Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

It was confirmed that all items were in Part I and would be considered in public.

The Chairman considered a petition from residents requesting parking restrictions to reduce non-residential parking on the Greenway, [Ickenham] to reduce traffic and improve road safety.

The Lead Petitioner was in attendance and raised a number of points, including:

·         The Greenway was a residential road but also contained a few shops that backed up onto the Greenway.

·         There was a petition back in 2000 on the Greenway which requested the installation of yellow line restrictions.

·         Safety was ultimately the biggest concern for the Lead Petitioner and fellow residents and noted the presence of families in the locality.

·         Recent increases in traffic had potentially resulted from the Greenway’s close proximity to West Ruislip station but also HS2 construction workers placed nearby, as referenced in paragraphs 3-6 of the officer report. The overspill of HS2 workers’ parking had been particularly prevalent at the section of the Greenway which contained free parking, except between the hours of 10-11am.

·         These factors noted by the Lead Petitioner had resulted in shop entrances being blocked but also resident driveways and private access points. This had the knock-on effect of reducing the forward visibility for residents when exiting their driveways that had resulted in near misses and damage only accidents.

·         Further to this, the Lead Petitioner communicated that there had been incidents of altercations between the residents and individuals blocking their driveways. It was mentioned that, in connection with this, examples of potential anti-social behaviour had occurred. As a result, residents had been forced to install CCTV cameras at their own expense in order to deter and potentially document such behaviour.

·         The Lead Petitioner also referenced the 2007 development of Buckland Court, whose residents had also experienced issues with parking. It was said that 415 flats were built here with 468 parking spaces also. However, the Lead Petitioner reported that a number of people living at these premises had more than one car but only one car parking space and therefore took advantage of the free parking on the Greenway outside of the current times of operation.

·         It was concluded by the Lead Petitioner in his statement to the Chairman that, in order to combat the issues mentioned effectively and make the road safer for residents, petitioners had requested that parking restrictions ought to be increased to 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon. It was also inferred that another potential remedy could be to introduce a resident’s permit scheme for the section of the Greenway which currently offers non-discriminatory free parking.

Councillor Eddie Lavery, Ward Councillor for Ickenham & South Harefield, affirmed his support for the petitioners stating that:

·         The Greenway’s close proximity to West Ruislip station, combined with the development at Buckland Court and ongoing HS2 works had all contributed to significant problems for residents.

·         In additional regard to HS2 difficulties, Councillor Lavery noted that these problems were due to worsen as peak construction would occur next year. Moreover, the Council lacked any enforcement powers in terms of instructing HS2 workers on suitable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Chairman considered a petition from residents requesting Zone E parking permits for residents on Field End Road.

The Lead Petitioner was in attendance and made a number of points, including:

·         Reminded the Chairman that he had also submitted the same petition 5 years prior. It was highlighted that a parking stress survey was conducted, which was to assess the parking capacity in Zone E. The Lead Petitioner alleged that the Council communicated to him and fellow petitioners suggesting they could see no reason why petitioners were not included in the Residents’ Parking Scheme.

·         However, the Lead Petitioner divulged that after consultation with ward Councillors at the time of the previous petition, the decision was changed to not include the petitioners in the Residents’ Parking Scheme.

·         The Lead Petitioner highlighted that he had made contact with his local Member of Parliament [Mr David Simmonds CBE] over this petition who supported the Lead Petitioners concerns and suggested that he submit another petition to the Council on the matter.

The Chairman accepted the contextualisation to the petition provided by the Lead Petitioner and confirmed the Lead Petitioner’s assertation that the Ward Councillors representing residents at the time had decided against the petitioners being incorporated into the Zone E Residents’ Parking Scheme. Furthermore, the Chairman reminded those present that Field End Road at the time had been shared between 2 wards which meant 6 Councillors were involved in the original consultation and decision. To juxtapose the Member of Parliament for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; the Chairman noted that the Residents’ Parking Scheme in question related to the streets off Field End Road and not to Field End Road itself as it had a different scheme.

Officers seconded the Chairman’s remarks and clarified that Field End Road uniquely possessed a hybrid parking scheme as it allowed for free ‘stop and shop’ and ‘pay and display’ parking between certain hours and also awarded residents above the flats in this vicinity with permits to park in nearby car parks. Further to this, officers pointed out that if the petitioners were to join the Zone E Resident’s Parking Scheme as requested, the current permissions would be rescinded.

The Lead Petitioner accepted the statements made by the Chairman and officers on the matter but, in additional regard to earlier remarks on the previous petition that he had submitted, questioned the purpose and intention behind the parking stress survey report that was conducted if the Council didn’t originally sympathise with the petitioner’s request.

The Chairman responded to the Lead Petitioner’s query and argued that the original parking stress survey was justified in the way that it allowed officers to explore possibilities. The Chairman also informed the Lead Petitioner that he would have to give this matter a bit more thought but also that he was encouraged by the fact that residents were currently allowed to use nearby car parks free of charge.

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

1)    met with petitioners and listened to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition from local businesses requesting fundamental changes to the modus operandi of the car parking pay and display arrangements.

The Lead Petitioner was present and made a number of points, including:

• That they had been in correspondence with the Parking Management Team at the Council since the petition’s original submission in 2020 and that several site visits had been carried out.
• Informed the Chairman that when the petition was first submitted that there was no facility in place to process tickets and log registration numbers for ‘stop and shop’ parking in the locality. As a result of this, the scheme was alleged to have been widely abused, which had the knock-on effect of causing long queues on Uxbridge Road and as a result, the disruption of traffic flow. This was compounded by the fact that the houses located at the back of the parade had restricted access, and therefore also got stuck on Uxbridge Road.
• Traffic congestion was reported to have been particularly bad after 5pm and Sundays were the busiest days for the Lead Petitioner and fellow small business owners in the area.
• Significant health and safety concerns were expressed by petitioners, which stemmed from the issues reported in this petition.
• The Lead Petitioner disclosed that he had carried out his own research comparisons with neighbouring boroughs and their approach to similar situations. He reported to the Chairman that Hounslow West had experienced a similar incident, which they had responded to by extending the restricted parking hours (as requested by the Lead Petitioner in that case).
• Emphasised that small independent traders were those primarily suffering from the current parking arrangements outlined within the petition.

Officers clarified with the Chairman that the current scheme operated from Monday-Saturday [8:00am to 6:30pm] and that the Lead Petitioner wanted to extend this to [8:00am to 8:00pm everyday].

The Chairman acknowledged this and also the Lead Petitioner’s remarks in relation to reports of people taking advantage of the 30 minutes free parking that the Council offered at the location in question. It was also declared that various solutions were currently being explored to the problems mentioned by the Lead Petitioner and that cooperation with the Parking Management Team was required. The Chairman pondered the possibility of using a temporary traffic order in the short term but asserted that before any solutions could be agreed/ instructed, post-meeting discussions with officers would have to be held.

The Chairman proceeded to ask the Ward Councillor for Belmore, Councillor Labina Basit to speak on the petition. Councillor Basit made the following arguments in support of the petition:

·         Echoed the Lead Petitioner’s statements as she had lived experience of the issues at hand, especially in regard to traffic congestion when entering or exiting the parade, which had also proliferated into the sideroads. This was a particular concern for the Councillor as she mentioned that this was causing difficulties for emergency vehicle access.

·         Pointed out that problems reported were exacerbated after 5pm, and principally on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition from residents in regard to speeding near Cranford Drive and Crowland Avenue.

The Lead Petitioner was present and made a number of points, including:

• Had spoken to many residents and acknowledged that 20 signatures would have sufficed in order to validate the petition; however, the Lead Petitioner wanted to convey the strength of feeling from residents towards the matters contained within the petition.
• Noted that she had sent in additional photographic evidence in support of the petition.
• Remarked that she was surprised at the fact that none of the accidents witnessed had been included in any police reports.

The Chairman enquired as to whether the problems were originating from both directions and whether parking on the road was unrestricted.

The Lead Petitioner responded that problems were coming from both directions and also referred to the photo evidence she had submitted, which served to reinforce her argument. The Lead Petitioner also informed the Chairman that pedestrians had been struggling to cross the road and that it was only small/narrow, which amplified the problems caused by reports of HGVs and vans parking on the road. The Lead Petitioner stipulated that extending the existing double yellow lines could help combat this primary interest of hers.

The Chairman accepted the concerns of the Lead Petitioner and mentioned that 20mph zones and speed tables had been previously employed to remedy similar concerns, but that there had been several significant drawbacks to the installation of these. It was also emphasised by the Chairman that there would be substantial difficulty to finding an appropriate solution that would completely eradicate the problems reported.

The Chairman invited a fellow petitioner who was present to speak. They made the following points:

·         Reaffirmed her support for the Lead Petitioner.

·         Disclosed that she had witnessed an incident on the road where an emergency vehicle could not get through.

·         Had experienced these issues from a pedestrian perspective and that safety had been her main worry in this regard. These concerns were extended to children and families who were present in the area.

·         Declared that the yellow lines warranted examination by the Council as they were alleged to have been causing problems, particularly on the bend / ‘blind corner’ between 16-20 Cranford Drive, as seen on the site map attached to the officer report.

·         Suggested that a Residents Parking Scheme could alleviate some of the issues at hand.

The Chairman recognised the points made by the co-petitioner and accepted the assertation that extending yellow lines would have cleared the roads in question. However, the Chairman highlighted that this would have also likely resulted in increased speeding as cars parked on both sides tends to serve as natural speed-calming for motorists. The Chairman pledged further investigation into the matters raised by petitioners and also acknowledged the support for the petition from Pinkwell Ward Councillor’s that was communicated by Councillor Kuldeep Lakhmana via email prior to the hearing.

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

1.        met  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Cabinet Member considered a petition from residents requesting speed measures in Long Drive.

The Lead Petitioner was present and made a number of points, including:

·         Enquired as to whether the Chairman had received photographic evidence submitted by the Lead Petitioner prior to the hearing and proceeded to pass these images on in person for the Chairman’s viewing. These photos evidenced an incident that occurred on Long Drive which served as the catalyst behind the Lead Petitioner’s motivation for the petition request. The Lead Petitioner informed the Chairman that both cars involved were written off as a result of the collision on Long Drive.

·         Discussed how there was a strong sense of feeling amongst residents surrounding the issues highlighted in the petition and noted that three petitions had previously been submitted to the Council which concerned the same problem and requested similar measures.

·         Informed the Chairman that it was worrying that there had already been three previous petitions on the same issue and what appeared to be insufficient Council action to date on the matter. Communicated that the safety of his family, as well as that of his neighbours was the primary reason behind the petition and referenced the Council’s duty to care of its residents in support of this.

The Chairman accepted the points made by the Lead Petitioner and in response, emphasised that the Police, as opposed to the Council hold jurisdiction and enforcement powers in relation to speeding. It was advised by the Chairman to the petitioners present that communication be established and maintained with the Police when concerned with speeding matters. The Chairman also enquired as to whether the speeding was occurring in both directions. 

The Lead Petitioner accepted the comments made by the Chairman but reaffirmed his desire for action in order to combat the apparent speeding. The Lead Petitioner, in response to the Chairman’s question; suggested that speeding was indeed happening in both directions and that this encompassed all types of vehicles; motorbikes were also alleged to have been using Long Drive as a road for doing wheelies. 

Officers asked the Lead Petitioner to expand on the police response to the speeding collision raised and invited the Lead Petitioner and the Ward Councillor present to collaborate on potential locations for speed surveys.

The Chairman seconded the officer’s invite and the complexities highlighted by the Lead Petitioner. Further to this however, the Chairman reminded the Lead Petitioner those potential solutions would also contain significant drawbacks. For example, the installation of speed tables would be problematic due to the topography of Long Drive and would also hinder emergency vehicle access. Moreover, a Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) would not necessarily deter speeding as some motorists had been known to unfortunately ignore such signs.  The Chairman asserted that data collection and subsequent analysis ought to be the first action taken and furthermore, that contact be made with the police once evaluation of this quantification had been carried out.

The Chairman asked the Ward Councillor for South Ruislip present,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.