Agenda and draft minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

It was confirmed that all items were marked as Part I and would be heard in public.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition in objection to the change of use of Yiewsley Court sheltered housing scheme.

In objecting to the proposal to change the use of Yiewsley Court sheltered housing scheme, the lead petitioner put forward to the Cabinet Member some reasons against the change of use, and elderly residents being moved out of their homes. Key points raised by the petitioner included:

Following the consultative meeting the petitioner attended on Tuesday 20 September 2022 on a review of housing dedicated for use by older people that was provided by Hillingdon Council, the petitioner identified that residents needed help to remain in their homes.

The petitioner noted he contacted the Yiewsley Ward Councillor, Sital Punja, for further assistance from which they held their own residents meeting.

The petitioner acted as representative of 17 out of the 25 residents who expressed a desire to remain in Yiewsley Court.

It was noted that out of the 17 residents, one of the residents was reportedly occupying Yiewsley Court on a temporary basis and was not a permanent tenant.

Following submission of the petition, a family member of one of the signatories had contacted the Councilon their behalf to request thattheir signatureto the petitionbe removedon thegrounds that they had notunderstood what theywere signing, and in addition, accused the petitioner of doorstepping.

The lead petitioner made known that these claims were false and that the resident in question had expressed with certainty to him last week Saturday that he willingly signed the petition and would like to stay living in the property.

The petitioner respected the wishes of the 3 residents who had expressed a desire to move out of their homes. This left 5 residents remaining, who did not wish to become at all involved for reasons that possibly included the Home Loss Payment or awaiting the outcome of this petition.

The petition had acquired over 300 signatures within the local area, which included residents, their family members, the local church, the local doctor’s surgery, and the Robert’s Close Sheltered Housing Scheme.

The petitioner described the housing situation of a resident who was partially sighted, had lived in sheltered accommodation for 15years and was being looked after by her trusted neighbour whom she relied on. The petitioner posed the rhetorical question of what the resident would do without the help of her neighbour.

The petitioner described the housing situation of another resident who had severe reading and writing disabilities and had lived in sheltered accommodation for 6 years. The petitioner expressed that this particular resident enjoyed coffee mornings at the local church and felt safe knowing that he had helpful neighbours assisting him with tasks such as form-filling.

The petitioner cited another resident’s experience of living in sheltered accommodation who had been living in the property for 12 years, where there were many local shops as well as doctor and dental surgeries within walking distance. This resident was living in a perfect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition requesting a reversal of the Council’s decision to remove the 30 minutes free car parking for non-residents.

The petition organiser introduced himself as the chairman of the Hayes Town Business Forum which formed part of the local Chambers of Commerce that consisted of 71 members and was one of the largest business organisations in the Borough.

The lead petitioner put forward to the Cabinet Member some reasons not to abolish the 30 minutes free car parking for non-residents. Key points raised by the petitioner included:

The petition had received 1,121 signatures on behalf of the Hayes Town Business Forum and the Hayes Town Partnership.

Most of the members of the Hayes Town Business Forum were small, independent traders, with strong connections to the Hayes Town Partnership – a multi-agency body established approximately 20 years ago by the Council to promote the regeneration of Hayes Town.

The Chair of the Hayes Town Partnership had sent his apologies for absence for the Petition Hearing but wished to express to the Cabinet Member that the petition was fully backed by the entire Partnership.

The Council had done a lot to support Hayes Town Centre in recent years, beginning with the Shop Front Scheme which had helped transform the appearance and image of the town.

The introduction of the Stop and Shop Parking Scheme was initiated Borough-wide by the Council and the 30 minutes free parking was perceived as a vote of confidence in the town centre and shopping parades.

However, since the Stop and Shop Parking Scheme was put into force, there were a multitude of challenges that faced local shops. For example, operating costs were increased, there was the burden of business rates and also, long-term changes in customer shopping habits.

In addition, following the COVID-19 pandemic, although the government supported public health, the level of trade had not fully recovered.

Although many businesses were largely affected when fuel bills increased and there was rampant inflation in the cost of supplies caused by the war in Ukraine and other various factors, the government support energy charges were welcomed but this was being phased out and the economic recession was being predicted.

Since these recent changes, petitioners were found to be shocked that the Council had abolished the free 30 minutes parking scheme for non-residents which affected customers living in neighbouring Boroughs.

It was claimed there was no notice of the consultation.

The proposals included in the Council Budget report, which had been put forward for consultation, were expressed as having contained many details that were difficult to follow and did not allow a chance for the public and especially businesses to identify what the proposed change was and make an objection.

Hayes Town relied on attracting shoppers from neighbouring areas such as Northolt, Southall, and Hounslow, and many shops were struggling financially because they heavily depended upon drawing customers wherever they came from.

Hayes was a predominately low-income neighbourhood, where families struggled to pay their bills,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition requesting a review of the increased parking charges on High Streets and Council Car Parks.

The petition organiser introduced himself as a local business owner/ entrepreneur who represented the views and interests of independent business owners, residents and customers who were displeased by increased parking charges on High Streets and Council Car Parks.

The lead petitioner put forward to the Cabinet Member reasons to review the increased parking charges on High Streets and Council Car Parks. Key points raised by the petitioner included:

The increased parking charges discouraged both residents and non-residents from visiting Hillingdon when other nearby Boroughs and surrounding areas had similar offerings.

As a coffee shop owner, the lead petitioner found that one of the largest factors for sales was convenience. The petitioner highlighted that his store’s sales figures had decreased by 20% and that he now heavily relied on the powers of social media and petitions to connect with customers and ascertain their reasonings for no longer wishing to shop locally.

The lead petitioner had conducted a poll with 250 participants on 18 January 2023, out of which 98% of participants disagreed with the Council’s decision to increase parking charges on High Streets and Council Car Parks.

In Eastcote, where the petitioner’s business was located, shoppers needed only to travel an additional 3 minutes to Pinner in the London Borough of Harrow, where an hour of free parking was offered without the requirement to carry a Hillingdon First Card or its Borough equivalent, which was not always practical nor convenient to carry around or use.

The petitioner asked the rhetorical question of why friends and family from out-of-town visiting Hillingdon were required to pay twice as much as residents of the Borough were paying to visit the exact same coffee shops and restaurants in the area. In effect, this alienated people from visiting local businesses.

The petitioner cited Brent Cross Shopping Centre as an example of a well-known, relatively high-end shopping centre that was almost always busy which was attributable to the use of free parking. Thus, when it came to decision-making about where to shop, people were minded to visit Brent Cross Shopping Centre because of its parking benefits.

People spent less and saved more during the rising energy cost crisis and the Council’s decision to increase parking charges on High Streets and Council Car Parks was said to effectively shun non-residents.

Many customers who had moved out-of-town but used to re-visit the area to spend time with relatives no longer came back because of the increased parking charges.

The petition organiser concluded his statements and cited quotes from residents who wished to visit coffee shops similar to that of the lead petitioner’s but could no longer do so due to reasons pertaining to the increased parking charges on High Streets and Council Car Parks. Examples included:

‘I live in Harrow and it’s so expensive for me to go to Eastcote and Ruislip now. Harrow is still free for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.