Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Outcome of the formal consultation on a proposed extension to the Ruislip Gardens Parking Management Scheme Zone RG.
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: 0692
DDI: 01895 250692
CMD No: 860
To: COUNCILLOR JONATHAN BIANCO
CABINET MEMBER FOR PROPERTY,
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT
c.c. All Members of the Property, Highways and
Transport Select Committee
c.c. Aileen Campbell – Place Directorate
c.c. Perry Scott – Corporate Director of Place
c.c. Ward Councillors for South Ruislip
D
Date: 21 July 2023
Non-Key Decision request Form D
BEDFORD ROAD, RUISLIP – RESULTS OF STATUTORY CONSULTATION
ON A PROPSOED EXTENSION TO THE RUISLIP GARDENS PARKING
MANAGEMENT SCHEME ZONE RG
Dear Cabinet Members,
Attached is a report requesting that a decision be made by you as an individual Cabinet
Member. Democratic 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. Services
You should take a decision on or after Monday 31 July 2023 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.
Ryan Dell
Democratic Services Officer
Title of Report: BEDFORD ROAD, RUISLIP – RESULTS OF STATUTORY
CONSULTATION ON A PROPSOED EXTENSION TO THE RUISLIP GARDENS PARKING
MANAGEMENT SCHEME ZONE RG
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 and Transport
Cabinet Member Report – 21 July 2023 Page 1
Part I – Public
BEDFORD ROAD, RUISLIP – RESULTS OF STATUTORY CONSULTATION
ON A PROPSOED EXTENSION TO THE RUISLIP GARDENS PARKING
MANAGEMENT SCHEME ZONE RG
Cabinet Member Councillor Jonathan Bianco
Cabinet Portfolio Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport
Officer Contact Aileen Campbell – Place Directorate
Papers with report Appendix A – Plan of the formal consultation area.
Appendix B – Comments received during the statutory consultation.
HEADLINES
Summary
To inform the Cabinet Member of the outcome of the statutory
consultation on a proposed extension to the Ruislip Gardens
Parking Management Scheme Zone RG.
Putting our
Residents First
This report supports our ambition for residents/ the Council of:
Be / feel safe from harm
This report supports our commitments to residents of:
A Green and Sustainable Borough
Financial Cost There are no direct financial implications associated with the
recommendations to this report.
Relevant Select
Committee
Property, Highways and Transport Select Committee.
Relevant Ward South Ruislip.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:
1) Notes the responses received to the statutory consultation on a proposed
extension to the Ruislip Gardens Parking Management Scheme Zone RG;
2) Instructs officers to take no further action in implementing an extension to the
Ruislip Gardens Parking Management Scheme Zone RG in Bedford Road
between Stafford Road and the western end of Trevor Crescent, based on the
responses received to the formal consultation , and following discussions with
local Ward Councillors; and
3) Asks the Council’s Highways Team to refresh the double yellow lines as shown
in the tabulated comments in Appendix B.
Cabinet Member Report – 21 July 2023 Page 2
Part I – Public
Reasons for recommendations
The recommendations reflect the responses received to the formal consultation with residents of
Bedford Road, Ruislip.
Alternative options considered/ risk management
The consultation with residents offered the options of no further action in implementing a parking
scheme and making no changes the current parking arrangements.
Select Committee comments
None at this stage.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1. A petition was submitted to the Council signed by 25 residents of Bedford Road, Ruislip
requesting a parking permit scheme in a section of Bedford Road between Stratford Road and
Trevor Crescent. Bedford Road is a mainly residential road with a mixture of terraced houses
and maisonettes , with many properties having access to off -street parking. Following a
Petition Hearing with petitioners and the former Cabinet Member for Public Safety and
Transport, officers were instructed to carry out informal consultation with residents in a section
of Bedford Road agreed in liaison with local Ward Councillors.
2. A s the petition was only concerned with the section of Bedford Road between Stafford Road
and the western end of Trevor Crescent, Ward Councillors confirmed that only residents in
this section of Bedford Road should be included in a possible extension to the nearby Ruislip
Gardens Parking Management Scheme.
3. As a result of the above, residents were sent an informal consultation pack which included a
letter, questionnaire, and reply -paid envelope, asking whether they would support an
extension to the nearby parking scheme to include their road. The results of this consultation
were shared with local Ward Councillors who, based on the results , w ere supportive of a
scheme progressing to statutory consultation.
4. Officers developed a detailed scheme design which included residents’ parking bays where
the gap between dropped kerbs could be utilised, single yellow lines in front of dropped kerbs
and existing double yellow lines where it is deemed unsafe to park.
5. Statutory consultation started on 24 May and ended on 14 June 2023. R esidents in the plan
attached as Appendix A were sent a copy of the proposed plans, as well as a letter explaining
how they can comment on the proposals . The proposed scheme was also advertised in the
local newspaper as well as public notices which were displayed on site.
6. During the 21- day statutory consultation period, 22 responses were received. These
comments were from residents who all live within the proposed scheme area, the majority of
which objected to the proposed extension to the Ruislip Gardens Parking Management
Scheme Zone RG. All of the comments received to the formal consultation can be seen in
Appendix B with officers’ comments were relevant.
Cabinet Member Report – 21 July 2023 Page 3
Part I – Public
7. 13 residents advised they object to the proposed scheme. One of the main reasons for
objecting was due to the cost it would incur to residents. Although there are numerous dropped
kerbs in Bedford Road, there are properties without any access to off- street parking. A few
residents were therefore concerned at the amount they would have to pay for a permit ,
especially if they have multiple cars within the househol d. One resident advised that the
introduction of a scheme would prevent friends or family being able to visit, a nd therefore
negatively impact them. Some residents also questioned why the proposals were necessary,
particularly in the current clima te, with one resident advising “this will be an unnecessary
change and expensive to residents at a time when the cost-of-living crisis is already affecting
our quality of life”. A few comments recognised commuter parking takes place in the road but
did not believe that it warranted a residents’ permit parking scheme.
8. Nine of the comments received during the consultation indicated support for a scheme. One
of the main reasons for support was to deter residents of Trevor Crescent parking in Bedford
Road. Residents alleged that some households in Trevor Crescent park their first or additional
cars in Bedford Road to prevent needing to pay for permits. One resident even asked, “please
do NOT allow those who live on Trevor Crescent the opportunity to purchase Residents
Permits specifically for Bedford Road”, stating that residents of Bedford Road would be “hugely
disappointed if Trevor Crescent are offered permits ”. As this is a proposed extension to the
existing Ruislip Gardens Parking Management Scheme, any resident with a valid ‘Zone RG’
permit or visitors voucher is entitled to park in the zone even if they live in a different road.
Another reason some residents supported the proposals was to prevent all -day parking by
commuters. One resident advised that commuters park “inconsiderately and for excessive
hours so that they can use the tube line at Ruislip Gardens” . This has allegedly increased
since the implementation of the existing Ruislip Gardens parking scheme. Residents also
advised that at the present time, there is such a lack of parking availability due to commuters
that vehicles park in front of driveways causing issues for residents.
9. A ll of the comments received to the formal consultation have been shared with local Ward
Councillors and the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport. Ward Councillors
advised that based on the responses received to the statutory consultation, there is not
sufficient mandate to proceed with the proposed scheme. It is therefore recommended that no
changes are made to the parking arrangements at the present time.
Financial Implications
There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations to this report.
RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION
The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities
To change the parking arrangements in Bedford Road, Ruislip based on the parking issues
reported, and discussions with local Ward Councillors.
Consultation carried out or required
Residents in the area as seen on the plan attached as Appendix A were sent a statutory
consultation letter and detailed plan of the proposed scheme to see if they would support an
extension to the Ruislip Gardens Parking Management Scheme Zone RG. Local Ward
Cabinet Member Report – 21 July 2023 Page 4
Part I – Public
Councillors were also consulted. If the recommendations to this report are approved, then officers
will take no further action in implementing a parking scheme.
CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS
Corporate Finance
Corporate Finance have reviewed the recommendations to this report and concurs with the
financial implications as set out above.
Legal
Legal Services confirms that there are no legal impediments to the Council commencing the
statutory consultation process.
Infrastructure/ Asset Management
None at this stage.
Comments from other relevant service areas
None at this stage.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
NIL.
TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES
Appendix A – Location plan of informal consultation area.
Appendix B – Tabulated results of the informal consultation.
Bedford Road
Support
We are fully behind a PMS for our part of Bedford Road!
For a very long time now we have had to put up with commuters for Ruislip Gardens station, which is now back
to pre-pandemic scale.
Then when Trevor Crescent introduced a parking scheme we had the overspill of cars that have either not paid
for a permit or don't want to, parking in the road and will only get worse now, as all cars will have to have a
permit.
We now have Bedford Road residents, who have multiple cars, also parking transit vans and lorries in the road,
some days it's impossible to get a space!!
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 8.
Bedford Road
Object
I am very concerned and sorely distressed at your intended parking proposals for Bedford. I do not possess a
car, so that in itself is not a problem for me, but I do have my family visiting me around twice a month. They visit
in order to keep an eye on me, I am a pensioner, years of age and I look forward to these visits with heart
and soul. The family travel from Hayling Island so that will indicate to you the length of their journey, and the
duration of time involved.
I shall be most obliged and grateful if you will kindly see what you can do in these circumstances.
PS May I respectfully suggest that the fees proposed for this scheme are beyond my already stetched budget.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Bedford Road
Support
I would support the need for permit parking and have the same times as Trevor Crescent.
It has been a problem for the longest time and often we have large vans, units parking outside our properties
that can cause issues with taking up spaces as they leave larger gaps in between when if parked correctly small
cars would also park there.
In addition, residents from Trevor Crescent also park outside our houses as they have more than one car and
come park here.
A few residents have asked if having the same permit arrangements with Trevor Crescent, would this allow
residents from both roads to park in each others roads? Meaning, could we park in Trevor Crescent if there are
no spaces and vice versa?
Overall I am supportive of the permit arrangements.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 8.
Residents who live
within the same parking
zone can park anywhere
in the zone as long as
they have a valid permit
or visitors voucher. As
this is a proposed
extension to Zone RG,
residents from Trevor
Crescent would be
entitled to park in
Bedford Road vice
versa.
Bedford Road
Support
I support the proposal to extend the parking scheme to include Bedford Road for the following reasons:
1. To stop commuters parking inconsiderately and for excessive hours so that they can use the tube line at
Ruislip Gardens, there is very little available parking since double yellow lines and the previous parking scheme
came into force nearby so there is a number of cars left daily, the issue is back to pre covid levels as businesses
expect workforce to return to the office.
2. Parents and workers for Ruislip Gardens school also park and leave their cars for a considerable time, often
overhanging residents driveways without any care or concern. The extension will stop this happening.
3. Residents of Trevor Crescent which is already a part of the current PMS, leave their second+ car(s) in
Bedford Road to stop them having to pay for subsequent permits, this is unfair. I do appreciate that if this
scheme is extended and the residents pay for another permit their cars may still be parked in Bedford Road
however at least it won't be for selfish reasons and Bedford residents would have the say option to park in
Trevor Crescent which we don't have today.
4. I do expect there to be a lack of support for the extension from some residents, particularly house and
as both households currently have at least 5 vans/cars each and the cost of the extension will be significant
for them. I would like to think that as some are business vehicles any cost can be recoupled from the businesses
or that they reconsider if they really need to run so many vehicles. Some of the vans are large in size so they
actually take more space up leaving other residents at times not being able to park near their homes or even in
the road itself. Again, I note if permits were purchased for all vehicles owned it would not improve parking
referenced under this point.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 8.
Bedford Road
Support
This will stop the commuters parking and enable residents to park near their homes.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 8.
Bedford Road
Support
I fully support the PMS being extended to the top end of Bedford Road. I have a drive and I am sick of people
parking part way over it as there are no spaces, thus making it difficult for visitors to park in my drive or over the
drive (it's on a slope and not easy to get in/out of).
Quite a few of the cars parked up this end of the road during the day are commuters from Ruislip Gardens
station (possibly not even residents of the borough) or cars from Trevor Crescent who have a parking zone
scheme in place but don't want to pay for the permits. They often take up the space outside 81-93 Bedford
Road, and 86-90 Bedford Road as it is just around the corner for them, making it hard for residents of Bedford
Road to park.
I also have no objection to a yellow line outside my property as I hope this will stop people parking over my drive
and I am happy to pay for extra visitor vouchers in the future.
On another note, if this does go ahead, can the lines on the junction of Trevor Crescent be repainted at the
same time please as one person has also started parking over them because he can't get parked anywhere else
(apart from half over my drive on occasions).
Please put your residents first and allow this to happen as we really need it.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 8.
Request for faded
markings to be re-
painted considered
within the
recommendations
Bedford Road
Support
I would like to confirm that I wholeheartedly welcome the proposal and look forward to the Council proceeding
with making these changes.
Thank you for all your assistance in this project and for ensuring our views are heard.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 8.
Bedford Road
Object
We were not a part of the informal consultation which is stated in paragraph one one of the letter. It has not
been made clear why the extension is being considered necessary. We have assumed that the parking
proposals are not there to prevent commuters as the carriageway on Bedford Road east of Trevor Crescent is
not restricted.
Therefore, we strongly oppose the proposals as this results in restrictions for residents parking in particular, like
myself, who have previously paid to have a cut drive. The local community has respected the cut drive, and
drivers refrain from parking outside my property. As someone who has recently moved into the area, such
parking restrictions would inevitably devalue the property prices.
The proposals suggest providing a yellow line outside my drive, which discourages social community living and
visitors from attending. We believe that proposed operational restrictions (everyday 9am-5pm) is not necessary
and is purely of financial gain to the Council and offers no other benefit. We see no reason why yellow lines are
required, and why parking bays are necessary in the area.
Lastly, asking residents to pay for permits, particularly their first permit is astounding, For those, like my
neighbour whom do not have a driveway, are negatively impacted. For the Council, the cost of consultation,
construction, implementation and regulation of this scheme outweights the financial income from recieving
permits from residents.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
The informal
consultation was
conducted in 2022
following a petition to the
Council - the decision
notice and informal
consultation report can
be viewed on the
Council's website.
Bedford Road
Object
I would like the make the following key points:
1) Fundamentally there does not appear to be any rationale to extend the scheme as during the day there is a
fair balance between those who live here and drive to work, creating spaces, and those who park here to
commute by other means, who then generally drive away when residents return home in due course.
2) A parking scheme extension would unfairly impact on the local residents and those who park here on a
temporary basis for trade work, visiting friends/ family or who provide care and other services. This impact is
made more acute with the current cost of living crisis and imminent expansion of the ULEZ.
3) The proposed scheme looks to introduce operating hours for the whole day which would negatively and
unfairly impact anyone who may wish to park on the street for a proportion of the day. This is not in keeping with
other parts of Ruislip where a limited restriction of one hour in the morning and afternoon is enough to
discourage non-residents from parking all day.
4) Why are residents asked to pay for permit for their initial vehicle when they already get to park here for free?
This is a stealth tax on residents who already pay enough Council Tax per year. Residents should be provided
with the means to park at least one vehicle off-street in the first instance and then provided with a free permit for
a vehicle.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
The informal
consultation was
conducted in 2022
following a petition to the
Council - the decision
Bedford Road
Object
I find the consultation to not be relevant given many of the houses on Bedford Road have driveways and the
people who do park are residents.
I find the extension of a resident scheme to be wholly irresponsible amid a cost of living crisis and an increase in
council tax. Particularly for families with multiple cars and who may already have a driveway. I have not seen any
justification for the extension of the parking scheme and note that the number to contact on the consultation was
coming up as an incorrect number. Which made it difficult to ascertain the rationale behind this extension.
Additionally I note that the informal consultation was not very clear with the reasoning behind why there is a
need to extend the resident parking scheme to Bedford road.
I noted there are several properties on Bedford Road who may have a driveway but have their blocked by a tree
or a lamp post -which results in an overlap perhaps removing those could go a long way in reducing issues. I
think the responsibility lies here with councils rather than placing extra financial strain on residents to park on
their own roads/driveways every year. Many of us do not have to pay ULEZ however this scheme could mean
any savings we would have got are being eaten away by this extension which I think would be quite frankly
disappointing.
Additionally with a school nearby some consideration should be provided for families who may be attending
events such as parents evening assemblies where the local school road may be full.
As such I do not see any inherent value or rational behind extending the Trevor Crescent parking scheme into
Bedford Road. It will likely have a negative impact increasing financial burden on families and residents with
multiple cars.
If I have missed this - could you confirm why this is even under review? The parking scheme on Bedford Road
has worked very well in the past 15 years and with my own driveway I have not come across any incidents with
drivers parking in front.
Could you also confirm the following information:
Rationale behind extending parking scheme in to Bedford Road beyond someone suggesting it and getting
signatures
What support there will be for families / multiple car owners who will have to cough up the extra charges?
I believe that this scheme would have a number of negative impacts on our community, and I urge the council to
reconsider the proposal which I note was not well promoted in 2022.
Bedford Road
Support
Almost a year and a half after submitting the request for a parking permit, we got a reply. I hope that the final
decision will be made soon, of course, for the parking permit to be. And I hope that the state will not take
complaints from people who have 5 cars per 1 house, who run businesses (construction, gardening, car etc)
and they will certainly not be happy with this proposal. But it is for the benefit of the residents of Bedford Road.
My request would be that if the lines on the permit holders are painted, I am asking that the parking lines do not
start immediatley with a lowered curb because the exit from my driveway is completely invisible and therefore
not safe.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 8.
Bedford Road
Object
We are writing to say that we do not want the proposed scheme to go ahead. We feel having to pay for annual
permits for our children to park in our own road, is unacceptable.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Council the decision
notice and informal
consultation report can
be viewed on the
Council's website.
Here are some of the reasons why I believe a resident parking scheme would be negative:
- Much of the road in Bedford Road is already kerbside with many houses already having driveways. This is
noted in the 'Non Key Decision Report' you shared - as there is limited kerbside space for parking due to
increase of dropped kerbs from driveways. There hasn't been issues of people parking e.g. commuters with the
implementation of the Trevor Crescent parking restriction which has reduced incentives for doing so. Therefore,
there is limited justification to extend this parking scheme to Bedford Road.
- It would increase traffic congestion. When people are unable to find parking, they often resort to circling the
block or parking in other areas that are not intended for parking. With kids, I do not feel safe with this. This can
lead to increased traffic congestion and make it more difficult for everyone to get around. This is likely to
increase at peak times resulting in increased air pollution and accidents.
- It would be unfair to residents who do not own a car and those who own multiple cars (a family car, work car
etc). Not everyone in our community owns a car, their house or can afford to create their driveway. The resident
parking scheme would make it more difficult for these residents to afford basic necessities in the midst of the
cost of living crisis, which would be unfair as this scheme only received 17 signatures in 2022 compared to a 11
opposing.
- It would make it more expensive to own a car. The cost of a resident parking permit would add to the cost of
owning a car, which is already a significant expense for many people. This could make it more difficult for people
to afford to own a car, which would limit their transportation options and make it more difficult for them to get to
work, school, and other essential activities.
- The local school (Ruislip Gardens) already has a drop off zone which has greatly reduced the likelihood of
parents parking on Bedford Road and therefore there isn't a need for an extended parking scheme.
I believe that the negative impacts of a resident parking scheme outweigh the potential benefits. I urge the
council to reconsider this proposal.
Bedford Road
Object
I am extremely opposed to this being implemented for the following reasons:
1. I don't and never had a problem parking my car in front of my house so don't see why it has to change.
2. I park my car on the road because if I park it on my driveway, it blocks out a lot of light to my living room which
means I will have to have my lights on costing me more money in electricity.
3. Putting a yellow line in front of my house I feel will make my house less sellable and put people off as mine is
a family sized house and alot of homes these days are a 3 car home.
4. In our road we have 2 blocks of flats which means they don't have drives so what are they supposed to do.
5. I child mind once every two weeks and mother's work at my house so this will impact her financially as she will
have to pay when she is already struggling.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Bedford Road
Object
We have lived here since 2006. We strongly oppose the proposal for the following reasons:
-We do not have problems with parking, we have 3 vehicles. 2 on the driveway and 1 over the drive. We
understand from your letter that parking over our driveway in front of our own house will no longer be an option.
-We have a disabled adult and has professionals visiting to support us. My adult sons also visit regulary
and park outside so they can support . We cannot afford to pay everytime they
come.
-My eldery mother drives to our house everyday. She helps and we stop her being lonely on her
own at home. We will not be able to finance this if the charges are implemented.
-The commuter situation does not affect us at this end of the street, and most properties have driveways. It
seems to use this will be an unnecesary change and expensive to residents like us at a time when the cost of
living is already affecting our quality of life.
Thank you for taking our opinions on board and taking into account how this might affect us.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Bedford Road
Object
I live with my family and we all would like to object to the new resident parking scheme taking place on our road.
We have three cars as a family we can fit two on our driveway but have one on the road outside, your new
scheme would mean we would have to spend alot of money just to be able to have our own vehicle outside our
house. For this reason and many others we object.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Bedford Road
Object
We would like to OPPOSE the proposed extension to the Ruislip Gardens PMS into Bedford Road. Thank you
for considering our rejection vote.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Bedford Road
Object
I wish to voice my disapproval of the proposal to convert Bedford Road to permit only parking. Firstly, as a
pensioner the added finance pressure is certainly causing me significant stress in the current cost of living crisis.
As I do not drive this parking charge would cause difficulty with getting assistance for shopping and visits to the
hospital. It would also discourage the limited visits I recieve from family and friends as I simply cannot afford the
proposed voucher.
Your proposed plan would also place a signpost directly in the middle of the front of my house, blocking the view
and making the area look terrible.
I strongly hope you reconsider the permit plans as many of the residents around here are eldery and equally
concerned at the health effects of creating barriers to potential and crucial visitation.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
Object
It would have been helpful if your letter had included the link to the 'informal consultation' that you state has
been shared with local Ward Councillors and the Cabinet Member for Properties, Highways and Transport. Is
this the correct link? https://modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/documents/s54270/220309%20-
%20Bedford%20Road.pdf
We would like to take up some points in the report:
'There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations to this report'
This is clearly not the case as it will cost the Council to implement it and it will cost each resident with a vehicle a
considerable amount given that permits are no longer free.
'Recommendation: Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation: 1. Meets with petitioners and listens to
their request for a residents' permit parking scheme in Bedford Road, Ruislip.
As residents we have never recieved an invitation to meet the said Cabinet Member or any other meeting
relating to this issue. It is not enough to only meet with the petitioners (who made this petition before the
introduction of charges for the first vehicle) but also those that object to said petition.
'A petition with 25 signatories has been submitted to the council from residents of Bedford Road, Ruislip'
I cannot see where the report states how many people submitted objections to this proposal. I know a good
number who do object. Has due diligence been done to assue that each of those sigantures is a resident (either
council tax payer or on electoral register)? It would also be helpful to understand what percentage of the
possible response 25 signatures makes up.
When my husband and I were looking for our house to buy, one of our criteria was there there should be no
local parking restrictions outside our home as we came from a location where any visitors had great difficulty
parking to come and visit us. We appreciate that things change with time, but this is an unnecessary change.
We fail to understand the benefit for anyone at all.
Any potential so-called 'benefits of the existing parking scheme have been eroded by the introduction of
charging for the first vehicle.
Dropped kerbs are not available to maisonettes and many houses in the street do not have available space on
their property to allow the residents to avoid this unnecessary cost.
Although the station being close by has meant that commuters park in our street (pressumably the reason for
the restrictions at that end of the street) this does not seriousy impact the west end of the area. Yes it is busy,
Bedford Road
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
but not such that this proposal would make any reasonable difference for the financial impact to the residents.
We are aware that the local council has elected to fight the ULEZ, much on the basis of a cost of living crisis.
Ironic that they should instead even consider increasing and extending charges for stationary vehicles.
We have spoken to various of our direct neighbours who say they have not receieved the notice of consultation
letter at all. Once of them uses a van for work that is currently legally able to park in this street, but will not be
eligable to purchase a permit due to its size, not being able to park after work and the cost of this will cripple the
business.
A petition of 25 signatures represents a very minor proportion of the street willing to inflict this on the rest of us. It
is not reasonable, proportionate or acceptable that it should be allowed to go forward.
We therefore both STRENUOUSLY OBJECT to this proposal and look forward to hearing about any meetings
/consultations that take place so that we can be sure to be heard.
Bedford Road
Object
It would have been helpful if your letter had included the link to the 'informal consultation' that you state has
been shared with local Ward Councillors and the Cabinet Member for Properties, Highways and Transport. Is
this the correct link? https://modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/documents/s54270/220309%20-
%20Bedford%20Road.pdf
We would like to take up some points in the report:
'There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations to this report'
This is clearly not the case as it will cost the Council to implement it and it will cost each resident with a vehicle a
considerable amount given that permits are no longer free.
'Recommendation: Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation: 1. Meets with petitioners and listens to
their request for a residents' permit parking scheme in Bedford Road, Ruislip.
As residents we have never recieved an invitation to meet the said Cabinet Member or any other meeting
relating to this issue. It is not enough to only meet with the petitioners (who made this petition before the
introduction of charges for the first vehicle) but also those that object to said petition.
'A petition with 25 signatories has been submitted to the council from residents of Bedford Road, Ruislip'
I cannot see where the report states how many people submitted objections to this proposal. I know a good
number who do object. Has due diligence been done to assue that each of those sigantures is a resident (either
council tax payer or on electoral register)? It would also be helpful to understand what percentage of the
possible response 25 signatures makes up.
When my husband and I were looking for our house to buy, one of our criteria was there there should be no
local parking restrictions outside our home as we came from a location where any visitors had great difficulty
parking to come and visit us. We appreciate that things change with time, but this is an unnecessary change.
We fail to understand the benefit for anyone at all.
Any potential so-called 'benefits of the existing parking scheme have been eroded by the introduction of
charging for the first vehicle.
Stafford Road
Object
I would like to reject your scheme for charging annual resident car permits.
I live in a house of multiple occupation. I don't have much to do with the other occupants as we work and live
differently. I work as a nurse so have nights to contend with as days.
We all then would have to pay for our cars that would be difficult to know who has to pay the most. I find this
completely unfair for we all have cars, who would be paying the 2nd, 3rd and 4th permit. We are all individuals,
which so happen live in the same property.
You also can't guarantee anyone of us a space to park on the road near the house or near by.
This is only a money gathering exercise which is unfair on each individual. Who are having to rent rooms
because renting houses is just unaffordable.
Please think carefully on how to proceed with this unfair tax on poor individuals.
Considered as part of
this report. See
paragraph 7.
g g
Dropped kerbs are not available to maisonettes and many houses in the street do not have available space on
their property to allow the residents to avoid this unnecessary cost.
Although the station being close by has meant that commuters park in our street (pressumably the reason for
the restrictions at that end of the street) this does not seriousy impact the west end of the area. Yes it is busy,
but not such that this proposal would make any reasonable difference for the financial impact to the residents.
We are aware that the local council has elected to fight the ULEZ, much on the basis of a cost of living crisis.
Ironic that they should instead even consider increasing and extending charges for stationary vehicles.
We have spoken to various of our direct neighbours who say they have not receieved the notice of consultation
letter at all. Once of them uses a van for work that is currently legally able to park in this street, but will not be
eligable to purchase a permit due to its size, not being able to park after work and the cost of this will cripple the
business.
A petition of 25 signatures represents a very minor proportion of the street willing to inflict this on the rest of us. It
is not reasonable, proportionate or acceptable that it should be allowed to go forward.
We therefore both STRENUOUSLY OBJECT to this proposal and look forward to hearing about any meetings
/consultations that take place so that we can be sure to be heard.
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 02 August 2023 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
BEDFORD ROAD, RUISLIP – RESULTS OF STATUTORY
CONSULTATION ON A PRO PSOED EXTENSION TO THE
RUISLIP GARDENS PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME
ZONE RG
Reference No. 860
Date of decision Wednesday 02 August 2023
Call-in expiry date Wednesday 09 August 2023
Relevant Select
Committee
Property, Highways and Transport Select Committee
Relevant Wards South Ruislip
Decision made
Cabinet Members
making the decision
Councillor Jonathan Bianco – Cabinet Member for Property,
Highways and Transport
Decision Approved
That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and
Transport:
1) Noted the responses received to the statutory
consultation on a proposed extension to the Ruislip
Gardens Parking Management Scheme Zone RG;
2) Instructed officers to take no further action in
implementing an extension to the Ruislip Gardens
Parking Management Scheme Zone RG in Bedford
Road between Stafford Road and the western end of
Trevor Crescent, based on the responses received to
the formal consultation, and following discussions
with local Ward Councillors; and
3) Asked the Council’s Highways Team to refresh the
double yellow lines as shown in the tabulated
comments in Appendix B of the associated report.
Reason for decision The recommendations reflect the respons es received to the
formal consultation with residents of Bedford Road, Ruislip.
Alternative options
considered and
rejected
The consultation with residents offered the options of no further
action in implementing a parking scheme and making no
changes the current parking arrangements.
Classification Part I – Public
Executive Decision Notice – 02 August 2023 Page 2
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
Link to associated
report
Report
Relevant Officer
contacts &
Directorate
Aileen Campbell – 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 on Wednesday 09 August 2023
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