Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

It was confirmed that the business of the meeting would take place 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:

·         The petitioner had lived in Redmead Road since 1978. It had originally been a quiet road but was now filthy and used as a dumping ground. Local Councillors and the local MP had been contacted but to no avail. The situation was very upsetting and stressful;

·         Parking was an issue in the road and was exacerbated by the proximity of Hayes and Harlington Station. HGVs and vans regularly parked on both sides of the road hence visibility was an issue;

·         Antisocial behaviour related to drinking and drug taking was another concern. Improved lighting and CCTV had been requested but nothing had happened;

·         The petitioner had applied for a vehicle crossover, but the application had been rejected by the Council;

·         It was very difficult for residents to park outside their houses - the petitioner often chose to take the bus rather than lose the parking space.

The Cabinet Member observed that regulations in relation to vehicle crossovers had recently been updated to allow for more flexibility – the matter would be referred to colleagues in Highways who would be requested to liaise with the petitioner directly. Concerns raised by the petitioner in relation to antisocial behaviour, litter and vermin would also be relayed to the appropriate officers to take forward.

It was noted that it was possible some Heathrow Airport passengers were leaving their cars in Redmead Road before going on holiday. There was also an industrial estate nearby which would add to the parking stress in the road.     

The Cabinet Member was minded to take forward the petitioners’ request for further investigation by officers. Officers agreed to review the situation in Redmead Road and consider the best possible solution. One option could be parking permits but there was a cost involved in these. Residents would be given an opportunity to approve any proposed scheme prior to its introduction.

That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)    Met with petitioners and listened to their request for the Council to consider parking controls in Redmead Road, Hayes;

2)    Asked officers to review all possible options and consider adding the request for parking controls to the Council’s extensive Parking Scheme Programme and prepare an informal consultation in an area agreed in liaison with local Ward Councillors;

3)    Asked for matters of litter and vermin to be addressed by the relevant department and portfolio as appropriate; and

4)    Asked the Highways department to liaise with the petitioner regarding their request for a vehicle crossover.

The Cabinet Member introduced the petition to be heard. A written representation had been received from the Lead Petitioner which was read out for the consideration of the Cabinet Member. Key points highlighted included:

·         There were three main areas of concern in Elm Avenue and Park Way which related to speed limit, weight limit and lack of pedestrian refuge island;

·         Speed limit - it was recognised that the Council had no speed enforcement powers and was not responsible for safety cameras. However, the Council could work with TfL to request a review of speed limits and speed cameras which would ensure the 30 mph speed limit was adhered to. Proactive safety measures were vital rather than waiting for an accident to happen;

·         Weight limit – the number of HGVs using Elm Avenue and Park Way had increased significantly. The Council was asked to enforce restrictions for these HGVs as they caused noise and vibrations which disturbed residents. The traffic surveys suggested in the report would be welcomed as they could lead to traffic calming measures. The petitioner would be happy to recommend locations for the survey equipment to be installed. The proposal to enforce and upgrade traffic restrictions in place on Chelston Road would also be welcomed; and

·         Lack of Pedestrian Refuge Island – the Council was asked to explore the possibility of pedestrian refuge islands which were already present on other smaller roads in Hillingdon.

Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne was in attendance and addressed the Cabinet Member confirming that there had been a fatality in Elm Avenue some years previously and the road had been widened as a result. It was noted that the enforcement of a 20mph speed limit was a matter for the Police not for the Council. Traffic surveys were supported to establish the extent of the issue.

Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood was also in attendance. He did not fully support the introduction of a 20mph speed limit and raised some concerns regarding raised tables. However, Councillor Smallwood supported the idea of road traffic surveys noting that it was important to gather evidence. He also believed signage could be a useful deterrent.

The Cabinet Member noted that he would only support the idea of a 20mph speed limit adjacent to a school as such speed limits were difficult to enforce.

The Cabinet Member was minded to take forward the petitioners’ request for further investigation by officers. It was noted that a pedestrian crossing would be challenging but weight limit restrictions and a refuge island would be explored further. It was agreed that, following the meeting, the Traffic, Parking, Road Safety, School Manager would liaise with the Lead Petitioner on potential locations for the speed survey equipment.

That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)    Met with petitioners and listened to their request for traffic calming and safety measures in Elm Avenue and Park Way, Ruislip;

2)    Noted petitioners’ concerns over vehicle speeds and level of HGVs on Elm Avenue and Park Way and instructed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

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:

·         The petitioner did not support the proposed extended double yellow lines as they appeared to cross in front of house numbers 1, 12 and 13 Hinton Road – this had not been clearly indicated in the original proposed design. It was noted that some residents had allegedly, not received the letter from the Council or had received the wrong information;

·         Footway parking on one side of the road was proposed;

·         Traffic wardens did not regularly patrol the road hence people often parked their cars on double yellow lines;

·         A parking management scheme had been supported by some residents but not by others. The proposed extended double yellow lines were not wanted but something needed to be done to address the issues in the road.

The Cabinet Member noted the residents’ concerns regarding the proposed extension of the current double yellow lines.

Officers observed that pavements in Hinton Road were narrow – however, the option of footway parking would be explored further. A parking management scheme in the area was also an option though it was noted that previous proposals had met with some resistance. To proceed, such a scheme would need to be supported by the majority of the residents of Hinton Road.

The Cabinet Member was minded to take forward the petitioners’ request for further investigation by officers. Officers agreed to review the situation in Hinton Road and consider the best possible solution. Proposals would be developed to share with residents and residents would be consulted on next steps.

That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

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

2)    Noted that the testimonies received during the formal consultation for the proposed introduction of double yellow lines within Hinton Road would be considered within a separate Cabinet Member report;

3)    Noted the request for footway parking to be considered in Hinton Road and asked officers to investigate the feasibility of this request and report back to the Cabinet Member with their findings; and

4)      Explained to petitioners that the Council was unable to enforce parking restrictions by way of camera enforcement following the 2015 Deregulation Act which restricted London Boroughs from legally doing so.

The Cabinet Member introduced the petition to be heard. The Lead Petitioner was present and addressed the Cabinet Member. Key points highlighted included:

·         The Lead Petitioner was the Headteacher at ACS Hillingdon International School which was a school for some 600 children aged 4-18 years. Approximately 100 staff members worked at the school many of whom lived in the Borough;

·         Crossing the road to reach the school was very dangerous as traffic was heavy and cars sped in both directions;

·         Raised chicanes were already in place but were ineffective and drivers tended to swerve to avoid them. Road markings were also in place but had no impact on the traffic speed;

·         The challenges involved in building a pedestrian crossing were acknowledged. It was felt that raised cushions alongside the school would help to improve safety and encourage people to walk to school;

·         The Lead Petitioner highlighted the use of the word ‘disingenuous’ in Section 13 of the report and felt the finger-pointing tone used was rather disappointing. The school wished to work in collaboration with the Council to resolve the issue;

·         Sections 19 and 20 of the officers’ report included information that was not correct – Danielle of the STARS team had visited the school in 2022 and there had been an exchange of emails subsequently. The Bikeability training had been requested but there had not been enough children interested in participating at the time. The school would try again at some point in the future;

·         Approximately 80% of the schoolchildren arrived by bus at present but a growing number lived more locally. The buses drove into the car park to drop the children off as it was not possible to stop in Vine Lane;

·         Staff were not currently used to help children cross the road but this could be considered.

The Cabinet Member noted that a significant amount of work had been carried out along Vine Lane but there had been an uptick in traffic. Zebra crossings had been considered in the past but were not a viable option. Raised tables were not always popular as they could be very noisy, but this option would be explored further.

With regards to the installation of a pedestrian crossing, officers informed the Cabinet Member that the width of the road was insufficient in this case. The Council did not own the land opposite the school, so it was not possible to install the necessary infrastructure to create a crossing point at this location. Moreover, there was no room on the footway outside the school for a belisha beacon.

Ward Councillor Reeta Chamdal was in attendance and addressed the Cabinet Member in support of the petitioners. Councillor Chamdal expressed her concerns regarding the dangerous nature of the road and reiterated the need for traffic calming measures. She accepted that a pedestrian crossing would not work, but hoped officers would be able to suggest an alternative solution.

Steve Austin, Traffic, Parking, Road Safety School Manager, requested an invitation to a future meeting to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The Cabinet Member introduced the petition to be heard. The Lead Petitioner was present and addressed the Cabinet Member. Key points highlighted included:

·         Petitioners were not satisfied with the Council’s response thus far and felt residents were not being ‘put first’;

·         To calm the traffic in Tavistock Road, suggested solutions included a 20mph speed limit, slow down signs and CCTV;

·         Tavistock Road had not been built to be a construction route. It was not a straight road and was dark with blind bends. Speeding was an issue and there had been a number of accidents and near-misses in recent years;

·         The road was prone to flooding – people had been drenched by lorries passing through at speed;

·         HGVs and juggernauts regularly passed along the road coming from Trout Road. The Old Coal Yard and skip lorries had also led to an increase in the tonnage of vehicles using Tavistock Road;

·         Pollution was a concern, and the air was often filled with carcinogenic coal dust – the situation was getting worse;

·         A 20mph speed limit would help to lower speed and resolve the issues relating to dust and noise. The installation of chicanes could also be beneficial;

·         CCTV would help in addressing crime and fly tipping in the area.

Ward Councillor Naser Abby was in attendance and addressed the Cabinet Member in support of petitioners. Councillor Abby often used Tavistock Road and raised concerns regarding crime, lack of lighting or CCTV, speeding, flooding and the number of lorries and skips constantly using the road.

Ward Councillor Sital Punja was also in attendance. She noted that the matter had been brought before the Council in 2018. The situation was now deteriorating, and residents were often unable to open their windows due to the level of noise outside their houses. Due to the large number of lorries and skips using the road, it was like living in an industrial estate. This was unhealthy and residents were understandably angry. Pedestrian traffic had also increased in the area which was a safety concern. Councillor Punja noted that the Council did not generally advocate 20mph zones, but felt that, in this case, the special circumstances necessitated such an approach. The most important thing was to slow vehicles down to reduce noise and enhance safety. 

The Cabinet Member noted that there were significant issues in Tavistock Road which acknowledged that these needed to be addressed. The concerns relating to flooding did not fall within his area of responsibility but would be relayed to the appropriate department to take forward. Planning officers would also be asked to check the consents granted and ensure conditions imposed were being complied with. It was noted that crime was generally a matter for the Police although the Council worked closely with police officers.

The Cabinet Member informed petitioners that he was reluctant to introduce a 20mph zone as these were difficult to enforce. Speed humps often led to an increase in noise and vibrations especially when skip lorries passed over them.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.