Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Northwood Hills PMS Extension - Report on 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: 0693 DDI: 01895 250693 CMD No: 432 To: COUNCILLOR JOHN RILEY CABINET MEMBER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORT c.c. All Members of the Public Safety & Transport Select Committee c.c. Gordon Hill – Place Directorate c.c. Perry Scott – Corporate Director of Place c.c. Ward Councillors for Northwood Hills c.c. Conservative and Labour Group Offices (inspection copy) Date: 15 March 2022 Non-Key Decision request Form D NORTHWOOD HILLS PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME EXTENSION - REPORT ON FORMAL CONSULTATION 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 23 March 2022 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. Steve Clarke Democratic Services Officer Title of Report : Northwood Hills Parking Management Scheme Extension - Report on Formal Consultation 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 & Transport Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 1 Part 1 - Public NORTHWOOD HILLS PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME EXTENSION - REPORT ON FORMAL CONSULTATION Cabinet Member(s) Councillor John Riley Cabinet Portfolio(s) Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport Officer Contact(s) Gordon Hill – Place Directorate Papers with report Appendix A - Location Plan Appendix B - Response Numbers Appendix C - Comments Received During Consultation Appendix D - Plan for ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member of the outcome of the formal consultation undertaken in the Northwood Hills area, for the possible extension to the existing Parking Management Scheme. Putting our Residents First This report supports the Council objective of Our People . The request can be considered as part of the Council’s annual programme of road safety initiatives and for on- street parking controls. Financial Cost The estimated cost associated with the recommendations to this report is £30,000. Relevant Select Committee Public Safety and Transport Select Committee Relevant Ward(s) Northwood Hills RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport: 1) Notes the responses received during the formal consultation undertaken in the Northwood Hills area regarding a n extension to the existing Parking Management Scheme; 2) Instructs officers to implement the scheme as proposed with the following changes: a. Retain the ‘School Keep Clear’ restrictions in Harlyn Drive. Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 2 Part 1 - Public b. Formally consult on ‘at any time’ restrictions in Dale Close as indicated in Appendix D. 3) Notes the responses received during the informal consultation undert aken in Highland Road regarding changing the scheme to a ‘Past this Point’ scheme; 4) Prior to implementation of the ‘signs and lines’ scheme in Highland Road, instructs officers to formally consult with residents on amended proposals for Highland Road to a ‘Past this P oint’ scheme and to report back to the Cabinet Member and Ward Councillors; and 5) Asks officers in the Highways team to inspect the condition of the footways in Harlyn Drive. Reasons for recommendations These recommendations are in line with the views expressed during the informal consultation and are supported by the local Ward Councillors. Alternative options considered / risk management None at this stage. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. The Cabinet Member will recall that a Parking Management Scheme was recently installed in the Northwood Hills area following petitions from residents, a subsequent informal consultation and a further formal consultation. A plan showing the area of the existing scheme is attached to this report as Appendix A. 2. This was introduced as a result of r esidents’ complaints that they were experiencing problems with all day non-resident vehicles being parked in the area. The new Monday to Friday one hour a day Parking Management Scheme has been well received and appear s to have resolved many of the parking issues residents were reporting. 3. The Cabinet Member will recall that during the formal consultation and installation of the new Resident Parking Scheme in Northwood Hills, additional petitions were received requesting that the scheme be extended into nearby roads including Harlyn Drive, Highland Road and Winchester Road. 4. The petitions received were signed under the following headings - Harlyn Drive e -Petition (29 sigs) - 'We the undersigned petition Hillingdon Council to include Harlyn Drive in the proposed parking restrictions consultation. In the event of the proposals being Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 3 Part 1 - Public implemented, Harlyn Drive must be included. Justification: Harlyn Drive is affected by the proposed parking restrictions and the residents should have been consulted.’ Highland Road Petition (47 sigs) - 'That Highland Road be included in the proposed parking management scheme as the four immediate surrounding roads (Lichfield, Winchester, Colchester and York) are all included and therefore commuter traffic will inevitably creep into Highland thus making the residential parking intolerable.' Harlyn Drive Petition (38 sigs) - 'I write on behalf of all the signatories who have signed the petition attached to this letter. The residents of this road were not originally consulted with regard to an informal consultation in the Northwood Hills area relating to the problems bei ng caused primarily by 'commuter' traffic parking in our area as Northwood Hills, unlike neighbouring Northwood and Pinner, does not possess a station car park. We understand that the initial consultation included roads within 500 metres of Northwood Hills station. Having been passed a letter received by a resident in neighbouring Tolcarne Drive we are now aware of plans to introduce a parking management scheme in this neighbourhood that will not include this road, even though we are situated nearer to the station than some roads included in the scheme, both Winchester Road and Waverley Gardens being examples. Furthermore, other roads, whilst the entry to the road is indeed within the 500 meters "boundary", have been included by total length and thus the restriction will spread much further than our own road, for example Potter Street and neighbouring Tolcarne Drive. Harlyn Drive is about 700 meters from the tube station, and so the inevitable result of the proposed restrictions is that the 'commuter' traffic will now park in our road, a road with maisonettes which do not have their own driveways as well as many houses that do possess such. We already have traffic and parking problems because of the expanding Harlyn Primary School which is right on our "doorstep" so our being excluded from these proposed restrictions will only make our traffic situation worse and, with small schoolchildren in the area, far more dangerous. We urgently request a review of these proposals; any changes being proposed should include this road, and we urge that the Council takes another good hard look at this scheme. The fact that Harlyn Drive has been excluded in the first place is inexcusable.' Winchester Ro ad Petition (47 sigs) - 'Since the introduction of the Northwood Hills Parking Management Scheme there has been a significant detrimental impact on residents' parking in Winchester Road during the hours of 08:00am and 6:30pm. It is now almost impossible fo r residents to park in the road during these hours. We the undersigned residents of Winchester Road request the Council to extend the above parking scheme to Winchester Road as a matter of urgency.’ 5. Due to the significant level of local interest and the number of similar petitions raised , it was agreed, by residents, local Ward Councillors and the Cabinet Member, that in order to speed up the process, that the matters would be dealt with under ‘intelligent intervention’ and actioned without the need for the petitions to be considered at a formal petition hearing. 6. Further discussions were also undertaken with the local Ward Councillors prior to the informal consultation to decide if any additional roads should be included in the consultation, based on their local knowledge and feedback from residents. They confirmed that Alandale Drive (including Dale Close and Valley Close), Henley Gardens and Pinner Road (24- 30 evens & 43- 103 odds) should also be included in the informal consultation area. Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 4 Part 1 - Public 7. A plan showing the existing scheme area and the additional roads included in the informal consultation is attached to this report as Appendix A. 8. Every property in the area was delivered a consultation pack consisting of a letter explaining what was proposed, a plan showing the area being consulted, a questionnaire and a reply-paid return envelope. The consultation packs were sent to approximately 450 properties with 242 returns, meaning a return rate of 54%. 9. The informal consultation gave residents two options of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question ‘Would you like the Northwood Hills (NWH) Parking Management Scheme extended into your street?’, the results are: Yes No Alandale Drive 38 14 - Dale Close 5 3 - Valley Close 10 2 Harlyn Drive 41 10 - Henley Gardens 3 1 Highland Road 55 10 Pinner Road (24-30 evens & 43-103 odds) 16 2 Winchester Road 30 2 Total 198 44 10. The results of this consultation were shared with the local W ard Councillors, who agreed that where the residents have expressed a preference for the scheme to be extended into their road, then a formal design should be developed for a subsequent formal consultation. 11. Following the above, a detailed Parking Management Scheme was prepared and a formal 21-day consultation was undertaken. During this time a letter explaining the operational aspects of the proposed scheme along with detailed plans showing the relevant area was delivered to Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 5 Part 1 - Public every premise within the proposed scheme area, shown in Appendix A. 12. During the consultation period a number of letters and emails were received both supporting and objecting to various aspects of the scheme, or just making suggestions on how the proposals could potentially be improved. A table showing the number of responses from each road is attached to this report as Appendix B, and a breakdown of the comments received, and officers' responses are attached to this report as Appendix C. A summary of some of the main points which were raised can be found below in the body of this report. 13. In response to the consultation one issue that was raised a number of times in all roads was the new price of resident permits and visitor vouchers. The new charges came into operation on 6 April 2021 and were approved by the Council's Cabinet on 10 December 2020 and ratified at full Council on 25 February 2021. This matter is outside the scope of this report but is noted for factual record. 14. The majority of the responses received from all roads were nevertheless in favour of the proposed scheme, and it is recommended that the scheme go ahead as proposed. 15. In Alandale Drive, a number of respondents raised questions of commuter traffic causing road safety problems during busy times and a suggestion of ‘speed bumps’ was also made. This is outside of the scope of this report, and it is recommended that the best way for residents to show support for possible traffic calming measures would be via a petition. 16. Both responses received from Dale Close requested that waiting restrictions be added at the end of the turning head to protect the dropped kerbs that are often obstructed. T hese suggested additional restrictions can be seen in Appendix D to this report, and it is recommended that these are taken through the formal consultation process. 17. Responses received from residents of Harlyn Drive indicated that vehicle speeds and congestion was a main concern. The Cabinet Member will be aware that this issue is being investigated separately. Residents also reported that they felt that the footway was in poor condition and asked if and when it might be replaced, as had been done in Tolcarne Drive. Although this is outside the scope of this report the concerns will be reported to colleagues in the Highways Maintenance Team for their consideration. 18. In Highland Road, there were five responses in favour of the scheme, two objections and four comments, a breakdown of these comments is in Appendix C. During the consultation a petition was also received from residents of Highland Road asking that the scheme layout be changed from the usual scheme design with the associated parking bays, signs and yellow lines to a ‘past this point’ style scheme. In conversations with the lead petitioner, it was agreed that this could be treated as ‘intelligent intervention’ and rather than having the petition formally heard, and that it would be investigated and implemented, if supported and viable. 19. Due to the impact of Covid on its funding, TfL withdrew funding that would normally be used to proceed with these schemes meaning this report was delayed in completion until funding could be found. In light of these delays and the level of support for the proposed scheme in Highland Road, officers discussed with local ward members and the Cabinet Member the option Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 6 Part 1 - Public of conducting the informal consultation prior to the completion of this report. 20. This was agreed and a 21- day informal consultation was subsequently undertaken in Highland Road offering residents the choice of either a ‘Past this Point’ scheme or a ‘Signs and Lines’ scheme as originally proposed. During this consultation period a letter explaining the two options and pointing out the operational differences was sent to every household in Highland Road along with a questionnaire and a postage paid reply envelope so that every household had a chance to make their feelings known. 21. The result of this informal consultation was that 40 households returned their questionnaire giving a return rate of 43%. Of the responses returned 25 indicated support for a ‘Past this Point’ scheme whilst 15 indicated that they preferred the originally proposed ‘Signs and Lines’ scheme. 22. It is therefore recommended that the proposed ‘Signs and Lines’ scheme is approved as originally proposed subject to the outcome of a further formal consultation be undertaken in Highland Road to change the approved scheme to a ‘Past this Point’ scheme. If supported, then the new scheme would be implemented but if not approved then the original ‘Signs and Lines ’ scheme should be installed at the same time as the scheme in the local area. 23. No responses were received during the formal consultation from Pinner Road, however based on the responses received during the informal and the fact that no one has objected during the formal it is recommended that the scheme is implemented as proposed. 24. In Winchester Road, the Council received nine responses in favour and three objections. These responses along with the overwhelming support during the informal consultation indicates that that the scheme should proceed as proposed in this road. 25. In summary, it is recommended that the scheme is implemented as proposed in all roads except for the minor amendments to Harlyn Drive and a further formal consultation be undertaken in Highland Road. Financial Implications The 2022/23 Capital Programme, approved by Cabinet and Council in February 2022, includes a budget for the Parking Management Scheme capital programme of £120k. The estimated cost associated with the recommendations detailed above is £30k. This could be funded from the Parking Management Scheme capital programme, subject to the capital release protocols. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities To change the parking measures requested by residents following consultation. Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 7 Part 1 - Public Consultation carried out or required Residents were informally consulted previously to see if they would like the Northwood Hills Resident Parking Scheme extended into their road. Based on the positive responses to that consultation this formal consultation was undertaken. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial implications above, noting that the estimated cost of £30k associated with the recommendations detailed above will be fully funded from the Parking Management Scheme 2022/23 capital programme. Legal The Council’s power to make orders introducing parking restrictions such as that proposed in this report for the Northwood Hills area is set out in Part I of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The consultation and order making statutory procedures to be followed in this matter 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 co nsultation responses, section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation 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 None at this stage. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS Northwood Hills Petition for Residents Parking Scheme - Reports Northwood Hills Petition for Residents Parking Scheme - Minutes Northwood Hills Report on Informal Consultation Cabinet Member Report – 15 March 2022 Page 8 Part 1 - Public TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES Appendix A - Location Plan Appendix B - Response Numbers Appendix C - Comments Received During Consultation Appendix D - Plan for ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions Northwood Hills Response Numbers Support Object Comment Alandale Drive (incl. Dale Close & Valley Close) 13 7 3 Alandale Drive 11 7 2 Dale Close 1 1 Valley Close 1 Harlyn Drive (incl. Henley Gardens) 10 2 Harlyn Drive 9 2 Henley Gardens 1 Highland Road 5 2 4 Winchester Road 9 3 1 Comment from Resident Response Alandale Drive Support. Please ensure that the bays start away from the end of dropped kerbs as we often experience problems where cars are parked too close and cause access difficulties. Parking bays normally start 0.5 metres from the top of the dropped kerb. Object. Not in favour of the scheme as Alandale Drive is very busy, a lot of the parking comes from the nearby school, station and flats because no plans were made for parking. Please help with a parking scheme for carers and regular visitors. People keep parking over my dropped kerb. How do I get to my appointment if a car is parking in front of my house? This scheme makes people that have paid taxes for years and abide by the law afraid to live, and I am scared due to all the terrorism in this area reported by the Neighbourhood Watch. The only way the Counci can limit who can park in the street is with a Resident Parking Scheme. A Carers Permit is available for residents that have carers visiting them. Any vehicle blocking your dropped kerb is liable for a parking ticket if you contact Parking Enforcement. I am for the scheme due to incompetent manner of parking and against the scheme due to the additional cost. The permits did cost £40 for the second permit, this was increased to £65 and then further increased to £100. Increased fees leads to more off-street parking and dropped kerbs, meaning more paved front gardens and less road space for parking, leading to more parking difficulties and more resident zones. The fees for permits and parking are set at a Full Council meeting and beyond the scope of this report. Support. Can the denial of oversized vehicles be extended to the rest of the Northwood Hills scheme, like Potter Street? Alandale Drive is used as a car park by parents dropping off and collecting children from the local school as well as cur through by commuter traffic, the single yellow line on the corner should be changed to a double yellow instead. Would it be possible to implement a no right turn from Pinner Road into Alandale Drive, to cut down n the rush hour through traffic congestion? Resident permits are only available for vehicles less than 5.3 meters long and 2.3 metres tall. It is hoped that the single yellow line will discourage parking on the corner without affecting the total capacity of the road overnight. A banned turn is beyond the scope of this consultation and report, instead it is recommended that a petition from residents be submitted. Appendix C I have no problem with the scheme but I insist on individually marked bays as some people are selfish how they cark. I am not sure that 1-2pm will be enough to stop most of the problems experienced in my part of the Alandale Drive, can the hours be increased? Are the permit costs a one-off or annual? The Council does not implement Resident Parking Schemes with individual bays, from experience longer bays allows the parking of more vehicles as it is more flexible. If residents wish for the operational hours to be increase then they are invited to petition the Council. Permit fees are annual. Object. This scheme is not needed and not wanted by the residents that I have spoken to. We have space to park outside our house at any time and our visitors can usually park outside our house at any time so parking is not a problem here. I would suggest that this is just a money making exercise against residents who live in shared property and have no other option than to park on the road. This scheme is only being proposed following an informal consultation undertaken with all residents where the majority were in favour. You will still be able to park in front of your dropped kerb outside the operating hours of the scheme. Support. This scheme will greatly enhance the safety of Alandale Drive which is now becoming far too congested and dangerous. It’s a big yes from me. I would like to confirm my agreement with the proposed restrictions in Alandale Drive. I live on Potter Street and am the landlord of a property on Alandale Drive, and am not in favur of the scheme. My tenants have never had a problem finding a parking spot. There is no commuter parking at Northwood Hills station and think we should encourage commuters because they frequent the local shops. One permit per household does not seem equitable, nor does just 10 visitor permits per year. This scheme is only being proposed following an informal consultation undertaken with all residents where the majority were in favour. The number of permits is a council policy that is the same for all schemes in the borough. We are opposed to the proposed scheme and would prefer to maintain the current arrangements, but we support the proposed yellow line on the corner of Alandale Drive. Would it be possible to prohibit larger lorries from using the road? A restriction on larger vehicles is beyond the scope of this consultation and report, therefore it is suggested that residents may wish to submit a petition to the Council. Full agreement with the proposed extension. Fully support the proposed scheme, especially the single yellow line on the corner. Whilst I am not fully in favour of the scheme I feel that I must support it as we are the only local road that'll be inundated if it doesn't go ahead. Could we instead have operating hours of 10-11am? If residents wish for different operating times they are invite to petition the Council for these changes. I strongly oppose and parking permits/bays/restrictions as we do not have any parking problems. This scheme is only being proposed following an informal consultation undertaken with all residents where the majority were in favour. I am strongly against the proposed scheme. I have never had a probem parking in my road, and there is no commuter parking. Hillingdon needs to look at parking for commuters traveling from Northwood Hills station as there is none right now. I also think the provision of only 10 free visitor vouchers per year is not enough. We have a blind bend at the top of the road that is much more important to deal with. This scheme is only being proposed following an informal consultation undertaken with all residents where the majority were in favour. The number of permits is a council policy that is the same for all schemes in the borough. It is hoped that the proposed single yellow line will discourage parking on the corner, and this can be looked at again if it doesn't improve. I strongly oppose these proposals. I have always found ample space to park in Alandale Drive. It is unclear why you are proposing a scheme that bans cars for a specific one hour per day when I find that most local roads are completely devoid of parked cars. It is worth noting that when your original letter went out in 2020 asking for responses a large majority of the road was being dug up by Cadent, which made parking worse for a time. I think its unfair to stop commuters from parking when they have had to put up with so many other restrictions over the last 12 months. We all pay our road tax/insurance etc and the last thing we need is another expense in th eform of additional residents permits or a visitor getting an inadvertent parking ticket. This scheme is only being proposed following an informal consultation undertaken with all residents where the majority were in favour. A one hour scheme will stop all day non-residential parking whilst having the minimal possible impact on local residents. I am in favour of the proposed scheme with some additional features. I would like yellow lines on both sides of the road at the corner on Alandale Drive, speed bumps to slow traffic, and signs at the start of the road to indicate that it is not suitable for vehicles over a certain size. Also, make the top of the road one way. It is hoped that the proposed single yellow line will discourage parking on the corner, and this can be looked at again if it doesn't improve. Changes to the highway layour are beyond the scope of this consultation and report, instead it is recommended that a petition from residents be submitted. I am 100% in favour of the scheme. Some of the people objecting to the scheme are renters and may not even bee here next year. Some people I have spoken to say that it may get worse again in the future but would rather wait and see. Having to pay for the sencond permit seems to have put a number of residents off. This scheme should go ahead as soon as possible and should have gone in when the surrounding roads got a scheme. Dale Close Support. But would like double yellow lines around the turning head. This will be considered for further consultation. The turning circle at the top should be double yellow lines to stop bad parking blocking the dropped kerbs there. There is a car dealer using the road as a car storage yard. This scheme will not solve the problems we are experiencing at wekends when there is an event taking place at Northwood School, and perhaps the scheme should be extended to include weekends. There should be double yellow lines on the corner of Alandale Road where it turns towards Potter Street. Additional double yellow lines will be considered for further consultation. Should residents wish for the hours to be extended then they are invited to petition the Council for these changes. It is hoped that the proposed single yellow line will discourage parking on the corner, and this can be looked at again if it doesn't improve. Harlyn Drive This scheme is much needed as we are the nearest road to the station without restricted parking, meaning we have daily parking problems. Parents parking to drop off/collect children are also a regular problem. Harlyn Drive also has a problem with speeding vehicles using the road as a rat run. If the scheme goes ahead will we also be getting improved footpaths as was done in Tolcarne Drive? Speeding vehicles is outside the remit of this report but the information will be passed to the Road Safety Team. Support the scheme to go in as soon as possible. We have many issues here with congestion and safety due to the nearby driving school, underground station and school. Full support for the proposed scheme. Since the introduction of the scheme in Tolcarne Drive we have experienced additional commuter parking. Harlyn Drive was already busy with schools during the school run. Support. Since the scheme was implemented in Tolcarne Drive, Harlyn Drive has been used as an all day car park. Harlyn Drive has become hazardous due to tail to tail parking, the parked cars are used as obstacles for learner drivers to practice their manoeuvres. If you have visitors they are unable to park close to my house and have to park elsewhere. I look forward to the extension being implemented. I want to give my full support to this scheme to go ahead. The parking in our road, before lockdown, was horrendous and I will be extremely happy with the introduction of parking restrictions. Total agreement with scheme. Should consider permanent restrictions in front of access to Public Footpath R49 as this is often blocked. This entrance has no dropped kerb so if vehiclular access is required temporary restrictions will need to be placed as required. Object. I am not in favour of extendeding the scheme into Harlyn Drive. We do we not have a bay outside our property like other parts of the road? The minimum length of a bay is 4.5 metres and we leave a 0.5 metre gaps between the top of the dropped kerb and the start of the bay, so if there is insufficient space we cannot install a bay. Support. Commuter parking continues to be a problem at the top end of the road, and often see drivers waiting for residents to leave so that hey can park for the day. This is starting to increase as lockdown is being lifted. Congestion is also bad during school pickup times and traffic is made worse by students from the driving school. We support the proposals due to commuters and people going on holiday leaving their cars in the street, sometimes for two weeks at a time. I would also like to point out that the pavements in Harlyn Drive are in a dreadful state of repair and should be renewed as they were in Tolcarne Drive. The condition of the pavements is beyond the scope of this consultation but the request will be passed to Highways. I welcome these proposals, with a few questions. Are the permit charges a one off or annual? Can anything be done about the speeding drivers? What has happened to the School Keep Clear markings on Harlyn Drive? Can the traffic islands at each end of the road be removed as they are dangerous as they reduce visibility? The permit charges are annual. The reports of speeding will be passed to the Road Safety Team. The school keep clear markings were removed in error and will be retained. The removal of the traffic islands will make the roads less safe for pedestrianscrossing the road, and would probably increase the speed of traffic. I have never experienced parking difficulties at my end of Harlyn Drive. I am against any form of restrictions and street signs that detract from the general view and are unsightly. We desperately need the roadway and pavements, this should have been done when Tolcarne Drive was done. The problem we have is learner drivers, sometimes there are 10 in the street and surrounding roads which causes problems for residents. Why should a test centre continue to be located in a residential area and near a school? Could the Counci look at this problem rather than parking? The condition of the pavements is beyond the scope of this consultation but the request will be passed to Highways. The Council does not have the power to remove the test centre. Henley Gardens Support. Could our crossovers have double yellow lines. There should be a 20mph speed restriction in Harlyn Drive and Henley Gardens. We do not place double yellow lines in front of individual dropped kerbs as they can be enforced 24/7 without additional markings. The reports of speeding vehicles will be passed to the Road Safety Team. Highland Road I oppose extending the PMS as per your plans. I have never experienced any shortage of parking on Highland Road, there is plenty of parking and many properties have several off-street parking spaces. Some commuters may park near the station but there is ample parking on Joel Street, alongside the allotments, and any overspill is likely to continue down joel Street or Norwich Road. I have never seen commuters park on Winchester Road. Perhaps only do the bottom end of Highland Road. Traffic has reduced since Covid and is unlikely to return to the previous levels again with most employers making remote working permanent, so the decision to proceed should be delayed until things return to normal. The funds for this scheme would be better used to repair roads or be diverted to healthcare. The fees for additional permits will encourage residents to develop off- street parking and lead to more lost front gardens. Also, the signs and lines will spoil the look of the road. Perhaps implement a parking zone rather than signs/lines, or reduce the scheme to less than the whole of Highland Road. I also strongly oppose the double yellow lines on of the corner of Highland and Cranbourne Road as this is a quiet junction with good visibility. This scheme was proposed following a petition from residents of Highland Road and Winchester Road, followed by an informal consultation where the majority of the respondents expressed support for a Resident Parking Scheme. A petition has been submitted to the Council asking that the proposals for Highland road be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, if this scheme does go ahead there will be further consultation before implementation takes place. No vehicles should be parking close to a junction. Support'ish/Comment. We are shocked that under these proposals we would not be able to park outside our house between 1-2pm, and would prefer a 'Past This Point' scheme instead. Also the cost of permits seems higher than the surrounding roads. Can we opt for a bay that may block our driveway? The Council cannot issue permits that will allow residents to park on yellow lines. If residents wish for the parking bay to extend over their dropped kerb it will be considered. However, a petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. The permit charges are the same throughout the borough. Support. Can we have smaller bays where the gaps between dropped kerbs is tight? Previously I have opposed controlled parking but surrounding roads have them so I now believe that Highland Road should as well. A 'Past this Point' scheme seems to offer an ideal solution to the parking. The minimum length of a bay is 4.5m, we cannot install smaller bays. A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. Can permit holders be allowed to park anywhere, including on yellow lines? Or a scheme with no markings? Having heard some 'scare' stories, is the first permit 'free' guaranteed for a number of years? The consultation period is too short, can it be extended? Why are there no bays at the northern end of the road? Are the permits linked to an address or a vehicle? Are the permit fees the same as other schemes? The Counci cannot issue a permit to allow residents to park on yellow lines. A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. Resident permit prices are the same thoughtout the borough. Why are there no parking bays at the northern end of Highland Road? Are the fees a one-off or an annual charge, and why are they higher than elsewhere in the borough? Some neighbours have been suggesting a 'past this point' scheme but I prefer the scheme as advertised as people may miss the entry sign and get fined for it. There are no bays in this area because they will not fit between the dropped kerbs, should residents wish bays may be installed in front of their dropped kerbs. A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. The permit charges are annual and are the same throughout the borough. I support the scheme as propsoed, but here is another consultation be circulated for an alternative vesrsion, is this official? The scheme works well in other local roads. A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. I have been in favour of a scheme for a number of years. Is bays/lines the only option for Highland Road or is a scheme as proposed for Dale. Henley and Valley also an option for Highland Road? Do the single yellow lines operate 24/7 or just 1-2pm? Could double yellow lines be added in front of the entrance to Northwood Park as the entrance is often blocked? A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. The single yellow lines opearte the same hours as the scheme. The Council does not normally place double yellow lines in front of dropped kerbs as they can already be enforced 24/7. Whatever bay is implemented it should contain clear parking bays, signs at just the start of the road are not enough. A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. Object. Street parking has been increasingly aggravate by new residents removing their front gardens for parking and still leaving multiple vehicles on the road. The road has also been used by businesses for long term parking of their vehicles. Since Covid there have been no commuters parking here so it would appear sensible to wait a little longer to see if the alleged problems still exists. Your scheme encourages five cars per house when we need to reduce car ownership. I have signed the petition for a scheme with no lines/posts should the scheme go ahead. The proposed scheme should stop non-residnetial business vehicles being left in the road for extended periods of time. The scheme does not encourage five cars per household as each permit costs progressivly more money. A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. I am in agreement of the parking scheme for Highland Road. I feel the parking bays should be as big as possible. I am aware that there is a petition for a 'Past this point' scheme being submitted but I have some reservations that such a scheme will be more difficult to monitor and that drivers may miss the signs and not realise that parking is restricted. A petition has been submitted asking for the scheme to be changed to a 'Past This Point' scheme, which will mean futher consultation should the scheme go ahead. I believe the extension is needed and I fully support the scheme. Valley Close Support. Will there be yellow lines in front of the dropped kerbs in Valley Close? There are currently problems with cars parked everywhere including on the footway. There are no additional yellow lines proposed in Valley Close. Footway parking is currently prohibited in Valley Close and any vehicles left on the footway are liable to receive a ticket. Winchester RoadThe last section of Winchester Road, near Norwich Road, should be left unrestricted. Parking zones generally need to cover the whole of a road and generally cannot just stop at a random location. Support. Putting car seats in can be difficult if I need to park further from my property due to commuter parking. I support the scheme but would like some changes. The Norwich Road end of Winchester Road should be left unrestricted. I don't want to pay for a permit for my second car. Parking zones generally need to cover the whole of a road and generally cannot just stop at a random location. We support the proposals for Winchester Road. We strongly support the implementation of the scheme in our road. Support. Support. What assurance do we have that the hours and/or charges will not change in the future? Any changes to the operational hours will be led by residents and will involve further consultations before nay changes take place. The charges are voted through at Full Council and are therefore beyond the scope of this consultation. Object. The propsed scheme places bays too close to our dropped kerb. Bays will start at least 0.5 metres from the top of a constructed dropped kerb. Object. We have never experienced parking problems in our road as the tube station is over a mile away, there is no logical reason nor request to introduce restrictions. This will add additional costs for families with more than one car and is an exercise by Hillingdon to charge households and raise funds as opposed to a genuine need driven initiative. This scheme was only proposed following a petition from residents of Winchester Road and an informal consultation where the majority of residents that responded supported a scheme. As a resident of Winchester Road I have no objections to this proposal. We support the proposed scheme and would like to see it implemented as soon as possible. Object. It's not needed as commuter parking has never been a problem in Winchester Road. I don't want a yellow line in front of my property. These proposals will push more cars onto Norwich Road making it more dangerous. The removal of the 'commuter spaces' near Norwich Road will mean that the road is more likely to be used as a'rat run'. I would like to see white lines painted in front of dropped kerbs and additional spaces for commuters as they often need to use their cars to pick up children, carry heavy equipment or don't feel safe walking home. This scheme was only proposed following a petition from residents of Winchester Road and an informal consultation where the majority of residents that responded supported a scheme. A parking zone must cover the whole of the public highway within the zone with either a parking place or a waiting restriction. The only other option available to residents is to have the bay contiue accross your dropped kerb. If the scheme does not go ahead then white bars may be installed for a fee. Support the proposals. I was disappointed the scheme was not implemented previously when the rest of the scheme went ahead in Northwood Hills. The reason for the scheme not being implemented prevously was the lack of support at the formal consultation period. PERMIT HOLDER ONLY BAYNEW DOUBLE YELLOW LINE & TERMINALNEW SINGLE YELLOW LINE & TERMINALEXISTING YELLOW LINEKEYCROSSOVERTO BE REMOVED Dale CloseProposed Waiting restrictions
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 06 April 2022 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 NORTHWOOD HILLS PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME EXTENSION - REPORT ON FORMAL CONSULTATION Reference No. 432 Date of decision Wednesday 6 April 2022 Call-in expiry date 5pm, Wednesday 13 April 2022 Relevant Select Committee(s) Public Safety and Transport Select Committee Relevant Ward(s) Northwood Hills Decision made Cabinet Members making the decision Councillor John Riley – Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport Approved That the Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Transport: 1) Noted the responses received dur ing the formal consultation undertaken in the Northwood Hills area regarding an extension to the existing Parking Management Scheme; 2) Instructed officers to implement the scheme as proposed with the following changes: a) Retain the ‘School Keep Clear’ re strictions in Harlyn Drive. b) Formally consult on ‘at any time’ restrictions in Dale Close as indicated in Appendix D. 3) Noted the responses received during the informal consultation undertaken in Highland Road regarding changing the scheme to a ‘Past this Point’ scheme; 4) Prior to implementation of the ‘signs and lines’ scheme in Highland Road, instruct ed officers to formally consult with residents on amended proposals for Highland Road to a ‘Past this Point’ Executive Decision Notice – 06 April 2022 Page 2 This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk scheme and to report back to the Cabinet Me mber and Ward Councillors; and 5) Asked officers in the Highways team to inspect the condition of the footways in Harlyn Drive. Reason for decision This decision is in line with the views expressed during the informal consultation and is supported by the local Ward Councillors. Alternative options considered and rejected None at this stage. Classification Part 1 – Public Link to associated report Here Relevant Officer contact & Directorate Gordon Hill – Place Directorate Any interest declared by the Cabinet Member(s) / dispensation granted N/A 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, Wednesday 13 April 2022 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. Executive Decision Notice – 06 April 2022 Page 3 This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk 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