Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Fairholme Crescent, Hayes - Objection To Proposed Waiting Restrictions
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 250833 CMD No: 251 To: COUNCILLOR JOHN RILEY CABINET MEMBER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORT c.c. All Members of the Public Safety & Transport Select Committee c.c. Ward Councillors for Charville c.c. Perry Scott – Infrastructure, Transport & Building Services c.c. Caroline Haywood, Infrastructure, Transport & Building Services c.c. Conservative and Labour Group Offices (inspection copy) Date: 23 August 2021 Non-Key Decision request Form D FAIRHOLME CRESCENT, HAYES - OBJECTION TO PROPOSED WAITING RESTRICTIONS Dear Cabinet Member Attached 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. You should take a decision on or after Wednesday 1 September 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. Jack Roberts Democratic Services Apprentice Title of Report: FAIRHOLME CRESCENT, HAYES - OBJECTION TO PROPOSED WAITING RESTRICTIONS Decision made: Reasons for your decision: (e.g. as stated in report) Alternatives considered and rejected: (e.g. as stated in report) Signed ………………………………………………………Date…………………….. Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 1 (Part 1 - Public) FAIRHOLME CRESCENT, HAYES - OBJECTION TO PROPOSED WAITING RESTRICTIONS Cabinet Member(s) Councillor John Riley Cabinet Portfolio(s) Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport Officer Contact(s) Caroline Haywood, Transport and Projects Papers with report Appendices A & B HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member that objections have been received to the proposed ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on Fairholme Crescent, Hayes. Putting our Residents First The request can be considered as part of the Council’s annual programme of road safety initiatives. Financial Cost There are n o direct financial implications associated with the recommendations to this report. Relevant Select Committee Public Safety and Transport Select Committee. Relevant Ward(s) Charville RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport: 1. considers the objections received from the statutory consultation for the proposed ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on Fairholme Crescent, Hayes. 2. asks officers to defer the proposed ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on Fairholme Crescent, Hayes at the present time. Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 2 (Part 1 - Public) Reasons for recommendations The recommendation s reflect the views expressed by local residents and the local Ward Councillors during the consultation. Alternative options considered / risk management The Cabinet Member could decide to proceed with the installation of the ‘ At Any Time ’ waiting restrictions as advertised. Democratic compliance / previous authority None at this stage. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Fairholme Crescent is a residential road within Charville Ward and is accessed either end from Lansbury Drive. Lansbury Drive is a main route to connect Kingshill Avenue with the Uxbridge Road. There is pedestrian access to Fairholme Crescent. A plan of the area is shown on Appendix A to this report. 2. The Council received a request through the Road Safety Programme for measures to remove obstructive parking in the access road between No s 108 and 110 Fairholme Crescent. As a consequence, a detailed site investigation was undertaken by Council officers. 3. Officers observed that there are existing double yellow lines on the corners of the access road, which helped improve access. There is a gate at the end for vehicles to access Grange Park for maintenance. 4. As a result of the site observations , a proposal was developed to extend the existing double yellow lines on both sides of the access road to help improve access to residents' garages and the park. The proposed waiting restrictions are shown on the plan attached as Appendix B of this report. 5. The Cabinet Member agreed to take the proposal through the statutory 21 -day consultation process, which involved the placing of advertisements in the local press and the display of public notices on site. During this period the Council received eight objections. 6. The first objector stated "We not happy with this decision. We don’t want yellow line our side. We …......already have yellow line, difficulty for parking cars.......” Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 3 (Part 1 - Public) 7. The second objector stated " The parking of vehicles on this access road has not been a significant problem over the years. Whilst we agree that vehic les do park there, it is usually to enable either visitors to visit local residents because street parking is limited or more importantly to enable local people to access the recr eational facilities available and provided by Hillingdon Council. This is conservation land and is open to public use. There is a children's park area adjacent to Kingshill Avenue and again pedestrian access via Kingshill Avenue but at no point is there any available parking along Kingshill Avenue and this is also a bus route so the parking of vehicles along there would cause obstruction problems. If parking is restricted in the access road, we believe this would lead to additional problems for residents because vehicles will park on the street, obstructing driveways, pavements, etc. This is always a problem for us now , but this would increase considerably with further restrict ed parking. Whilst we appreciate that parking in the access road can sometimes cause problems, we would make the observation that this has only increased in the past few months due to Covid 19 restrictions imposed and people have been using the area far more for exercise and recreation. Vehicles only park there duri ng certain times of the day, not continually , to walk their dogs and use the facilities available. In addition, this area is also used by utility service vehicles and cable tv service vehicles to access their boxes or local properties.” 8. The third objector stated “ There will be nowhere for visitors to park. This will lead drivers to park in front of our drives. At the moment people use this area to park when visiting.” 9. The fourth objector stated “I see no benefit in creating this restriction............the garage in this section of the street is not a garage, despite having a roller shutter type door, but is used as a permanent home-style residence. The road is question serves the access road to the rear of Fairholme Crescent for resident access to the rear of their properties, but it also provides access to Yeading Brook Meadows. The field is used by many people from the Borough for recreational and social use. This year it has been especially beneficial as it is one of the few places where people could leave their homes and take exercise and meet one another. Often there are cars parked on this small section of road to allow people access to t he field. Many have small children, so need to carry prams and play equipment with them, so walking to the field in not practical. The field is also used for organised sporting events, again, equipment is brought by motor car. Fairholme Crescent was built many years ago, long before it was expected that mos t households would own just 1 car, let alone 2 or 3, so on street parking is limited along Fairholme Crescent. The small spur road allows for another 5 or 6 cars to be parked, thus reducing the burden on the main part of Fairholme Crescent. There have already been incidents of people parking across the dropped kerbs in the main part of Fairholme Crescent, stopping people parking on their own driveways. Preventing people parking in the spur road will increase these occurrences...” 10. The fifth objector stated “ The parking of vehicles on this access road has not been a significant problem at all. Whilst I agree that vehicles do park there, it is usually to enable either visitors to local residents because street parking is limited or more importantly to enable local people to access the recreational facilities available and provided by Hillingdon Council. This is conservation land and is open to public use. There is a Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 4 (Part 1 - Public) children's park area adjacent to Kingshill Avenue and again pedestrian access via Kingshill Avenue but at no point is there any available parking along Kingshill Avenue and this is also a bus route so the parking of vehicles along there would cause obstruction problems. If parking is r estricted.in the access road, I believe this would lead to additional problems for residents because vehicles will park on t he street, obstructing driveways, pavements, etc. This is already a problem for me. I would rather the Council used their resources to revaluate the whit e lines on the pavement which seem totally irrelevant and irregular...” 11. The sixth objector stated “ This is a popular park and so lovely to see it being used much more especially during these past 7 or so months with Covid- 19. There is very limited on street parking available outside the houses in Fairholme Crescent so this is really the only possible place to park when accessing the park. I am a local resident that currently parks here daily...I am a keen in cleaning litter in the park so need to bring along my litter picker...” 12. The seventh objector stated “This road already has a huge parking problem...This can be a real nightmare when people randomly park outside our house whilst we are out. I have to make at least 2 trips down the road to bring the shopping indoors...and frequently find I have to park right by the entrance to the fields where you plan to extend the yellow lines. As a single lady, I feel nervous parking there late at night, as there are often gangs of men hanging around...” 13. The eighth objector stated “ This access road between the properties is quite busy during the day with the garage business nearer to 148- 150 Fairholme Crescent and at times customers wait in their cars at this point. Other people that use it are dog walkers (a couple of professional ones that I am aware of always park here) users of the open space (there has been a great upsurge in visitors during the lockdown) as it also acts as an overflow parking area for residents and visitors to properties in Fairholme. Over the years I have noticed many more people bringing their work vehicles (one chap regularly parks up to 3 vans in the road) home and along with the huge increase in multi -lets the road becomes difficult to traverse at night time...” 14. The Green Spaces team have confirmed they do not use this gate to access Grange Park on a regular basis and restricted access would not affect their maintenance of the park grounds. 15. After careful consideration of comments received from the statutory consultation and the views of the local Ward Councillors , it is recommended that the Cabinet Member agrees to defer the proposed extension to the ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions in Fairholme Crescent at the present time. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations to this report. Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 5 (Part 1 - Public) RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? There will be no changes to the existing parking arrangements on Fairholme Crescent. Consultation carried out or required Consultation has been carried out on this proposal through a notice on site and in the local press. Local Ward Councillors have also been consulted. 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 decision makers must ensure that there is full consideration of the representations that have been received. In exercising the power to approve the proposal for 'At Any Time' waiting restrictions such as that set out in the report, the Council has to consider its power to make an order creating a waiting restriction as set out in Part I of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The consultation and order making statutory procedures that should be followed in this case are set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489). If the decision is taken to make the proposed order, Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 set out the signage requirements which must be observed. In considering consultation responses , section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 means that the Council must balance the concerns of the objectors with the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic. Infrastructure / Asset Management There are no property implications resulting from the recommendations set out in this report. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 6 (Part 1 - Public) • Traffic order • Objection emails TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES Appendix A - location plan Appendix B - plan of proposal Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 7 (Part 1 - Public) Appendix A - Location plan Cabinet Member Report – 23 August 2021 Page 8 (Part 1 - Public) Appendix B - Plan of proposal
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 27 September 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 Notice is hereby given that the following decision(s) have been made today by Cabinet Members at the London Borough of Hillingdon: Title of decision FAIRHOLME CRESCENT, HAYES - OBJECTION TO PROPOSED WAITING RESTRICTIONS Reference No. 251 Date of decision Monday, 27 September 2021 Call-in expiry date 5pm, on 4 October 2021 Relevant Select Committee(s) Public Safety and Transport Select Committee Relevant Ward(s) Charville Decision made Cabinet Members making the decision Councillor John Riley - Cabinet Member for Public Safety & Transport DECISION APPROVED That the Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport: 1. considered the objections received from the statutory consultation for the proposed ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on Fairholme Crescent, Hayes. 2. asked officers to defer the proposed ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on Fairholme Crescent, Hayes at the present time. Reason for decision The recommendations reflect the views expressed by local residents and the local Ward Councillors during the consultation. Alternative options considered and rejected The Cabinet Member could have decided to proceed with the installation of the ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions as advertised. Classification Part 1 – Public Link to associated report Link to report. Relevant Officer contact & Directorate Caroline Haywood, Infrastructure, Transport & Building Services Any interest declared by the Cabinet N/A Executive Decision Notice – 27 September 2021 Page 2 This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk Member(s) / dispensation granted Implementation of decision & scrutiny call-in [Internal Use only] When can this decision be implemented by officers? Officers can implement Cabinet Member decision in this notice only from the expiry of the scrutiny call-in period which is: 5pm, Monday 4 October 2021 However, this is subject to the decision not being called in by Councillors on the relevant Select Committee. Upon receipt of a valid call-in request, Democratic Services will immediately advise the relevant officer(s) and the decision must then be put on hold. Councillor scrutiny call- in of this decision Councillors on the relevant Select Committee shown in this notice may request to call-in this decision. The request must be before the expiry of the scrutiny call-in period above. Councillors should use the Scrutiny Call-in App (link below) on their devices to initiate any call-in request. Further advice can be sought from Democratic Services if required: Scrutiny Call-In - Power Apps (secure) Further information These decisions, where applicable, have been taken under The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. 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. Democratic Services London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW