Agenda item

Parking Zone Information Report


Councillor Kaur arrived at the beginning of this item.


David Knowles, Head of Transport and Town Centre Projects, was present for this item and introduced the report by noting the Committee’s request to further understand if there had been an increase in, or if there was to be an anticipated increase in, parking pressures experienced on residential streets in the vicinity of the two Elizabeth Line stations in the Borough, West Drayton and Hayes & Harlington stations. It was highlighted that the Elizabeth Line had opened fairly recently and was overwhelmingly welcomed as its ability to allow fast access to central London would bring opportunity and prosperity to the areas around those stations. With the prospects brought in by the Elizabeth Line, it was expected that there would be an impact on the residents around the train stations, particularly in the form of parking pressures.


It was highlighted that parking restrictions in the area of the Borough covered by the Elizabeth Line stations had been in growing and developing for over two decades, and that there had been some recent interest in expanding these measures, for example in Coldharbour Lane and North Hyde Road, both within the vicinity of Hayes & Harlington station. In response to questions from the Committee, it was highlighted that although there was a heightened public interest in West Drayton and Hayes as a result of the Elizabeth Line, the immediate parking pressures brought on were not substantive due to the extensive existing parking management schemes and restrictions in those areas; it was noted that petitions from residents were a primary driver in determining what local appetite there was for parking restrictions and recent feedback from residents had only indicated a desire for modifications or extensions to existing restrictions such as an extension to the operating hours of certain schemes, as seen in Warwick Road, West Drayton. Members noted how changing commuter habits could start to change how parking restrictions were implemented as traditionally, one or two hours of restrictions during weekday day time would be enough to deter commuters from putting pressure on residential parking; however, this could change to more of an issue of overnight commuter parking.


The Committee noted how, in addition to potential parking pressures brought on by the introduction of the Elizabeth Line, there were also those who would leave their vehicle for an extended period of time in an area with few parking restrictions in order to catch a bus to Heathrow Airport, know as fly-parking. Officers noted that demand for parking restrictions was very much resident driven and it was not uncommon for prospective schemes to fall through as the resident demand, which had originally presented the issue, was no longer there upon consultation. For clarity, the Committee were informed of the usual process for implementing a new parking management scheme (PMS) and it was highlighted that this process could take a substantial amount of time. Officers explained that the first step towards a PMS was usually a petition being received from residents, the petition would then be heard by the relevant Cabinet Member at a petition hearing; the testimony from residents at a petition hearing would inform the direction of officers’ consultation. It was noted that petitions usually took around three months to be heard, this was down from around nine months a number of years ago. The next step would most likely be an informal consultation with residents, feedback from the consultation would then go to the Cabinet Member through the democratic process and a publicly available report. Once the network of roads or area for a PMS is known, officers would draw up detailed designs for the PMS; following this, officers are prescribed by law to advertise in the local press and conduct a formal 21-day consultation. There would then be a formal Cabinet Member decision on the implementation of a PMS. If the Council did not follow this due process, a parking adjudicator could find that a PMS was not justified and should be dissolved. The Committee aired their frustration in the length of time required for the implementation of a PMS but understood the importance in due diligence when designing and implementing these kinds of parking restrictions legally.


The Committee heard how it was not unheard of for the Council to receive two petitions that directly oppose each other with regard to local appetite for parking restrictions; and it was unfortunately common for the demand that existed when the petition was put together, to have dissipated when residents become aware of what such a scheme would entail. The Committee thanked officers for their work in implementing and upholding the most appropriate restrictions within a work area that could uncover opposing views and conflicts amongst residents.


RESOLVED: That the Property, Highways & Transport Select Committee noted the contents of the report and provided comments to officers as necessary.

Supporting documents: