Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Proposed Parking Management Scheme in Part of West Mead, Ruislip - Outcome of Formal Consultation
Report Document
Can't see the PDF? Download Report
Decision / Minutes Document
Can't see the PDF? Download Minutes
Text extracted from PDFs
View Report Text
Democratic Services Location: Phase II Ext: 0833 DDI: 01895 25 0683 Ref: RD CMD No: 151 To: COUNCILLOR JOHN RILEY CABINET MEMBER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORT c .c. All Members of Executive Scrutiny Committee c.c. Perry Scott, Residents Services c.c. Kevin Urquhart, Residents Services c.c. Chairman of the Residents, Education and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee c.c. Ward Councillors for Cavendish and South Ruislip c.c. Conservative and Labour Group Offices (inspection copy) Date: 14 May 2021 Non-Key Decision request Form D PROPOSED PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME IN PART OF WEST MEAD, RUISLIP - OUTCOME OF FORMAL CONSULTATION D ear Cabinet Member A ttached is a report requesting that a decision be made by you as an individual Cabinet Member. Democratic Services confirm that this is not a key decision, as such the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 notice period does not apply. Y ou should take a decision on or after Monday 24 May 2021 in order to meet Constitutional requirements about publication of decisions that are to be made. You may wish to discuss the report with the Corporate Director before it is made. Please indicate your decision on the duplicate memo supplied, and return it to me when you have made your decision. I will then arrange for the formal notice of decision to be published. Ry an Dell Democratic Services Apprentice Title of Report: Proposed Parking Management Scheme in Part of West Mead, Ruislip - Outcome of Formal Consultation D ecision made: R easons for your decision: (e.g. as stated in report) A lternatives considered and rejected: (e.g. as stated in report) S igned ………………………………………………………Date…………………….. C abinet Member for Public Safety and Transport Cabinet Member Report - 14 May 2021 Page 1 Part I - Public Proposed Parking Management Scheme in Part of West Mead, Ruislip - Outcome of Formal Consultation Cabinet Member(s) Councillor John Riley Cabinet Portfolio(s) Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport Officer Contact(s) Kevin Urquhart Residents Services Papers with report Appendices A and B HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member of the outcome of the statutory consultation for the proposed introduction of a Parking Management Scheme in the section of West Mead, Ruislip between the junctions of Victoria Road and Bideford Road. Putting our Residents First This report supports the Council objective of Our People. Results of the consultation will be considered in relation to the Council’s strategy for parking in residential areas. Financial Cost There are no financial implications in relation to the recommendations of this report. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents, Education and Environmental Services Relevant Ward(s) Cavendish and South Ruislip RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member: 1. Notes the comments received during the statutory consultation for the proposed Parking Management Scheme in the section of West Mead, Ruislip between the junctions of Victoria Road and Bideford Road as shown on Appendix A; and 2. Agrees to defer the proposed Parking Management Scheme in West Mead, Ruislip due to the overall lack of support demonstrated by residents. Reasons for recommendation The recommendation reflects the views of the majority of residents who responded to the Council's consultation and the views of local Ward Councillors. Cabinet Member Report - 14 May 2021 Page 2 Part I - Public Alternative options considered / risk management The Council could have decided to proceed with the introduction of the Parking Management Scheme as proposed or with amendments. Policy Overview Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. As the Cabinet Member will be aware, the Council has previously formally proposed a Parking Management Scheme along West Mead between the junctions of Victoria Road and Melthorne Drive. The scheme was also proposed along with a nearby section of Victoria Road. However, at the time only a small number of residents took the opportunity to respond to the formal consultation and because of several objections the proposals were subsequently deferred. Following this decision, residents of a smaller section of West Mead between the junctions of Victoria Road and Bideford Road petitioned the Council and requested that a scheme be proposed along a shorter section of the road to help prevent non-residential parking. 2. Following the above, informal consultation was carried with the resident s of this shorter part of West Mead on a scheme design, derived from the previous proposals. The majority of residents who responded to the informal consultation indicated they would support a possible scheme with operational times of ‘Monday to Saturday 8am to 6.30pm’. It was therefore decided by the Cabinet Member that residents be formally consulted on these proposals. 3. Statutory consultation for a new Parking Management Scheme limited to the section of West Mead between the junctions of Victoria Road and Bideford Road was undertaken between 10 March and 31 March 2021. 4. All of the comments submitted by residents during the consultation have been summarised in the table attached as Appendix B to this report and where possible a response is indicated underneath. 5. As in 2018, there was again a disappointingly low response to this latest formal consultation for a proposed scheme. Only one resident of West Mead took the opportunity to respond fully in favour of the proposals. One other resident indicated they would only support the proposal if an additional parking space could be installed adjacent and partly across their driveway. It was explained to this resident the consequences this would have if another resident was to park within this parking place and block their access , but they have continued to indicate this preference. 6. There were two other responses from West Mead from residents generally opposed to the scheme in its current form. Both felt the operating times were too extensive and suggested shorter times with one of these residents opposed to the idea of any yellow lines across their driveway. Cabinet Member Report - 14 May 2021 Page 3 Part I - Public 7. In addition to the above responses from West Mead, there were three objections received from residents of neighbouring Hartland Drive. These residents were concerned that any scheme may displace parking into their road and as a result have objected to the proposed scheme in West Mead. 8. The responses received to the form al consultation have been shared with the Ward Councillors of both Cavendish and South Ruislip. Although the majority of the road falls within Cavendish Ward, the section of road adjacent to Victoria Road is part of South Ruislip Ward so the views of both Wards has been sought. 9. All Ward Councillors who responded indicated that they felt that the current parking arrangement should be left unchanged, due to the lack of responses in favour of the proposals during to the formal consultation and the numerous objections. 10. In summary, as most of the comments received in response to the proposals were opposed to the scheme, this leaves the Council with littl e option but to defer the current proposals for a Parking Management Scheme in West Mead. The local Ward Councillor s of both Wards believe the current arrangements in this part of West Mead should remain as existing for the time being. If residents of West Mead would like to reconsider a Parking Management Scheme for their road in the future, then the Council may decide to reconsider proposals for the road if residents once again petition for such measures. Financial Implications There are no financial implications resulting from the recommendations set out within this report. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities The recommendation will allow the Cabinet Member to make a decision based on the responses received during the statutory consultation and the views of the local Ward Councillors. Consultation carried out or required Statutory consultation was carried out between 10 March to 3 1 March 2021 by the insertion of public notices in the local newspaper and displayed on site. No further consultation is required. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed the recommendations to this report and concurs with the financial implications as set out above. Legal The Borough Solicitor confirms that, given the outcome of the statutory consultation, there are no legal impediments to the Cabinet Member agreeing the recommendations set out in the report. Cabinet Member Report - 14 May 2021 Page 4 Part I - Public Infrastructure / Asset Management None at this stage. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL. TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES Appendix A - Plan – Detailed plan of the proposed Parking Management Scheme in the section of West Mead, Ruislip between the junctions of Victoria Road and Bideford Road. Appendix B - Table - Responses received to the formal consultation. Approximate address Comments Hartland Drive I've just been notified of the above parking scheme. I live on Hartland Drive and feel there would be direct knock on effect from this proposal in increased parking stress on Hartland Drive. I request that the area for this proposed parking management scheme is extended down Hartland Drive to prevent this knock on parking stress. Could you please register this as a formal objection to the West Mead parking proposals owing to the detrimental effect it would have on the parking stress on Hartland Drive. The southern end of Hartland Drive adjacent to West Mead already suffers significant parking stress and the proposals would make this situation much worse. I will endeavour to engage with our neighbours to establish our own parking restrictions in due course but maintain the objection to the proposals in their current form. Officer's response ‐ Considered as part of this report, see paragraph 7. Hartland Drive I am strongly against for this scheme to be implemented. It has been proposed about 3 times since I have been living here. Current parking allows for visitors to use when visiting friends and family. I not sure why we need parking restrictions and also other roads nearby with parking management are not operating between Monday‐Saturday 8am to 6.30pm. They are either Mon‐Fri and 9‐5 maximum. I wanted my point to be heard and I think as usual Borough will always do what it wants. Officer's response ‐ Considered as part of this report, see paragraph 7. I have seen the public notice in West Mead with Hartland Drive regarding their request to have the restriction by hours scheme as far along as Bideford Road. Firstly, I live at that end of Hartland Drive and commented to you back in 2018 when West Mead (along with its near part of Victoria Road) applied for a restriction scheme, and I have the same objections now. I quote... ".....We have been plagued by commuter parking since the Angus Road parking restrictions were put in years ago. The issue in Hartland is as bad as West Mead !! Similarly it also only goes half way up the road as commuters cannot be bothered to walk from the Torcross Road end to the station! Commuter parking, people going to the cafe in the Parade of shops round the corner, along with the toddlers cafe/painting shop all park in Hartland already. We residents are often parked miles away. I am a senior citizen and find carrying heavy shopping from the car difficult, we have young mothers with children and buggies also struggling. Its not fair and has gone on too long, where does it end? Residents go out in the evenings just to move their car back near their house, or have a drive and two cars and play musical cars to protect the space in front of their house (as well as their drive). Delivery vehicles cannot park without blocking a driveway. Builders come, take more space, and cannot deliver all their materials. Commuter parking needs to be addressed for this whole area, as it should have been done before even Angus Road. The same commuter cars come every day and I believe they come from areas as far as Rickmansworth and Gerrards Cross just to save on their train fares, and they get a nice FREE parking space at our expense. All these small area restrictions are really just fire fighting the problem. If you continue to implement piecemeal you just make the nearest set of roads have the same problem, as has been shown. Why haven't you seen that? No one advised before that this West Mead restriction was "about to happen" (if there is no opposition), if they had we could have been part of this implementation. I am appalled that this part of Hartland Drive was not included in the proposal. A West Mead restriction will just push more parked cars into Hartland, and so the process goes on at greater expense....." end quote. Obviously with lockdowns the commuter issue has got less, however the problem is virtually the same. There are many more vans left, builders working, shoppers for Victoria Road (despite car parks over there). Again I cannot understand why this end of Hartland Drive's residents were not consulted and added to the proposal. In addition, I am totally confused that this is happening at the same time as another Hillingdon advice note regarding works in Hartland Drive on pavements and kerbs that are being done in the next months and with offers at half price (with conditions) to allow dropped kerbs into front gardens for parking. Despite this work being a good thing for pedestrian safety Hartland is a terraced house road and only end of blocks have a driveway (unlike semi detached roads like Queens Walk just done). We have discovered that for the terraced blocks at this end of Hartland the DEPTH of our front gardens prohibits us from having a dropped kerb. So we have the parking issue yet are unable to even pay to resolve our individual issue. Once the kerbs are done those blocks further along that do have the depth and pay for the dropped kerb will limit even more the parking spaces in Hartland. With no parking in West Mead where are we supposed to park near home!!!! We cannot go out to move our car somewhere else in another road for the restricted hour(s) These residents then get fed up. West Mead, unlike the parallel roads, has large areas of fencing not belonging to any house fronts so this alleviates some of the lack of spaces. Please note my comments in the current West Mead application and in the new kerb work, and advise. period. These residents then get fed up. West Mead, unlike the parallel roads, has large areas of fencing not belonging to any house fronts so this alleviates some of the lack of spaces. Officer's response ‐ Considered as part of this report, see paragraph 7. Hartland Drive West Mead Hope your well. I would say that the restrictions should only between 10‐11am Monday to Friday. This would nullify the people parking for work purposes and travelling from South Ruislip station. I’m not happy about the proposals given the yellow line across my driveway which will effectively reduce my parking space availability private space I must say from 1 to 2 so yeah I am against the proposals It should be my right to park in front of my own driveway without any restriction. Officer's response ‐ Considered as part of this report, see paragraph 6. West Mead We have received the letter with regards to the parking scheme on West Mead. Ruislip. We are very happy to see that the proposal has been considered and finally going ahead. There have been many parking/safety issues over the years for the residents and it is getting more difficult to find a parking space. Apparently there were a few minor collisions occurred due to parked cars blocking views. We have read the detailed plan and are very happy to see this happen. We also suggest that paint double yellow line instead of single yellow line. Officer's response ‐ Considered as part of this report, see paragraph 5. West Mead The scheme runs from Monday to Saturday. The main reason for people parking on our road would be for South Ruislip station for work. Is it necessary for the scheme to run on a Saturday? Could this be reconsidered? Officer's response ‐ Considered as part of this report, see paragraph 6. West Mead Supports scheme if parking place can be installed in the gap adjacent to their vehicle crossing. Resident has accepted that this may cause an obstruction, as to fit the minimum sized bay it would be required to overhang part of their driveway entrance. Officer's response ‐ Considered as part of this report, see paragraph 5.
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 10 June 2021 Page 1 This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk OFFICIAL EXECUTIVE DECISION NOTICE PUBLISHED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES Title of report Proposed Parking Management Scheme in Part of West Mead, Ruislip – Outcome of Formal Consultation Reference No. CMD 151 Date of decision 10 June 2021 Call-in expiry date 5pm, on 17 June 2021 Relevant Select Committee(s) Public Safety and Transport Relevant Ward(s) South Ruislip and Cavendish Decision made Cabinet Members making the decision Councillor John Riley – Cabinet Member for Public Safety a nd Transport DECISION That the Cabinet Member: 1. Noted the comments received during the statutory consultation for the proposed Parking Management Scheme in the section of West Mead, Ruislip between the junctions of Victoria Road and Bideford Road as shown on Appendix A; and 2. Agreed to defer the proposed Parking Management Scheme in West Mead, Ruislip due to the overall lack of support demonstrated by residents. Reason for decision The recommendation reflects the views of t he majority of residents who responded to the Council's consultation and the views of local Ward Councillors. Alternative options considered and rejected The Council could have decided to proceed with the introduction of the Parking Management Scheme as proposed or with amendments. Classification Public Link to report (if public) Here Relevant Officer contact Kevin Urquhart, Residents Services Executive Decision Notice – 10 June 2021 Page 2 This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk Decision implementation Where required, these decisions have been taken under The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. Officers can implement this decision from: Thursday 17 June 2021– from 5pm …unless this is called in by the relevant Select Committee set out above. Officers will be notified of any call-in received. Further information This is the formal notice by the Council of the above executive decision, including links to the reports where applicable. If you would like more information on this decision, please contact Democratic Services on 01895 250636 or email: democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of this decision notice is to a variety of people including Members of the Council, Corporate Directors, Officers, Group Secretariats and the Public. Copies are also placed on the Council’s website. London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW