises issues. AMPAG have been consulted and has approved the proposed amendments.

a. Allocation of £l.1m of contingency from previous programmes The following 4 urgent projects have been identified following the approval of the 2017-18 programme:

i. Lionel Urgent Heating Plant Upgrade ii. Marlborough Mobile Repairs iii. Orchard Urgent Roof Renewal

£205,000 £10,000 £800,000

Page 2 of 4 12

iv. Wm Hogarth Upgrade of Gates & Fencing (H&S) £145,000

v. Heathland Chiller Repairs £3,000

To enable these projects the following 5 allocated projects need to be postponed to a future programme:

i. Lionel External Repairs £52,000 ii. Orchard Kitchen Cladding inc Fire insulation upgrade £40,000 iii. Orchard Various Door Replacements £23,000 iv. Southville Jnr Window Replacement £163,000

Site investigations confirmed that these projects could be delayed for a least a further 12 months. In addition, the following project was confirmed as not required:

i. Smallberry Green External Repairs £19,000

In addition, 2 allocated projects need to be amended as site investigations have identified a more urgent project and increased the scope. Therefore, this paper requests the following: i. The Green Dragon Ventilation Investigation project scope is

increased to include the Heating Upgrade and the budget increased by £46,000 from £19,000 to £65,000

ii. The Beavers Upgrade Doors and Fire Doors in changed to Concrete and Rainwater Goods Repairs and the budget is increased by £60,000 from £40,000 to £100,000.

The cancellation of the 5 projects along with the additional £l.lm from the programme contingencies releases the £l.3m required to undertake the 7 projects identified above.

Details of alternatives n/a considered and rejected

Factors taken into account n/a (Le. include here consideration of:


• biodiversity duty and • crime and disorder

implications of decision)

Name and title of any n/a Cabinet member consulted

Member conflict of interest No

Comments on behalf of the Not a key decision Chief Financial Officer (Key decisions, where required under Financial Regulations and/or where considered by the Chief Officer in consultation with the Assistant Director Finance to be required)

Page 3 of 4 13

Head of Governance Comments on behalf of the Not a key decision

(Key decisions only and/or where considered by the Chief Officer in consultation with the Head of Governance to be required)

Signed

Date decision to take effect'

4 To allow for call in of a key decision by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, a decision will not take effect until the eighth clear day after the date it is made.

Page 4 of 4

End

14

Page 1 of 3




Directorate

Chief Executive


Mark Frost Head of Traffic and Transport

Date

28 Mach 2018

Title for decision

Boston Manor Road – Objection to proposed extension to Resident Parking Bays at Nos. 123,125 and 127 Boston Manor Road.

Key decision2

No


n/a

Decision


The Chief Officer notes:

a) that the objection has been received and not resolved the

introduction of the proposed CPZ along Boston Manor Road and more

precisely in front of Houses Nos. 123,125,127

(b) (i) Maintain the existing bay in front of houses nos. 125-127 at its

existing length

(ii) Extend the bay in front of houses nos. 125-127 (c) The objector be informed of this decision.

Reasons

As part of a new cycle scheme on Boston Manor Road, a number of changes to resident parking bays in the road have been proposed. This includes extensions to a number of bays on the odd numbered side of the road. The Traffic Management Order (TMO) setting out these proposals was advertised from 1st to 22nd December 2017 During the statutory consultation stage, one objection was received from the resident of No. 125, objecting to proposals to extend the bays at Nos. 121 – 123 and 125 – 127. A number of points were raised in this objection, which are summarised below:

The current bays outside Nos.125-127 and the bay outside house No.123 restrict visibility for vehicle s using the driveway at No. 125m, particularly when a van or a high sided vehicle is parked in these bays, creating a highway safety issue.

Visibility is further reduced when a motor vehicle is parked in the bay and has its door opens.

1 Authorised officers are an Executive Director, Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer. 2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings that is/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates OR is significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. Key decisions apply only to executive decisions. 3 At least 28 days’ notice on the Forward Plan is required where an executive decision is a key one

15

Agenda Item 6

Page 2 of 3

The geometry of Boston Manor Road, which is curved in this section, also restricts visibility.

The downhill gradient for southbound vehicles result in high vehicle speeds.

The driveway is accessed by reversing across the footway, across pedestrians who are often distracted and unaware of manoeuvring vehicles.

Vehicles have to enter the opposing lane to complete reversing manoeuvres.

The extension of these bays side will further restrict visibility and exacerbate all these issues.

No objections were received from those other households adjacent to the proposed bay extension, Nos. 121, 123 and 127 Boston Manor Road. Officer Response According to guidance, 43 of visibility of oncoming is required in both directions when emerging from a driveway in this situation, to give the required stopping distance for any vehicle moving along the road. This is measured from a point 2.4 metres back from the kerb line to a point 1 metre into the carriageway from the nearside kerb line. This distance of 2.4m is based on the fact that the driving position is 2.4m back from the front of the car once a bonnet is allowed for. The design here meets this requirement. A Road Safety Audit of the proposals was been undertaken in August 2017 and did not raise any issues or comments regarding the extensions of the parking bays on Boston Manor Road. This is an independent audit. The Personal Injury Accident (PIA) record going back five years for the existing accesses in the vicinity of the site does not show any PIAs associated with existing accesses (from our GIS map system). Boston Manor Road is a road subject to a 30mph speed limit. Traffic speed surveys from 2016 (ATC located approximately 10 metres from the property) show existing speeds in this section of Boston Manor Road are slightly higher than the speed limit:

Average Speeds and Directions

Directions Northbound Southbound

Boston Manor Road 30.9 mph 32.7 mph

The cycle scheme will reduce the width of the carriageway by approximately three metres, which is a significant reduction. This could be expected to restrain traffic speeds. In terms of vehicle doors restricting visibility, temporary restrictions on visibility are common, drivers are expected to wait in such situations. Similarly, reversing manoeuvres should be carried out with care especially when crossing the path of pedestrians. In conclusion, we have adhered to the design guidance in this

16

Page 3 of 3

situation, and neither the existing or extended bays have any significant impact on the local highway network or highway safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other highway users in the vicinity of the proposal. However, as a compromise with, and concession to, the resident we propose that the bay outside his property is not extended. The amended proposals are set out in Appendix A.


The alternative option would be to leave the bay as existing and withdraw the proposed extension of the bay. However, given that only one objection has been received, it would be disproportionate not to proceed.


public sector equality duty,

biodiversity duty and

crime and disorder implications of decision)

The council has to give due regard to its equalities and in particular with respect to the public sector equality duty as provided in the Equality Act 2010, section 149. There is no evidence to indicate that the equality duties have been engaged by this proposal. The assessment concluded that none of the equalities protected characteristics are affected by this proposal because the proposal is remote or peripheral to the substance of the equality duty. Therefore, it is considered that there is no need for an Equalities Impact Assessment to be carried out and that in approving this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010.


n/a


No


n/a


n/a

Signed


28/03/2018

1. End



17

Page 1 of 2




Directorate

Chief Executive’s Department


Mark Frost

Traffic, Transport & Environmental Strategy

Date

23 March 2018

Title for decision

Augustus Close & Justin Close (part), Brentford - Proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Results of Detailed Design Consultation

Key decision2

No


n/a

Decision

(To be recorded as soon as practicable and be available for inspection along with all background

papers that have been used to inform the decision unless exempt from publication. If exempt include

details of the exemption relied on here. Decision to be retained indefinitely in accordance with

Records Management Policy)

The Chief Officer note the results of the detailed design consultation

and agrees that the CPZ proposals be withdrawn due to a lack of

support.

Reasons

The above decision is being made following consultation with residents of Augustus Close and Justin Close during which the majority of respondents did not support the introduction of the proposed CPZ on the adopted public highway of Augustus Close and Justin Close (part). The results, which are detailed at appendix A and summarised in the attached briefing note (Augustus Close Brentford – Proposed CPZ Detailed Design Consultation Results), show that of the 199 responses received, 160 were opposed to the introduction of a CPZ with only 39 indicating support. There were a variety of comments submitted during the consultation process indicating that a CPZ was not supported, which included a) there being no parking problem, b) a scheme should incorporate all parking areas, not just the adopted public highway, c) the CPZ proposals will only create parking difficulties in the private parking

1 Authorised officers are an Executive Director, Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer. 2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings that

is/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates OR is significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. Key decisions apply only to executive decisions. 3 At least 28 days’ notice on the Forward Plan is required where an executive decision is a key one

18

Agenda Item 7

Page 2 of 2

areas, and d) it is unfair to allow residents of Augustus Close to apply for permits for the CPZ but not Justin Close residents. For clarity, the CPZ proposals included the caveat that if the scheme was introduced, only those addresses fronting the public highway (all Augustus Close addresses but only Romulus Court from Justin Close) would be eligible to purchase permits as this would ensure the CPZ had sufficient parking provisions to accommodate the demand.


The alternative options would be to progress the CPZ to the formal (statutory) consultation stage although, due to the lack of support received, this option is not considered appropriate.


public sector equality

duty,

biodiversity duty and

crime and disorder

implications of decision)

The council has to give due regard to its equalities and in particular with respect to the public sector equality duty as provided in the Equality Act 2010, section 149. There is no evidence to indicate that the equality duties have been engaged by this proposal. The assessment concluded that none of the equalities protected characteristics are affected by this proposal because the proposal is remote or peripheral to the substance of the equality duty. Therefore, it is considered that there is no need for an Equalities Impact Assessment to be carried out and that in approving this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010.


Councillors K. Dunne, S. Curran and T. Dennison Syon Ward Councillors


No

Comments on behalf of the Chief Financial Officer (Key decisions, where required under Financial Regulations and/or where considered by the Chief

Officer in consultation with the Assistant Director Finance to be required)

n/a


n/a

Signed


28/03/2018

1. End



19

Augustus Close & Justin Close (part), Brentford Results of Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Detailed Design Consultation

20 March 2018 Andrew Nye, Senior Engineer (Parking Management), Traffic & Transport Tel: 020 8583 4875 [email protected] BRIEFING NOTE 1.0 Recommendation 1.1 That Members note the contents of the briefing note, which details the results of

the Augustus Close proposed controlled parking zone (CPZ) consultation;

1.2 That the proposed controlled parking zone not be progressed due to a lack of support from those consulted;

1.3 That officers notify the consultees of the outcome of the consultation and decision(s) taken.

2.0 Background 2.1 At the May 2016 Isleworth and Brentford Area Forum (IBAF), Members consider a

briefing note detailing receipt of a petition with 22 signatures request the Council “consult on introducing a CPZ n Augustus Close and Justin Close”. The petition indicated that parking levels within the roads had gradually increased overtime and this was attributed to displaced parking from nearby new residential developments, workers from nearby businesses and shoppers seeking free parking.

2.2 The briefing note further detailed that Augustus Close and Justin Close, which

incorporates approximately 600 dwellings, consists of adopted public highway, private land managed by Hounslow Housing and private land managed by Brentford Dock Limited. The note acknowledges that the potential introduction of a CPZ on the adopted public highway could have adverse impacts on parking in the privately maintained areas as a result of displaced parking.

2.3 Following consideration of the petition and associated briefing note, Members

agreed that officers should progress a CPZ consultation with residents of Augustus Close which should extend to include Brentford Dock Limited. It was also agreed that residents of Justin Close should be notified of the Councils decision to consult with Augustus Close and that they should be kept informed of any subsequent decision(s) taken.

3.0 Detailed Design Consultation Results 3.1 Prior to the commencement of the detailed design consultation process and

following discussions between ward councillors and officers, it was agreed to extend the consultation to all occupants of Justin Close as a) a small section of Justin Close is public highway and proposed for inclusion in the CPZ and b) residents of Justin Close would almost certainly be impacted in the event of a CPZ being introduced on the adopted public highway and were therefore entitled to express their views on the proposal.

3.2 The detailed design consultation document, which included a letter explaining the

proposals, details explaining how CPZs works, permit charges, etc., a plan showing the proposed scheme design and a questionnaire for residents to 20

mailto:[email protected]

complete and return in the pre-paid return envelope provided, was delivered to a total of 595 addresses within Augustus Close and Justin Close. From this, a total of 199 responses were received via either the paper questionnaire or the online ‘Survey Monkey’ questionnaire, which represents an overall response rate of 33%. The responses to the questionnaire are summarised below and the full results table can be viewed at Appendix A.

3.3 Question 1 asked residents if they were in favour of a CPZ being introduced on the public highway extents of Augustus Close and Justin Close. The results, which are shown below, indicated overwhelming opposition to the proposed introduction of parking controls with only respondents from Galba Court indicated majority support for the scheme.

Note: Justin Close - A = adopted public highway Justin Close - P = private road

3.4 The returned questionnaires were accompanied by a number of comments

amongst which the most common were, a) there is no parking problem, b) a scheme should incorporate all parking areas, not just part, c) the CPZ proposals will only create parking difficulties in the private parking areas, and d) it is unfair to allow residents of Augustus Close to apply for permits for the CPZ but not Justin Close residents. For clarity, the CPZ proposals included the caveat that if the scheme was introduced, only those addresses fronting the public highway (all Augustus Close addresses but only Romulus Court from Justin Close) would be eligible to purchase permits to ensure the CPZ had sufficient parking space to accommodate the demand.

3.5 In light of the responses to question 1, it is officer’s view that there is no

justification to advance the proposals any further and the CPZ scheme should be withdrawn.

3.6 In in the interests of providing full information, and despite the comments made at

paragraph 3.5 and overwhelming opposition to the proposed CPZ, the results to remainder of the consultation have been summarised below.

ROAD No. of

Responses No. of

Properties Response Rate (%)

Q1. Are you in favour of your road being included in a CPZ?

Yes No

Augustus Close 22 38 58% 3 19

Galba Court (Augustus Close)

21 82 26% 12 9

Leo Court (Augustus Close)

1 21 5% 0 1

Maurice Court (Augustus Close)

11 33 33% 2 9

Otho Court (Augustus Close)

49 110 45% 10 39

Servius Court (Augustus Close)

3 21 14% 0 3

Romulus Court (Justin Close - A)

27 88 31% 8 19

Justin Close 1 3 33% 0 1

Julius Court (Justin Close - P)

12 30 40% 1 11

Marcus Court (Justin Close - P)

6 15 40% 0 6

Nero Court (Justin Close - P)

17 64 27% 1 16

Numa Court (Justin Close - P)

25 90 28% 1 24

No Address 4 n/a n/a 1 3

Total 199 595 33% 39 160

21

37. Question 2 asked residents whether, in the event of the CPZ being introduced,

they were satisfied with the proposed CPZ design. The vast majority of respondents did not support the proposed scheme design and this is unsurprising in light of the responses received to question 1. A number of comments were received indicating opposition to the proposed introduction of shared-use parking bays on Augustus Close near its junction with High Street (which is currently marked with double yellow lines), as well as general opposition relating to the proposal to include only part of the wider ‘Brentford Dock Estate’ in the CPZ.

3.7 Questions 3 asked residents whether, in the event of a CPZ being introduced,

they would support inclusion in the nearby Brentford West ‘area’ CPZ or the creation of a separate standalone CPZ that would only incorporate the adopted public highway extents of Augustus Close and Justin Close. The responses indicate a significant majority of 115-27 in support of a standalone CPZ.

3.8 Questions 4 and 5 were in relation to the possible creation of a standalone CPZ,

asking residents what operational days (question 4) and operational times (question 5) they would support in the event of a standalone CPZ being introduced.

3.9 The responses to question 4 indicated majority support for a Monday-Friday

scheme with 62 responses favouring this option as opposed to 9 in support of a Monday-Saturday scheme and 48 in support of a Monday-Sunday scheme.

3.10 The responses to question 5 indicated majority support for a 10am-Noon CPZ with

37 responses in support, 21 responses in support of a 9-11am & 2-4pm scheme, and 25 responses in support of a 9.30am-7pm scheme. In light of the response to question 1, it unspringing that the number of responses to questions 3, 4 and 5 decreases quite substantially.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 As a result of the significant opposition to parking controls received during the consultation process, it is officers’ recommendation that the Augustus Close CPZ proposals not be progressed and the adopted public highways extents of Augustus Close and Justin Close remain unrestricted as at present.

BREIFING NOTE ENDS

22

Augustus Close, Brentford -Proposed Controlled Parking Zone - Detailed Design Consultation Results - March 2018

Street NameTotal No. of

Responses

Total No. of

Properties

Response

Rate (%)

Yes No Yes No

Existing

Brentford West

CPZ

New Standalone

CPZMon-Fri Mon-Sat Mon-Sun

10am-

Noon

9-11am &

2-4pm

9.30am-

7pm

Augustus Close 22 38 58% 3 19 5 15 3 13 8 2 4 6 1 5

Galba Court

(Augustus Close)21 82 26% 12 9 11 10 6 13 5 2 8 1 3 3

Leo Court

(Augustus Close)1 21 5% 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Maurice Court

(Augustus Close)11 33 33% 2 9 4 6 2 6 4 0 2 2 1 2

Otho Court

(Augustus Close)49 110 45% 10 39 15 33 7 32 13 2 16 9 3 6

Servius Court

(Augustus Close)3 21 14% 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Romulus Court

(Justin Close - A)27 88 31% 8 19 8 17 2 19 8 1 8 3 6 6

Justin Close 1 3 33% 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Julius Court (Justin

Close - P)12 30 40% 1 11 1 11 0 5 4 0 3 4 1 1

Marcus Court

(Justin Close - P)6 15 40% 0 6 0 6 1 3 2 0 1 2 0 0

Nero Court (Justin

Close - P)17 64 27% 1 16 2 9 1 10 5 2 4 3 2 1

Numa Court

(Justin Close - P)25 90 28% 1 24 3 10 3 10 10 0 1 6 2 1

No Address 4 n/a n/a 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 0

Total 199 595 33% 39 160 50 125 27 115 62 9 48 37 21 25

Q5. If you support a new

standalone CPZ, what

operational hours would you

support?

Q1. Are you in favour of

a CPZ?

Q2. If a CPZ were to be

introduced, are you satisfied

with the proposed scheme

design?

Q3. If a CPZ were to be introduced,

would you scheme would you

support inclusion in?

Q4. If you support a new

standalone CPZ, what operational

days would you support?

23

Page 1 of 2


[Written Statement – Regulation 13(4) Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012

and the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014]

Directorate

CHAS


Mun Thong Phung

Date

28/03/2018

Title for decision

New role being created for a 1 year secondment

Key decision2

Yes /No Dementia is high on the agenda for ALL boroughs and currently Hounslow sits behind its peers locally in pushing forward their Dementia agenda. Current services are fragmented with no cohesive pathway or integrated systems in place.


To improve and take forward the Dementia agenda under the North West London Partnership agreement by taking a project worker from within adult’s social care.

Decision


To create a project worker from within the borough for 1 year who will be a qualified OT or social worker at managerial level. To drive the Dementia agenda forward and implement joined up systems across the services and improve ASC Dementia awareness and practice, through robust implementation and subsequent monitoring of outcome focused systems and practice that includes voluntary and health partners. .

Reasons

Hounslow are behind their peers in delivering a Dementia friendly and systemic programme of actions and outcomes to residents who have Dementia.


Further use of an AMPH in an existing unfilled post, in delivering the work, but this new work could be watered down as their other role would be to undertake frequent MHA assessments on the AMPH rota which will lose the focus and strategic prevention agenda of the project.

1 Authorised officers are a Director, Assistant Director or an officer who reports directly to a Chief Officer. 2 A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings that is/are significant (i.e. £250,000 or more) having regard to the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates OR is significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. Key decisions apply only to executive decisions. 3 At least 28 days’ notice on the Forward Plan is required where an executive decision is a key one

24

Agenda Item 8

Page 2 of 2





Hounslow has one of the highest Dementia populations for a number of reasons and those residents with Dementia do not benefit from access to preventative services, which are not currently either encouraged nor are they easily accessible.



Yes / No If yes set out details of conflict and any dispensation given by the Chief Executive



Signed


12th April 2018

End

4 To allow for call in of a key decision by Overview and Scrutiny decision will not take effect until the eighth clear day after the

date it is made.

25

Documents

(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Officer Delegated