Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Responses to Experimental Traffic Order for ‘Parklet Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip Town Centres
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: 0185 DDI: 01895 250185 My Ref: CMD 520 To: COUNCILLOR JONATHAN BIANCO CABINET MEMBER FOR PROPERTY, HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT COUNCILLOR EDDIE LAVERY CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES c.c. All Members of the Residents’ Services Select Committee c.c. Hayley Thomas, Place Directorate c.c. Perry Scott, Corporate Director of Place c.c. Ward Councillors for Eastcote and Ruislip Date: 15 June 2022 Non-Key Decision request Form D Responses to Experimental Traffic Order for ‘Parklet Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip town centres 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 Thursday 23 June 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. Liz Penny Democratic Services Officer Title of Report: Responses to Experimental Traffic Order for ‘Parklet Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip town centres 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 Property, Highways & Transport / Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services Cabinet Member Report – 15 June 2022 Page 1 (Part 1 Public) Responses to Experimental Traffic Order for ‘Parklet Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip town centres Cabinet Member(s) Councillor Jonathan Bianco Councillor Eddie Lavery Cabinet Portfolio(s) Cabinet Member for Property, Highways & Transport Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services Officer Contact(s) Hayley Thomas, Place Directorate Papers with report Appendix A – Eastcote Parklet outside no. 263 Field End Road Appendix B – Eastcote Parklet outside no. 105 Field End Road Appendix C – Ruislip Parklet in Brickwall Lane Appendix D – Summary of responses to Experimental Traffic Order HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member s on the responses to the experimental traffic order ‘Parklet Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip town centres as part of the G overnment’s Welcome Back initiative supporting high streets and town centres. Putting our Residents First This report supports the following Council objectives of: Our People; Our Built Environment; Our Heritage and Civic Pride; Strong financial management. Financial Cost There are no cost implications associated with the recommendation in this report. Relevant Select Committee Residents’ Services. Relevant Ward(s) Eastcote, Ruislip RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Members: 1. Note the comments received during the first six months of the experimental traffic order for ‘Parklets Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip town centre. Cabinet Member Report – 15 June 2022 Page 2 (Part 1 Public) 2. Approve an extension to the pilot scheme until 30 September 2022 to allow for full summer dining, after which a further review, can be undertaken. Reasons for recommendations All responses to the experimental traffic order have been considered along with feedback from maintenance visits by the parklet contractor and inspections carried out by Licensing Services. Alternative options considered / risk management The Council could decide to end the pilot programme. This option would incur a cost of £6,000 to remove and dispose of all three parklets, two in Eastcote and one in Ruislip. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. To help aid the recovery of high streets during the COVID -19 pandemic, the Government launched the Reopening High Streets Safety Fund (RHSSF) with funding available to every Council through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). On 20 March 2021 the Government announced that the Reopening High Streets Safety Fund had been expanded to begin a new phase of delivery up to the end of March 2022 as The Welcome Back Fund (WBF) . This was an opportunity to support businesses who have struggled through various lockdowns and the challenges of the last 24 months. The Welcome Back Fund could be utilised to support a range of activities, such as: • Communications and public information; • Business-facing awareness raising activities to promote local shopping, and • Temporary public realm changes to ensure that reopening of local economies c ould be managed successfully and safely. 2. Following the implementation of the second nationwide lockdown in December 2020, the Government announced from 12th April 2021 the commencement of the roadmap out of lockdown. For hospitality businesses this initially meant they would be able to serve patrons in outside areas only. Th is was a clear advantage for those premises with large outside spaces and beer gardens to trade; however, many high street hospitality venues were not so easily able to accommodate customers in their limited outside spaces. In some of Hillingdon’s town centres, the existing private forecourts, or the public footway immediately outside the hospitality premises were already sufficiently wide to allow street - based dining to take place with no call for infrastructure alterations, whether temporary or permanent. In these areas, Licensing Service were able to assist with pavement licences and the potential for some of the restaurants to extend their evening street-dining activities in front Cabinet Member Report – 15 June 2022 Page 3 (Part 1 Public) of adjacent businesses closed from 6pm . In other town centres, where constraints on the available footway width were more limited, other temporary measures were considered. 3. In the summer of 2020, officers carried out a review of the Borough’s town centres and identified areas where additional outdoor dining space could be created where pavement widths were limited. Initial consultation was undertaken with the relevant ward councillors for their feedback who were broadly supportive, with further consultation with local businesses requested to identify the need. Officers from Licensing Services visited hospitality businesses in Eastcote, Northwood, Ruislip and Uxbridge town centres to ascertain what support the Council could provide to support the reopening, providing residents a safe and enjoyable restaurant /café experience and contributing positively to the local community. Businesses were positive regarding the proposals and a number supported the use of parking bays to provide additional seating through the installation of parklets. Based on this demand, and with the approval of the Cabinet member/s, officers developed proposals for parklets to be piloted in Eastcote, Ruislip and Uxbridge town centres where there w as support for these measures as well as a concentration of hospitality businesses which could benefit from them. 4. For reference, a parklet is a small public pavement extension designed to fit within an existing parking space. Most have a decked area that takes into account the camber of the road and are level with the kerb to avoid a trip hazard. As the Parklet replaces an existing parking space and occupies the same width as a standard parking bay, they are not expected to impact on traffic movement in the area . For the purpose of this trial, the parklets were specifically to provide additional outdoor eating space rather than as a general community/social area. Utilising the ‘Welcome Back Fund’, the Council procured the services of Meristem Design Ltd through an ERDF-compliant tender process to provide temporary street furniture in four pilot town centres: Eastcote, Northwood, Ruislip and Uxbridge town centres. The location of the pilot parklets in Eastcote and Ruislip are shown in the plans attached as Appendix A, B and C. To ensure the Parklets provided a visual enhancement to the high street and could be used if needed in all weather, planting including a green roof was incorporated within the structure. Weekly maintenance was also included as part of the tender, up until 30 June 2022. The use of a parklet was subject to a p avement licence being granted by the Council. The licence could be issued to an individual business, or a consortium of businesses located within the vicinity of the parklet. As part of the licence there would be conditions on their use along with the Council having sufficiently robust powers to prevent or tackle nuisance should this occur. The Government has since announced the permanent relaxations to pavement licensing schemes as part of the ‘Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill’ with the objective of encouraging economic growth and enabling high streets to thrive. 5. The parklets were installed following the implementation of an experimental traffic order, which converted existing parking places to ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions to facilitate the structures. The experimental traffic order enables the Council to implement changes to Cabinet Member Report – 15 June 2022 Page 4 (Part 1 Public) parking controls for a maximum period of 18 months, whilst also providing an opportunity during this period for anyone to comment and give feedback on the scheme. Public notices were advertised in the local newspapers and the Council’s website along with s treet notices erected on site from 27 October 2021, with the order becoming operational from 8 November 2021. Although an experimental traffic order can last up to 18 months, it was agreed with the Cabinet Member/s that the parklets in Eastcote and Ruislip would be initially reviewed after a six-month period, which was reached on 8 May 2022. 6. During the consultation, a total of 13 responses were received, nine of which objected to the installation of the parklets. All responses have been collated in the table attached as Appendix D to this report. 7. Three of the responses received fully supported the proposals, with one suggesting that the scheme should be extended to other town centres. A further response was received which did not object to the parklets in principle but asked for further clarity about their purpose. 8. Of the nine objections received, seven responses objected to loss of parking in the town centre, with a further response also suggesting that the p arklets compromised road safety and affect ed sight lines for pedestrians. Both Eastcote and Ruislip town centres have generous on-street and off-street parking facilities. Eastcote has a total 431 parking places with 66 of these on- street. The parklet scheme uses two on- street parking places, which represents 3% of the on-street parking and 0.4% of the overall parking available in the town centre. Ruislip has a total of 476 parking places with 95 of these on- street. The parklet only utilises one space, which represents 1% of the on- street parking and 0.2% of the overall parking. As mentioned in point 4, in each instance, the parklet has replaced an existing parking space and occupies the same width as a standard parking bay. It is therefore, not expected to impact on road safety or traffic movement any more than a parked vehicle. 9. Four of the responses received suggest that the parklets are underutilised and are no longer required. Whilst the use of the parklets would obviously be greater in the spring and summer months, with the emergence of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 in winter 2021, further restrictions were put in place and the availability of additional socially -distanced outdoor dining options were encouraged. To ensure patrons would be protected from the elements a green roof canopy was included in the design. With the incoming spring and summer months, it is likely that hospitality businesses will benefit further from them being in place. 10. Four responses also suggested that the Parklets attract litter and antisocial behaviour, with a further response also indicating that they cause congestion on the footway. As part of the tender for temporary street furniture, a weekly maintenance schedule for the p arklets and associated planting was included, with monthly updates provided by the contractor. On review of these maintenance reports, we can find no feedback of excessive litter or damage to the parklets. If the recommended extension to 30 September 2022 is supported, we will keep any instances of anti-social behaviour under review and take necessary action should any issues arise. Cabinet Member Report – 15 June 2022 Page 5 (Part 1 Public) 11. Two responses i mply that the p arklets only benefit individual businesses. As mentioned in point 4 there was no restriction on the number of businesses applying to use the parklets and an individual or consortium of business could apply for a pavement licence. When determining the location for the parklets, officers endeavoured to find locations where there were a cluster of hospitality businesses to maximise the use of the parklet. 12. One response suggested that the Council should be lowering business rates and attracting new businesses to the town centre. Business rates are set by Central Government and the Council therefore has no authority to lower business rates in the Borough. As part of the Welcome Back Fund, the Council also engaged with retail specialist Retail Revival. In addition to carrying out business training and organising free events within all 15 town centres and local parades, they completed a review of vacant units throughout the Borough and are currently finalising an evaluation of the full project with recommendations for the Council to consider. 13. Finally, one response suggested that the installation of the p arklet contravenes section 138 of the Highways Ac t. As the p arklets are usually installed on a temporary basis, planning permission is not required. The legal mechanism for this is the use of an experimental traffic order which allows the Council to make changes to the parking controls to facilitate the parklet on a trial basis for up to 18 months. Within this time period, comments and/or objections can be submitted to the Council, who will determine if the changes are made permanent or revert back to the original parking place. 14. To summarise, whilst a small number of objections have been received to the installation of Parklets in Eastcote and Ruislip town centres , these have been fully considered within this report. It is therefore recommended that the Parklet Pilot is extended for a further six months, until 30 September 2022, when a further review will be undertaken. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations in this report. The parklets’ weekly maintenance visits (the costs of which were funded via the Welcome Back grant) end on 30 June 2022. Should the recommended pilot extension to 30 September 2022 be approved, those businesses with a licence to serve food and drink from the parklets will be responsible for keeping the area clean and tidy (as they would for any street trading under the terms and conditions of their licences). The report further advises an alternative option being the cessation of the pilot programme. This would incur a cost of £6,000 to remove and dispose of all three parklets, two in Eastcote and one in Ruislip. Should that be the case, the expenditure would be allocated to the Town Centres revenue budget, with a subsequent application for funding via the Council’s Covid-19 reserves. Cabinet Member Report – 15 June 2022 Page 6 (Part 1 Public) RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities The overall benefit of the Welcome Back initiative was to support small independent businesses in reopening safely and attracting residents and visitors back to enjoying time and spending money within town centres and local shopping parades . Parklets provide an extension to the footway in areas where this is restricted and give further opportunities for hospitality businesses to provide additional socially distanced outdoor dining options. Consultation carried out or required Consultation was undertaken with ward councillors in July/August 2020 and with hospitality businesses in March 2021. Further business confidence and shoppers' surveys were conducted during August/September 2021 to identify support needed by businesses and the changing shopping habits of residents in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The consultation which forms the basis of this report is directly associated with the experimental traffic order and came into operation from 8 November 2021 inviting all comments to be received by 8 May 2022. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial implications set out above, noting the recommendation to approve an extension to the Parklets Pilot Scheme until 30 September 2022. It is also noted that there will be a £6k cost to remove and dispose of the three Parklets, if the programme is discontinued. Legal Legal Services confirm that the legal implications are included in the report. Infrastructure / Asset Management None at this stage. Comments from other relevant service areas Licensing Services have advised that the Government has announced permanent relaxations to pavement licensing schemes as part of the ‘Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill’ with the objective of encouraging economic growth and enabling high streets to thrive. The permanent licensing Cabinet Member Report – 15 June 2022 Page 7 (Part 1 Public) measures will streamline and make cheaper the process of applying for licences to place furniture on the highway. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL. TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES Appendix A – Eastcote Parklet outside no. 105 Field End Road Appendix B – Eastcote Parklet outside no. 263 Field End Road Appendix C – Ruislip Parklet in Brickwall Lane Appendix D – Summary of responses to Experimental Traffic Order VIRUNDHU VACANT LADIES EASTCOTE PHARMACYAMORE LAHORE HARROW LIGHTING GLASSAGATE VACANT LC LC LC B BenchBench SP Welcome Back FundTemp. Street FurnitureEastcote TownCentreAPP B SIDS THE FUNKY BARBERTANTALIZE FRANCESCA CAKES& COFFEELUX FOOD & WINEREMO'S VILLAGE LCSP Welcome Back FundTemp. Street FurnitureEastcote TownCentreAPP A DISABLED LOADING ONLY Bench Bench Bench Bench Bench B B B B B Appendix D: Responses to Experimental Traffic Order for Parklet Pilot in Eastcote & Ruislip town centre Approximate Address Summary of comments made Officers Comments Deancroft Road, Eascote "I understand that LBH are intending to extend the 'parklet' scheme for another 6 months. From my experience I have noted that they are seldom used by the retailers customers and apart from being an eyesore in the high street they further reduce the parking facilities which the slip road is intended for. The only occupants seem to be young yobs drinking their own cans of beer and smoking and generally mucking about causing a nuisance to passing pedestrians. Not only is this intimidating but surely not the intention? Homeless and illegal beggars find that the shelter afford some protection from the rain and consequently the sheds do nothing to enhance the appearance or ambience of Eastcote. Rather than extend for a further 6 months, the monstrosities should be removed immediately. I appreciate that Covid assistance was admirable but with the pandemic reducing, the sheds proving no benefit renders a further 6 months to consider their usefulness seems utterly pointless. A valiant effort but a failure." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 8, 9 and 10 Unknown "The parklets are an excellent idea. They are of great benefit to the community. Being outdoors they offer safer access to restaurants and cafes which is particularly important for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable / clinically vulnerable or people who are related to such individuals. The Covid-19 pandemic still continues at a high infection rate (1 in 35 in England according to the latest ONS survey) and is not yet endemic. In the future other zoonoses are likely to appear and hence building outdoor seating areas and encouraging a culture of outdoor eating is of benefit not just for the present time. Please therefore continue with the parklets indefinitely (including Autumn and Winter months) and also expand the initiative across the borough. Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 7 Unknown "Waste of a parking space especially for those with limited mobility so can't walk from car park behind Aldi and need to use Eastcote Pharmacy. The slip road is always full and hard to find a space and have yet to see anyone using the parklets. With all the empty shops why not make better use of those at least they are usable in all weather conditions. To get people back to high street offer much lower business rates / incentives to new shop retailers for first year of trading. No more food shops, eating establishments, pubs/bars. Real lack of variety at the moment to encourage shoppers from buying online." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 8 and 12 Eastcote Parklets Eastcote Residents' Association and Eastcote Conservation Panel "We understand that LBH has, in fact, already made the decision to extend the Parklet scheme, this apparently ignoring the fact that the related Experimental Traffic Order allows for objections to be received up to 8th May 2022. Although it therefore appears that no objections will actually be taken into account, we feel it necessary to reiterate the concerns and issues that we have raised throughout, from the time the two Parklets were installed in November 2021. Their purpose is to assist in encouraging people back into the high street - we contend that 4 seats around two tables in a Parklet at either end of the shopping parades is not going to make any significant difference in this regard. On the contrary they have a negative impact in a number of ways which far outweigh any value:- - They take away two much used car parking spaces, for example in the case of the Parklet outside the Lahore Restaurant , this affects the Pharmacy (also a COVID vaccination centre) and Agate Glass whose customers need to be parked close to the shop, given the fragile nature of the items they are collecting. - They create health and safety issues - dirt and debris left behind in them, including vomit; users suffering from fumes from cars; the safety of those using them from moving traffic and traffic moving in and out of the adjacent parking spaces; in the case of the Parklet opposite Francesca's the fact that customers, and those serving, have to cross the service road to access the unit from the cafe. - They encourage anti-social behaviour - noise (particularly late night / early morning) affecting the residents living in the flats above the shops; their use for drug and alcohol consumption. We were told that the council would be monitoring their use closely:- - Has this actually happened? If so, please can you share the results of that monitoring with us. That is times of day and night, how many times a week? What were the outcomes of this monitoring? - Have you taken into account the views of those in the shopping parades plus shoppers and residents? Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 8 and 10 St. Lawrence Drive, Eastcote " I understand that the placing of two 'podlets' as I believe the term is, outside two restaurants in the service roads in Eastcote is under review with regard to extending their use. While I commend the council for the initiative, originally as a consequence of the pandemic and to try to stimulate some steps towards 'getting back to normal', I feel that they are now outmoded. How successful they were I don't know, at encouraging custom from people preferring to sit outside at the peak of the virus. I didn't personally ever see people using them, though I freely admit I don't spend a lot of time in Eastcote shops of an evening. Certainly at lunch periods I never became conscious of their being used. Any every time I've been looking for a parking space (I go to two shops right beside them both frequently) they have been empty of people. However, that's really neither here nor there now. the fact is that time has moved on: 1) only the most paranoid are worried unduly by the prospect of being enclosed - and that's few. 2) those in that group are highly unlikely to go to any place where communal gatherings take place for periods of sufficient length to eat a meal 3) these pods only benefit two restaurants, so even if they were successful in their aim, it is unfair to all the many other restaurants in Eastcote 4) they are taking up space that should be returned to making parking easier; frankly it would be better to make them disabled or Brown Badge parking rather than continue the podlet use, though I'd recommend general use. 5) as someone who has lived in Italy and France and who has travelled to many other countries with warmer climes for longer periods of the year than England, where such pods are more useful and have been part of the street scene for decades, I can appreciate them in those countries, but mostly I prefer to sit indoors in temperature controlled environments even there. I think in reality that's the case for most Brits. It's not as if there are any views of interest of the passing wildlife! Therefore I respectfully ask, while applauding the original initiative, that these are consigned to history and not extended." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 8, 9 and 11 Unknown " I don't have any objection in principle to parklets. However, from what I have heard, their purpose is absolutely unclear. If - and this is my understanding from Councillors through a local Residents' Association - they are available for anyone to use, why has one around the corner from me been positioned directly in line with one existing catering business (who apparently had no part in requesting it, but is now using it by default as an extension of that business). It feels like an interesting idea not thought through." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 7 and 11 Unknown "I object to the provision of Parklets in Eastcote. They take up much needed parking spaces and have become outdoor extensions to the nearest shops." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 8 Cheney Street, Eastcote "I'm quite happy for the Eastcote parklets to continue as they are." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 7 Forresters, Eastcote "I write to object to the continuing existence of the above Parklets in Eastcote. I walk almost every day from my address to the local shops on Field End Road and am almost always concerned and sometimes disgusted by the refuse left in the area facing 101 Field End Road (Lahore). Tables are often sticky and dirty, often with used glasses uncleared. Cigarette ends, face masks, tissues and other litter, such as crisp packets are left on the floor. This is clearly an invitation to vermin and flies and can only get worse during the warmer months. I hope the Council will reconsider the purpose of these recent additions to our environment." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 10 Newnham Avenue, Eastcote "I fully support the parklets located in Eastcote. Brilliant idea for hospitality ONLY." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 7 Unknown "Whilst a nice idea, I feel that these parklets shelters are not being utilised nor does anyone feel inclined to use them. They don't create any kind of street scene ambiance and I'd rather not have them in my local high street." Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 9 The Ridgeway, Ruislip "I am writing to complain that a building has been constructed on the carriageway of Brickwall Lane close to the junction with Ruislip High Street, which is contrary to section 138 of the Highway Act 1980. I cannot believe that any council would ever give their consent to such a building on the actual carriageway of a highway so why is it there and why has it been allowed to remain? The building looks like a shelter for smokers serving patrons of Melisi Restaurant, which is not a justifiable reason to obstruct the highway! The building constitutes a real danger to the public. Skips have to be lighted or guarded with reflective material if they are placed on the carriageway but this building, which is painted black, was not lighted or guarded in any way. The lack of any lighting or reflective material makes it a real danger to other road users who could drive into it at night and the council could well be held responsible in law if such an accident occurred for not removing the building from the highway. The building is also a danger to my wife, and others who use a mobility scooter, as the building completely blocks the line of sight when trying to cross Ruislip High Street at the junction with Brickwall Lane where Melisi is situated....... I would also like to extend my objection to the 2 other parklet schemes in Eastcote which I have found on your website. The carriageway is for road users and NOT for the construction of buildings for leisure purposes that obstruct the highway. The whole concept of parklets is misconceived and goes totally against the provisions of section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. Discovering that the council was responsible for obstructing the highway was, quite frankly, a shock! With regard to the location of one of the parklets in Eastcote, I noticed from the plans that it made it far more difficult to access the disabled bay and to see whether the space was available. Drivers wanting to use the disabled bay would have to reverse at the exit of the slip road which may not be easy for some disabled drivers with back or neck problems. The purpose of the slip roads is to facilitate parking for customers and deliveries to the shops, not for leisure purposes. I note you say 'an extensive consultation was undertaken with all hospitality sector businesses to identify which businesses could be supported by installing the Parklet and this has informed the specific locations within the town centres' and yet when I went into the Estate Agent opposite and asked the 3 staff present, what the building was of, nobody had the faintest idea. They suggested I asked at the Italian restaurant but the staff I spoke to couldn't help me! I have never seen it used and nobody knows what it is even for! It is an unused, dangerous eyesore that should never have been erected in the first place, so Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 18 and 13 The Chase, Eastcote "I object to the making of the Orders for these parklets on the following grounds: 1. This implementation is a misuse of the entire parklet concept. Livingstreets is the walking charity whose campaigns include better high streets for pedestrians & they enthusiastically encourage parklets. They say parklets are a way of providing safe spaces on residential streets for the community to rest & chat. They define parklets as 'small parts of residential street reclaimed by the community for people to stop, rest and enjoy'. 2. These tiny spaces between parked cars - in a narrow service road with other cars passing close by - are neither safe nor pleasant places to sit & eat. Creating parklets here is at best a waste of money - at worst it is a safety hazard. 3. The parklet outside Lahore is not needed, either by the restaurant or the community. The restaurant already has some pavement dining. The community already has ample & far better public seating just a few doors away, outside Eastcote Pharmacy. These 2 seating areas provide ample & far more suitable seating than the proposed parklet. 4. Lahore restaurant already causes a fair amount of congestion on the pavement outside at peak evening times, in fair weather - due to diners choosing to congregate in groups outside, smoking & generally mixing - plus the regular comings & goings of the home delivery drivers. The new parklet on the service road immediately outside the restaurant will aggravate this problem, adding to the crowd of customers bunched together on the pavement between the parklet & restaurant. It would become even more difficult than it is now for passers-by to walk through the crowd safety, maintaining adequate social distancing. So in fact this parklet would be detrimental to the local community, rather than advantageous, as it would make us feel less safe health-wise. Finally - I was concerned to hear from our local residents' association ERA that the council gave them no advance notification or explanation of these parklets. While I recognise that the council cannot pre-notify every interested group about every single planning application or change to our local street scene, I'm surprised & disappointed that, in this extraordinary case, the council did not see fit to engage those community organisations that we have, in something that is such a novel initiative to us all. If parklets are supposed to benefit the local community - why would you chose to enlist, at the very outset, the support of those community organisations that already do exist for our benefit? Rather than sharing with them, why would you keep quiet & decide instead to spring the whole idea on them - just as you've done to us residents? Considered as part of this report - see paragraph 8, 9 and 10
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 28 June 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 Responses to Experimental Traffic Order for ‘Parklet Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip town centres Reference No. 520 Date of decision Tuesday 28 June 2022 Call-in expiry date 5pm, Tuesday 5 July 2022 Relevant Select Committee Residents’ Services Select Committee Relevant Ward All Decision made Cabinet Members making the decision Councillor Jonathan Bianco – Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport Councillor Eddie Lavery – Cabinet Member for R esidents’ Services Approved That the Cabinet Members: 1. Note the comments received during the first six months of the experimental traffic order for ‘ Parklets Pilot’ in Eastcote and Ruislip town centre. 2. Approve an extension to the pilot scheme until 30 September 2022 to allow for full summer dining, after which a further review, can be undertaken. Reason for decision All responses to the experimental traffic order have been considered along with feedback from maintenance visits by the parklet contractor and inspections carried out by Licensing Services. Alternative options considered and rejected The Council could decide to end the pilot programme . This option would incur a cost of £6,000 to remove and dispose of all three parklets, two in Eastcote and one in Ruislip. Classification Part I – Public Link to associated report Report Executive Decision Notice – 28 June 2022 Page 2 This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk Relevant Officer contact & Directorate Hayley Thomas, 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, Tuesday 5 July 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. 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 Executive Decision Notice – 28 June 2022 Page 3 This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk Uxbridge UB8 1UW