Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

It was confirmed that all items were marked Part 1 and would be heard in public.

The Cabinet Member introduced the petition to be heard and welcomed petitioners to the hearing. One of the petitioners was present and addressed the Cabinet Member, key points of their address included:

·       That the petitioner was in attendance to represent the residents of Harmondsworth Road who were experiencing difficulties in finding suitable parking.

·       Petitioners were regularly parking up to a 15-minute walk from their properties in order to find suitable parking. This was especially difficult for those residents with disabilities or children with special educational needs.

·       It was noted that it became even more difficult to park after 8pm and this was assumed that most of the parking provision had been taken by people working at, or travelling from, the nearby Heathrow Airport. The U3 and 350 bus routes made it convenient for those people who wished to take advantage of parking on Harmondsworth Road and travelling onwards to Heathrow.

Officers highlighted that Harmondsworth Road was not far from the existing WD7 Parking Management Scheme and a number of years ago, residents from the opposite side of Harmondsworth Road to the petitioners submitted a petition to the Council asking to be included in a parking management scheme (PMS) which was consulted upon and implemented. At the time, it was not deemed that there was an appetite for inclusion in the PMS from the current petitioners’ side of Harmondsworth Road; however, this newly submitted petition clearly showed demand for inclusion in the scheme.

The Cabinet Member was minded to take forward the petitioners’ request for further investigation by officers. It was noted that, should this side of Harmondsworth Road be included in the WD7 PMS, neighbouring roads could experience a knock on effect of the same parking pressures. Officers highlighted that the knowledge of local Ward Councillors could help with the parameters of any consultation exercise and that these conversations could take place outside of the meeting.

That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)    Met with petitioners and listened to their request for a possible Parking Management Scheme;

2)    Noted the results of the previous consultations with nearby residents of Harmondsworth Road, as detailed in the body of the report; and,

3)    Asked officers to add this request to the Council’s extensive Parking Scheme Programme for further investigation and possible informal consultation in an area agreed with ward councillors.

The Cabinet Member introduced the petition and invited the lead petitioner to speak on the matter. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Cabinet Member, key points raised in their address included:

·         Holiday makers departing from Heathrow Airport took advantage of Cedars Drive as a place to park their car then to take the A10 bus to Heathrow.

·         Inconsiderate parking on what was a relatively narrow street had led to instances whereby emergency services were unable to make it down Cedars Drive.

·         Previous requests for parking restrictions by residents were thought to have been rejected by residents within the number of Closes that branched off from Cedars Drive where there was not an appetite for restrictions.

·         There were 43 houses on Cedars Drive and 33 had signed the resident led petition.

·         The minimum action that residents requested was a single yellow line operational for two hours a day on Cedars Drive, however and ideal outcome would be residents permit parking to correspond with other local roads such as Vine Lane and The Rise.

Councillor Adam Bennett, Ward Councillor for Hillingdon West, was present and addressed the Cabinet Member. Key points of his address included:

·         Cedars Drive effectively formed the eastern boundary of the current Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme (PMS) Zone HN1. The existing PMS had displaced those parking their cars onto Cedars Drive creating parking pressures for residents.

·         Cedars Drive was a narrow road with many instances of inconsiderate parking.

·         Residents acknowledged that previous petitions requesting a PMS in Cedars Drive had been pushed back upon consultation with residents however, it was felt that there was now sufficient appetite to be included in the Hillingdon Hill PMS.

·         If the adjacent Closes branching off from Cedars Drive did not want to be included in a PMS but the residents of Cedars Drive did, it should still be possible to implement a scheme that was appropriate.

Officers sought to address the petitioners’ suggested action of single yellow lines, to which it was stated that there was an often-unpopular impact upon residents in that they are unable to park on their road for two hours each day. However, this was an option that could be explored.

The Cabinet Member noted that previous consultations with residents of Cedars Drive had not born fruit, however upon hearing that 33 of 43 properties on Cedars Drive had signed the petition, he was encouraged that it was likely that there would now be sufficient support from residents for some kind of parking restrictions.

RESOLVED That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)    Met with petitioners and listened to their request for parking restrictions;

2)    Noted the results of the previous consultations with residents of Cedars Drive;

3)    Asked officers to add the request for the inclusion of Cedars Drive into the Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme Zone HN1 to the Council’s extensive Parking Scheme Programme and prepare proposals for an informal consultation in an area agreed with ward councillors.

The Cabinet Member introduced the item noting that neither the lead petitioner, ward councillors, nor residents were in attendance to present their petition. As such, the Cabinet Member explained that they had considered the petition received and sought to instruct officers to hold further discussions with the local ward councillors for Northwood and Northwood Hills regarding the merit of taking the petitioners’ request further.

RESOLVED: That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport instructed officers to conduct further discussions with relevant ward councillors regarding the merit of taking petitioners’ requests further for a pedestrian crossing on Watford Road, Northwood.

The Cabinet Member introduced the item and welcomed the lead petitioner’s nominated representative to present the petition. The petitioner’s representative addressed the Cabinet Member. Key points of their address included:

·         It was noted that Edgar Road had different characteristics along its length, and one part of the road had very small front gardens with a limited capacity for the possibility of off-street parking and dropped kerbs.

·         Since permit parking had been introduced in Colham Avenue, there had been a displacement of the parking problems into Edgar Road whereby people were parking there and using the West Drayton train station; and as such, residents were requesting that Edgar Road be included in a Parking Management Scheme.

·         It was highlighted that, should permit parking be implemented on Whitethorn Avenue and Providence Road, the residents of Edgar Road would be incredibly limited in places to park their vehicles.

The Cabinet Member sought to clarify with residents that the parameters of parking bays were strictly governed and often resulted in a reduction in the total capacity of parking when compared to an unrestricted road. It was also highlighted for residents of Edgar Road that there had been recent changes to the Council’s Dropped Kerb Policy which could open up the possibility of off-street parking where it had previously been unviable.

Officers confirmed that there was an adjacent Parking Management Scheme (PMS) called Y1 which incorporated Colham Avenue. There had previously been a number of petitions relating to parking in the area and Whitethorn Avenue and Providence Road had been consulted with fairly recently with regard to the implementation of a PMS, which would most likely be an extension to the Y1 scheme. Officers highlighted that when Edgar Road had been consulted with previously, the Council had in fact received a strongly worded petition opposing the introduction of parking restrictions in Edgar Road.

The Cabinet Member noted that it was likely that a PMS would be implemented on Whithorn Avenue and Providence Road and sought to consult with the residents of Edgar Road as to whether they would want to be included in the scheme. Residents were encouraged to engage with the consultation to ensure that the Council received a comprehensive picture of the appetite for a PMS on Edgar Road. The Cabinet Member reiterated that, as long as the majority of residents in Edgar Road were in favour of a scheme, the Council would endeavour to implement one. Officers highlighted that there are often roads of more than one type of character, and in these roads, it could sometimes be found that residents of one part of the road felt differently to those of another; this was a scenario in which local ward councillors could inform discussions as to whether a scheme o along a portion of the road may be appropriate.

RESOLVEDThat the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1. Met with petitioners and listened to their request for Edgar Road to be included in any possible Parking Management Scheme implemented in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.