Petition Schedule 2024
Petition to Debate to Reform of Redbridge Council’s Footway Crossing Policy
Ref: Pet. 466
Date Received: 22.11.2024
Subject:
We, the undersigned residents of Redbridge, call upon Redbridge Council to urgently review and update its Footway Crossing Policy. The current policy is overly rigid, inconsistently applied, and fails to address the genuine concerns of residents seeking reasonable property access.
Between May 2018 and October 2023, the council has received 75 complaints regarding this issue (FOl ref: 190978771, and the Highways department has not undertaken any substantive action to address residents‘ concerns. An online version of this petition has garnered over 77 signatures within a few months, demonstrating community support. There is no formal appeal process under the Highway Act 1980 under which permission for footway crossings are granted. Instead, the Highways department offers a "review’ of the initial application, which is conducted by the same senior managers responsible for developing or influence the policy. Consequently, this review process appears to be a token exercise with a predictable outcome.
One individual's application was supported by their former MP, current MP, and all three ward councillors. Despite this overwhelming endorsement, the Highways department persisted in refusing the resident's application by applying a blanket policy concerning a 4m2 dilapidated verge, without considering critical factors such as overall road safety, electric vehicle promotion, impact on residents right to enjoy their property peacefully, treating all residents equally, parking shortages, or the health needs of the residents. One resident the organiser encountered in the borough remains in a similarly challenging position, particularly given that immediate family members have cerebral patsy and other disabilities. The council's position appears irrational, yet there exists no mechanism to hold the department accountable due to the absence of a formal independent appeal/ review process.
The role of the Ombudsman is limited to identifying administrative "faults" and cannot adjudicate on matters of fairness, rationality, or reasonableness. The Highways department exploits this [imitation to avoid assessing applications on their individual merits and continues to apply policies in an inflexible manner. The only remaining recourse for challenging the council’s actions ties within the legal system, which is prohibitively expensive and disproportionate to the matter at hand.
Key lssues and action we would like the council to take:
lssue #1
Inflexibility and inconsistency: The council's policy on footway crossings has been applied inconsistently, with some residents being granted permissions despite higher flood risks white others are unfairly denied. This rigid approach disregards the specific circumstances 1 a of individual applications, resulting in manifestly unjust outcomes. The organiser resident was issued two warning letters for accessing their driveway despite several of the council representatives encouraging the resident to access their driveway in tight of Highways irrationality. Whilst some residents/neighbours who has been living and accessing their driveway since 2007 not receiving a single warning tetter.
Actions we want the council to take:
Consistency and Fairness: Ensure consistent policy application across all applications, with clear guidelines that prevent arbitrary decision-making. Concerns regarding potentially discriminatory policy application must be taken seriously.
Transparency Measures: Publish all dropped kerb applications and their outcomes on the Redbridge website, similar to planning application listings, to ensure accountability for disproportionate policy application.
Issue #2
Safety Concerns: The current policy does not adequately consider the comprehensive safety of the road. ln numerous instances, granting a footway crossing could potentially improve road safety by removing vehicles from often narrow streets, particularly in areas used as cut-throughs during peak hours. The council must prioritise safety and ensure policies are not implemented in a manner that potentially endangers residents.
Disregard for Resident Needs: The policy faits to consider the legitimate needs of residents, including those related to accessibility, mental health, and family circumstances, available spaces, width of the road, number of properties with existing footway crossing. Policies should be sufficiently adaptable to ensure they serve the people they are intended to protect. To balance residents' needs with broader initiatives, the council should seek reasonable remedies instead of applying blanket policies. For example, a simple solution could be to construct footway crossing utilising permeable materials, most notably the car park built in 2016 on Manford Way, as detailed in 'Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2023 - 2029' . This way both council's and residents meet are met at no extra cost to the council as the construction cost is passed on to the resident.
Action we want the council to take: Policy revision: Update the Footway Crossing Policy to incorporate a broader set of criteria, including overall road safety, resident impact, parking availability, and existing dropped kerb prevalence. The policy should allow discretion when supported by elected ward councillors or MPs.
lssue #3
Lack of independent Review: Unlike planning permissions, no independent review process exists for footway crossing appeals. An independent team, separate from the Highways department, should be established to review policy application and handle complaints. Ombudsman decisions should not be the sole basis for investigating complaints. We encountered a situation where the Ombudsman initially declined to investigate, and the Head of Highways deemed further investigation unnecessary. When the Ombudsman subsequently investigated a subsequent application, the Highways department's position shifted from asserting no "wrongdoing" to merely providing a comprehensive explanation for the application's refusal, rather than reconsidering the application as initially instructed.
Actions we want the council to take:
Appeal Process: introduce a fair and transparent appeal mechanism, enabling residents to present their cases in person and ensuring independent review by parties not involved in policy development. At minimum, complaints relating to Highways should be handled by an external department or independent individual.
Reinstate Local Representative Discretion: Reverse the recent policy change that removed ward councillors' discretionary powers. Ward councillors, being local elected representatives, are better positioned to understand local community needs compared to cabinet members and highway staff. The Highways department and Cabinet member must remain open to scrutiny to prevent authoritarian approaches.
lssue#4
Failure to Consider Precedents:
Redbridge Council’s policy remains excessively strict, repressive, and irrational, with no acceptable threshold for green verge loss. Several UK councils, including many in London, have established acceptable thresholds for green verge modification. For instance, Reading Borough Council considers green verge loss exceeding 8 sq. m unacceptable, Kingston allows up to 2m depth, and Birmingham City Council accepts modifications up to 3m.
Action we want the council to take:
Thresholds for Green Verge Loss:
Adopt reasonable thresholds for green verge modification, like those implemented by other councils, to facilitate more balanced decision-making. White a written acceptable threshold exists for tree loss (less than two years old), no equivalent standard exists for green verges.
Closing statement
We recognise the collective importance of protecting the borough's greenery. However, the current policy’s inflexibility and inconsistent application leave residents with no meaningful recourse. The council must prioritise residents' needs over inflexible, irrational blanket policies potentially influenced by individual perspectives.
By signing this petition, we seek to create a fairer, safer, and more resident-focused policy on footway crossings in Redbridge. We urge the council to carefully consider residents' concerns and take immediate, substantive action to address these important issues.
Number of Signatories: 77
Progress:
12.11.2024 - Acknowledgement sent.
05.03.2025 - Highways - The Council has a consistent process whereby it follows a policy that was approved at Cabinet. Council officers adhere to the policy and respond to applications and appeals that assess applications on their merits. Some applications would have been granted under previous policies that would not be granted now, however that is not inconsistency in relation to the policy officers are following, it is a change in policy over time.
The Council are informing residents who are illegally crossing the public highway onto their frontage without a dropped kerb, it cannot send out all letters at the same time, and are doing this when inspected or reports are received.
The Council will not be publishing dropped kerb applications and outcomes as at times personal information can be shared in relation to appeals which applicants do not want to be disclosed. Decisions are taken in line with the policy and officers are accountable to that.
Should any safety concerns such as the narrowness of the road be raised by residents, officers are minded to look at the roads parking restrictions instead of granting footway crossings that do not meet the policy criteria or go against the Council policy. Should there be any evidence of rat-running the Council are happy to look at those roads and investigate if measures can be introduced to reduce that from happening, which is part of a separate programme.
The Footway Crossing policy is not looking to be updated at the current time, the policy is still relatively new and the broader set of criteria proposed would not be factors within approving a dropped kerb if other factors would mean a dropped kerb should be rejected. The Council are not looking to reinstate members in the appeal process, the appeal process continues to be policy based.
Footway Crossings are given at the discretion of the Council, and an independent review is undertaken by an officer that is not included within the initial decision making process when an appeal is raised. The Independent officer looks at the application, refusal reasoning, and the contents of the appeal, and makes a decision based on the merits of the appeal against the policy.
The Council in its policy considered a wide range of alternatives if various thresholds should be considered, and decided that it did not want to set an acceptable limit to loss of green verges. This is a decision the Council has made and has been approved by Cabinet as part of the approval of the policy.
Petition Closed.
Woodlands Road, Ilford- Traffic Calming Measures
Ref: Pet. 467
Date Received: 18.12.24
Subject:
Woodlands Road, llford lG1 1JN is a one-way street between Grange Road and Albert Road. Three turnings come off it- motorists are often observed driving in the wrong direction and driving too fast. It’s a residential street, with a school nearby and it's a very busy pedestrian route. The residents are seriously concerned about safety, especially for the elderly, the vulnerable and the young. We, the undersigned, residents request the Highways Dept of the council to urgently investigate and consider installing safety measures such speed humps etc.
Number of Signatories: 24
Progress:
18.12.24 – Acknowledgement Sent
17.05.25 – Highways – Road safety is a priority for the Council and as such it has a Collision Reduction Scheme Programme that provides physical measures such as traffic calming, traffic management measures and pedestrian crossing improvements. This is primarily funded by Transport for London. Schemes included in this Programme are selected on the number of collisions that have occurred resulting in slight, serious or fatal injuries and there being appropriate physical measures that can be introduced to reduce these collisions. This funding has however drastically reduced over recent years as a result of the impact of the pandemic on TfL's income generated from bus and train fares.
Due to the limited funding available to develop remedial measures compared to the demand for these types of schemes, the Council has developed a matrix to assess and prioritise schemes, which includes consideration of collision data, traffic survey data and other highway related factors. This is also to ensure that scarce resources are targeted where most needed.
Our records show that there have been no personal injury collisions on Woodlands Road in the latest three years for which data is available (to 30th July 2024) and the 85%ile speed and traffic flows are low in the morning and evening peak hours. Woodlands Road is not currently on our programme but has been assessed using the Prioritisation Matrix and I will ensure that this location is included on our priority list of locations to be evaluated for a road safety scheme in our future years programme.
It is important to note that the Council receives hundreds of requests for various traffic measures each year and demand far exceeds the available resources. Consequently, only a few of the requests received each year can be taken forward.
In the meantime, instances of unlawful driver behaviour can be reported to the Police at the following link: https://www.met.police.uk/ro/report/rti/rti-beta-2.1/report-a-road-traffic-incident/.
This will help the Police identify patterns of unlawful activity for which they may be able to provide enforcement action.
I hope the above information is useful.
Petition Closed.
