Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Outcome of formal consultation for a possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2
Report Document
Can't see the PDF? Download Report
Decision / Minutes Document
No Decision PDF available.
Text extracted from PDFs
View Report Text
Democratic Services Location: Phase II Ext: 0636 DDI: 01895 250636 CMD No: 968 To: COUNCILLOR JONATHAN BIANCO CABINET MEMBER FOR PROPERTY, HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT c.c. All Members of th e Property, Highways and Transport Services Select Committee c.c. Kevin Urquhart - Place Directorate c.c. Perry Scott – Corporate Director of Place c.c. Ward Councillors for Ruislip Date: 28 November 2023 Non-Key Decision request Form D Outcome of formal consultation for a possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 Dear Cabinet Members, 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 06 December 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. Amy Helps Senior Technical Support Officer Title of Report: Outcome of formal consultation for a possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 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 – 28 November 2023 Page 1 (Part 1 Public) Outcome of formal consultation for a possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 Cabinet Member(s) Councillor Jonathan Bianco Cabinet Portfolio(s) Deputy Leader of the Council & Cabinet Member for Property, Highways & Transport Officer Contact(s) Kevin Urquhart, Place Directorate Papers with report Appendices A, B, C and D HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member of the outcome of the statutory consultation for a proposed extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Live in good quality, affordable homes in connected communities This report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities Financial Cost The estimated cost implications in relation to the recommendations set out in this report is £2,050 Relevant Select Committee Property, Highways and Transport Select Committee Relevant Ward(s) Ruislip RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member: 1. Notes the comments received during the statutory consultation for the proposed extension of the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 in the area shown on Appendix A. 2. Approves the extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 to include Whitstable Close, Ruislip as indicated on Appendix C. Cabinet Member Report – 28 November 2023 Page 2 (Part 1 Public) 3. Approves the installation of the proposed double yellow lines in Seaford Close, Ruislip adjacent to No. 71 as shown on Appendix D to help prevent obstructive parking and help promote road safety. 4. Decides to defer the proposed extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme in Bembridge Gardens, Hamble Close, Helford Close and Seaford Close, Ruislip on the basis of the responses received to the formal consultation and the views expressed by the local Ward Councillors. Reasons for recommendation The recommendation reflects the views of the majority of residents who responded to the Council's consultation and the views of local Ward Councillors. Alternative options considered / risk management The Council could have decided to proceed with the introduction of the Parking Management Scheme as proposed or deferred the scheme entirely. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. The Cabinet Member will recall considering recent requests and a petition from residents of Whitstable Close asking if they could be included in a Parking Management Scheme to prevent all day non- residential parking. As a direct result of this petition, the Council conducted an informal consultation with residents of Whitstable Close and roads in the surrounding area that were agreed in liaison with local Ward Councillors. 2. Following extensive discussions with the local Ward Councillors, it was decided that where the majority of residents who responded to the informal consultation and indicated support, these residents should be formally consulted on a detailed design for a proposed extension to the scheme. This included Bembridge Gardens, Hamble Close, Helford Close, Seaford Close and Whitstable Close. In Poole Close it was recommended that the parking arrangements remain unchanged for the time being and residents here were given a further opportunity, by way of another informal consultation, to see if they wish to reconsider being included in the scheme. 3. As the residents of Poole Close could potentially be the last road in the area where parking restrictions would not apply, these residents were reconsulted prior to commencing formal consultation in the other roads to give residents another opportunity to consider becoming part of the Zone WR2 in the knowledge that the scheme could be extended to the Cabinet Member Report – 28 November 2023 Page 3 (Part 1 Public) surrounding streets. All responses from the residents of Poole Close indicated that they would not support their road becoming part of the scheme. As a result, Poole Close was not included in the proposed extension to the Zone WR2 scheme. 4. Following the above, statutory consultation for an extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 in the area shown on Appendix A was undertaken between 13 th September and 4th October 2023. 5. All of the comments submitted by residents during the consultation have been summarised in the table attached as Appendix B to this report. These comments have been shared with the local Ward Councillors for consideration. 6. Below are several paragraphs that summarise the responses from each road where the scheme was proposed: Bembridge Gardens The majority of responses received from Bembridge Gardens were mostly opposed to the extension to the scheme. Many residents felt the scheme was unnecessary and that it would not address the problems that they as residents were experiencing with parking close to where they live. Comments raised by the residents of Bembridge Gardens included the suggestion for the existing Zone WR2 scheme in Chichester Avenue to be removed, for the existing scheme operating time to be amended to shorter times and for residents to be given a free or discounted permit to park within the scheme even if their road was not included in Zone WR2. In response, the Council would only consider the removal or amendments to an existing Parking Management Scheme if such a proposal is supported by the residents who live within that road. The scheme in Chichester Avenue was introduced following a petition from those residents. Therefore, the most effective way residents could request for its removal, is by way of a petition to the Council, but this would need to be supported by the residents that the changes would directly affect. It is the Council’s policy to only issue permits to residents that live within a Parking Management Scheme, these properties are defined within a legal document known as Traffic Management Order. There is no such permit that currently exists within this Borough which can be issued for residents who live outside of the scheme. It is therefore recommended that due to the mostly negative response received to the proposals and following discussion with the local Ward Councillors, the parking arrangements within Bembridge Gardens are left as existing. Hamble Close The responses from Hamble Close were mixed with several residents objecting, some feeling indifferent about the proposals and one resident broadly in support of the proposed scheme. Cabinet Member Report – 28 November 2023 Page 4 (Part 1 Public) Following discussion with the local Ward Councillors it is recommended that the proposed scheme is deferred in Hamble Close because of the objections and indifferent views expressed during the formal consultation. Helford Close No responses were received from any of the residents of Helford Close during the formal consultation, although a nearby resident of Chichester Avenue did indicate some support for the proposals. Following discussion with the local Ward Councillors it is recommended that the proposed scheme is deferred in Helford Close since residents of the road itself haven’t expressed an opinion either for or against the scheme. Whitstable Close As mentioned above the residents of Whitstable Close petitioned the Council requesting that their road be included in the scheme and received signatures from all of the residents of the road. During the formal consultation one response was received in favour of the proposed scheme. As residents had already signed a petition and responded in favour to the informal consultation, it is likely that many didn’t feel the need to respond at this stage of formal consultation. Following discussion with the local Ward Councillors it is recommended that the Council proceeds with the extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 on the basis that residents seem generally supportive of the proposals as demonstrated by the petition they submitted. Seaford Close The responses from the residents of Seaford Close, similarly to those of Bembridge Gardens, were overall not supportive of the inclusion of their road within the scheme. Many felt that additional charges for permits made the scheme unviable and felt on reflection that the scheme was not needed since the parking problems they associated with HS2 worker parking were no longer an issue. Following discussion with the local Ward Councillors it is recommended that the proposed scheme is deferred in Seaford Close. However, it is recommended that the proposed double yellow lines on the corner near No. 71 Seaford Close are installed as proposed and shown on Appendix D, since these were informed by a petition from residents who felt parking to be a road safety hazard on this corner. 7. In summary the outcome of the formal consultation has been shared with the local Ward Councillors who, after careful consideration of all the responses received, asked that at this present time a scheme should only be progressed as proposed in Whitstable C lose. Due to the lack of responses in support of a scheme from all the other roads consulted, the views of the Ward Councillors are that it would be best to leave the parking arrangements within these roads as existing. Should residents of any of these roads Cabinet Member Report – 28 November 2023 Page 5 (Part 1 Public) change their mind in the future then they could petition the Council and request that the parking arrangements be reviewed once more. Financial Implications The estimated cost to implement this extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme in Whitstable Close is £2k. There are no implications to Council Resources on the implementation of the scheme described above, it is to be fully funded through the 2023/24 Transport for London Grant Local Implementation Plan allocation of £120 k for various Parking Management Schemes, which was approved for release with effect from 16/06/2023. The cost to introduce the double yellow lines adjacent to No. 71 Seaford Close, Ruislip is estimated to be £50 which can be managed within the existing revenue budgets for the Transportation Service. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? The introduction of the Parking Management Scheme in Whitstable Close will help prevent non- residential parking and return the balance of parking in favour of local residents. The installation of double yellow lines in Seaford Close will address concerns of obstructive parking following concerns raised in a petition from nearby residents. Consultation carried out or required Statutory consultation was carried out between 13 th September to 4 th October 2023 by the insertion of public notices in the local newspaper and displayed on site. No further consultation is required. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed the report and concurs with the financial implications set out above noting that the proposed costs associated with the required works as detailed in the main body of the report are to be funded from the 2023/24 TfL Grant LIP Allocation Legal Cabinet Member Report – 28 November 2023 Page 6 (Part 1 Public) The Council’s power to make orders such as that proposed in this report are 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). This requires the Council to consider all objections made (Regulation 13). Pursuant to section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in considering the consultation responses, 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. In considering the consultation responses, the Council must ensure that there is a full consideration of all representations including those which do not accord with the officer's recommendation. The Council must be satisfied that responses from the publi c were conscientiously taken into account. The Council must also be mindful of its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. 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, must be observed. Further, where the Council does not wholly accede to any objection, it must provide reasons for this in its notification of the making of an order to any person that has objected pursuant to Regulation 17(3)) of LATOPR 1996. Whenever necessary legal advice is given in relation to specific issues as they arise to ensure that the Council always meets its legal obligations. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES Appendix A - Plan – Formal consultation area for a possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 Appendix B - Table – Response to the formal consultation Cabinet Member Report – 28 November 2023 Page 7 (Part 1 Public) Appendix C – Plan – Extent of West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 with the inclusion of Whitstable Close Appendix D – Plan – Extent of double yellow lines to be installed in Seaford Close, Ruislip Approximate address Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Comments Thank you for your letter Ref. KU/7.40. September 2023 I fully support the proposals to extend the scope of WR2 to include Bembridge Gardens and the other cut‐de‐sac roads off Chichester Avenue within a revised WR2 scheme. This will put a stop to parking in the remaining currently excluded roads by people who are looking to park vehicles while they travel by train, work at Waitrose, HS2 workers and other opportunist parking. It will solve a problem that has arisen whereby a few residents of Bembridge Gardens have had difficulty finding a place to park when outsiders have parked in the road, yet these residents of Bembridge Gardens cannot currently park on Chichester Avenue when spaces are available. These proposed measures should address these issues. Am happy that your thinking about proceeding the permits on are roads. Its been a long wait ,cause there's been problems finding parking, when you have people leaving there car and going off on holiday, when they don't even live here. And specially the flats when number of them has more than 2 cars and because I work shift work I can't even park near my house or have to get up to move my car in the morning, cause its park on a permit spot. The price of the permit doesn't bother me it saves me a lot of hassle and worry free when I know with a permit am allowed to park were I want too. We are not in favour of the PMS as this involves us residents paying for virtual permits. If the virtual permits for residents are free for minimum 2 cars or at worst case for 1 car per household then we would be in favour of as this prevents people parking and walking to the near by stations. Also, why are the Bembridge flats area part of the scheme where currently that area is considered according to signs displayed in the area as "private parking" Is this area therefore not deemed private or are the flats council flats? If the former does the PMS scheme allow me to park my vehicle in the flat area, even though I am not a flat resident. Following our conversation by phone today regarding the parking schemes around Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip and surrounding road, my idea is if they are put in place all residents get at least one free parking permit and a subsidies 2nd permit so as to ease the financial strain on all the residents in and around Bembridge Gardens. Also I think changing the time restriction from 9.30am to 10.30am and 3.30pm to 4.30pm changing it to 1pm to 2pm would be enough to stop commuters from other neighbouring areas from parking in our spaces and this to include time changes to the Chichester Avenue which is empty most of the time and would ease the problem of parking for the residents in Bembridge Gardens and some of the surrounding roads. I hope this is taken seriously into consideration as it's unfair to punish residents who live here and need a fair and workable parking solution. We have been asked by some of the residents of Bembridge gardens to advise that we and the majority of the residents are against the proposed permit controls. I’m more than happy for the proposed parking scheme to proceed as stated in your letter ref: KU/7.40. Approximate address Comments Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens I kept a copy of a form I submitted to you in this respect on 23rd October 2022, and I have not changed my position on this matter since then. I pointed out at that time that we definitely do not need any further parking restrictions in our area, i.e. Bembridge Gardens. We are already greatly inconvenienced by the parking restrictions in the nearby Chichester Avenue, which are quite unnecessary and unfair because all the houses in this road have spacious drives, accommodating up to four cars in some cases. Therefore off street parking is no problem at all to these residents. So far as I know the small car park in Bembridge Gardens is for the private use of residents of the 48 flats in the four courts at the end of our road. I believe the car park was built at the same time as the four blocks of flats and was intended for the use of residents' cars as not enough garages were available for all cars. As the flats were built in 1964, naturally car owners nowadays own larger cars which do not fit into the garages, which means all parking spaces are valuable. Also flat residents sometimes own more than one car. I would strenuously object to the completely unwarranted extension of the parking management scheme in Bembridge Gardens, and cannot understand why the Council would need to issue either virtual residents or visitors permits. I am very much in favour of the whole scheme being withdrawn. I am writing to you with regards to the proposed extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme. I live in Falcon Court, and sometimes I have to park on the road as there is no parking available on Bembridge Gardens. If this scheme were to be extended this would mean there are less places for me to park during certain times. Most of the time it's fine as I only have to park overnight, however if I am working from home or on Holiday this is when it becomes a major issue. If this extension were to go ahead, would I be eligible for a permit? I look forward to your response. I live in Heron Court, Bembridge Gardens and am opposed to the implementation of parking permits. The area is a sufficient distance away from West Ruislip Station and Ruislip Town centre, so don't see the need to introduce additional fees to park out the front of the property. No one parks around here unless they live here. Given we're in the middle of a cost of living crisis, the information I have reviewed appears to be no more than a revenue raiser for the council. I would like to know what benefits this proposed consultantation brings, aside from extra monies I pay the council. I see no tangible benefits and as I stated above am opposed to it being implemented. Approximate address Comments Bembridge Gardens I am not sure which options you are offering overall as I have read the letter a number of times and My opinions are : 1.Remove scheme all together from surrounding areas because today in order to work and survive in cost living crisis people are just trying to park. They are not trying to obstruct someone by parking badly. Lots of people in these areas have drives so they have the ability to park anyway. In todays busy lives people are just trying to survive. 2.On the diagram you indicate 2 area as to become permit holder bays outside Bembridge Gardens....this is private land belonging to the flats under the remit for Hamways Management so cant understand how you have included those? I’d be interested to get a response back on this. 3.If you cant/wont get rid of the scheme I would reluctantly therefore have to become part of the scheme because I own 2 vehicles and need one for work...working long hours and need somewhere to park at the end of the day. I am self employed. I will forward your comments re point 2 onto the resident association and Hamways. There is a sign there that says private parking. From recollection of my deeds it indicates this is resident only parking for the block of flats. Approximate address Comments Bembridge Gardens Concerning your letter of September 2023 viz‐a‐viz the proposed extension of the car parking scheme. Firstly Hiĺlingdon Council fails to address the issue of the consequences of the scheme having been introduced into the road ‐ Chichester Avenue 2019. There was no good reason to have such a parking scheme and the current extension would not have even been considered by the roads listed in your letter other than the detrimental effects it has had on many residents in the area. Please note Hillingdon Council actually said the scheme would cause problems for the 'side‐road' residents in the minutes of such Cabinet meetings obtained by FOI. BUT the council ignored the warnings and still went ahead. So Hillingdon Council without complete knowledge of the area or holding a trial period for example of six / nine months failed in its duty of care to ALL residents. To elaborate further ‐ all the houses in Chichester Avenue have off‐road private parking ie their front garden / frontage. This means there is no necessity to have / pay for a permit and yet as said above all the side roads ‐ at a time of financial difficulty ‐ are being penalised. Furthermore this proposal can create more resident division even in the side roads as listed ‐ some houses have private frontage parking, others none ‐ plus roads such as Bembridge Gardens and Seaford Close have blocks of flats which present a number of problems. For me in specific ‐ Bembridge Gardens, please explain why Hillingdon Council has suddenly indicated in their letter/map attachment ownership of the two car parks. These car parks were built by Wimpey the original flat complex developers in the 1960's in order to accommodate the residents cars whose owners did not have a garage and therefore were always considered a benefit in kind. To note ‐ as an additional substantiation the cement in the car park areas is the same as that of the garages which the council map indicates are private.Furthermore Hillingdon Council has never claimed ownership previously during some 60 years ‐ no signage, no desire to maintain these areas in fact the reverse.So it appears that Hillingdon Council is trying to make a land grab by implying that the small car parks are within its jurisdiction thereby forcing residents of the complex to pay for permits in order to park. Please explain why Hillingdon Council is suddenly trying to make such a claim? Also please inform me if any of the relevant personnel which includes the Parking Engineer Kevin Urquhart and Cllr Jonathan Bianco, (Northwood Hills) Cabinet Member for Property, Highways & Transport have actually visited the area to make a sensible informed decision. I have been advised that Hillingdon Council would find it difficult to create a precedent by revoking the Chichester Avenue parking scheme however may I suggest that all residents in the area (side roads) are given permits in perpetuity for a nominal amount such as £5.00 ‐ with the agreement in writing that the council makes no claim to the flat complex small car parks land in Bembridge Gardens. A nominal amount then sets a level playing field and protects all the parking space areas. Approximate address Comments Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens We are disappointed to see that the first virtual resident permit charge is at £75. Please could you explain how this charge was decided? Our opinion is that charge for 1st permit should remain minimal for residents. We are deeply unhappy about this scheme which appears to be costly and causes more inconvenience than needed. Can the visitor's permit be used for Vans/vehicles over 2.3m high or 5.3m long? Ten visitor sessions per annum is highly restrictive especially if we need builders to do any renovation. Therefore, please could you report the following to your team: 1. Remove charges to the 1st virtual resident permit. 2. Remove restriction on vehicle height/length. 3. Increase free visitor sessions (min 25). To add, if these cannot be accepted, then we would definitely vote against the proposed extension. I am totally against extending this scheme to Bembridge Gardens. This scheme will not give us more parking spaces which is the current issue, but cost us money to park outside our own homes, which we can currently do for free. With the cost of living rising I don't have the spare money being a single mum with 2 kids to pay for a permit the people that want the permit holder scheme all have driveways and have plenty of spaces with permits we have one road for our blocks that does not effect there parking. Approximate address Comments Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens I am writing in response to the letter that has been sent out with regards to the extension of the above parking scheme. I am a resident in the area and operate a small business from home which necessitates the use of a van. The van falls just outside the arbitrary imposed limits of 2.3m high and 5.3m long, this is the smallest possible van that can be used for my work. I am going to need assurances that my van will be granted a permit. I regularly work nights meaning that there would be nowhere "legal" within a half mile radius for my van to be parked upon my return from work. There is not a yard where I can leave the van and there is no other off‐site parking at my address. I have heavy, specialist tools which must be kept in my home outside of work hours. I have written to yourselves on the back of previous consultations with no replies. There are residents in my block who have not received a letter for this scheme. Does it need a 51% vote in favour to be passed or are you only counting the votes of the people you've sent a letter to? I would like my vote to be a "no". There have been several consultations since 2020, I know you will get round this by saying they have been a mixture of formal and informal consultations like you did last time. Regardless, it is clear you are on a warpath to align us with the rest of the roads around here and force a permit zone which we have repeatedly told you we do not want. Are you just going to keep consulting us until you get the result you want? As far as I'm concerned, the vote was rejected in 2020 and this decision needs to be respected. I also note I have not received any meaningful reply to one of my previous emails so I will repeat it below in the optimistic hope you may actually reply: " Should the vote pass whether I vote for or against it, where do you expect me to park my vehicle? I have already explained there are no alternative places in which I can park. Do you live in a fantasy world where you believe trades people can teleport themselves and all their tools to and from their places of work?" Me and my husband are not in favour for the extended parking scheme at Bembridge Gardens, neither are any other residents in the block of flats that I have spoken to. Surely opinions of people with own big driveways can't count as much as peoples opinions who don't own a driveway where they can park their car near their homes. Not sure why they get involved as it's not even that close to where they live. The issue is the spaces, it doesn't resolve the amount of cars, owned by residents, trying to park. We can at least do that for free now. It would be unfair with rising cost of living, (our rent had gone up recently as well) to have that extra expense added to our budget, which is already tight having two kids. Please consider not introducing that parking extension. Approximate address Comments Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Bembridge Gardens Chichester Avenue I don't agree for parking permit for Bembridge Gardens and specifically for MERLIN COURT. No to parking permits. Thank you so much I am totally against extending this scheme to Bembridge Gardens. This scheme will not give us more parking spaces which is the current issue, but cost us money to park outside our own homes, which we can currently do for free. As I previously wrote, when this scheme was first discussed, if those that live in the Closes off Chichester Ave are not happy with 'day trippers' or 'shoppers' parking in their road, these should be double yellow lined to prevent this happening. The Chichester Ave residents wanted this scheme to stop this activity but all have driveways, so a rather selfish move just so they don't have cars parked outside their houses and so those bays are empty most of the time. I approve of this scheme, however I don’t approve of the price increase for the first Virtual Resident Permit ‐ we do not yet have one of these. I would like to write to express negative response to the idea of enforcing the requirement of parking permits in the bembridge gardens area of Ruislip. Owning and renting property in this section of Ruislip is not cheap, and with mortgages and rental increases applied to almost all properties in this vicinity, I feel this introduction is not justified. In reply to your letter of September 2023 I am not in favour of the Extension and would make the following comments in respect of the middle and lower half of Bembridge Gardens: The Scheme operates for two hours during weekdays during which time we generally have no parking problems It would create problems for visitors and delivery vehicles and increase the vulnerability to illegal parking on the private land in front of the garages Our problem is evenings and weekends. We have approximately 22 roadside car parking places for 48 flats. Should the Scheme go ahead residents should not be allowed to purchase more than two permits. I am not aware of much outside parking. Approximate address Comments Hamble Close Hamble Close Hamble Close Hamble Close I am writing to object to Hamble Close being part of this scheme I am responding to your letter regarding the above. The proposal doesn’t really have any effect on me as I have a driveway which accommodates two cars with a drop kerb in front and I keep my car in the garage. My only concern is your point about cars parking across my drive but as you say it should not normally cause a problem as people are usually respectful and if this should ever occur you may be able to enforce action. Would a white line across the front of the driveway help? I do not therefore have any strong views concerning your proposals. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your letter dated September 2023 in which you outline the detailed proposals (Ref KU/7.40) for our road. At present we do not own a car, and so the only way the proposals would affect us, is if we were to have visitors/tradesmen at the property during either or both of the two scheme operation periods Monday ‐Friday 9.30am ‐ 10.30 am and 3.30 pm ‐ 4.30 pm. My understanding is that if this were the case we would need a visitor voucher for each one hour period that a visiting vehicle was parked in the WR2 Zone. We have no strong views either way on the proposals, but I suppose as the pressure on parking space availability grows it would make sense to have a system in place that prioritises residents and discourages all day commuter parking. Following your letter regarding the proposed parking management scheme for Hamble Close, I am writing to confirm my support for the scheme. Since the scheme has been in operation in the surrounding areas of Hamble Close, we have suffered with lack of parking for residents and commuters parking on our close. Many of the residents have more than one vehicle and used to park on Chichester Avenue which is no longer possible. We also now have the problem of commuters parking on our close since they can no longer park on Chichester Avenue which was a popular commuter parking spot. As you will be aware, we only have a small number of parking spaces on our close and as residents we park our cars in a way that can ensure the maximum number of residents can park their cars in the space we have available. The problem now is that commuters and non‐residents leave their cars on the close all day, with no consideration to maximizing the space available. The road is also not very wide, and non‐residents don’t park as close to the curb as possible making it difficult for those of us with driveways to sometimes get our cars off our driveways! Parking is a contentious issue and really this parking management scheme should be operational in the whole area because leaving small pockets with no scheme has already caused issues for the small Closes that come off Chichester Avenue. For Hamble Close it would be a disaster if the other Closes had the scheme implemented and we didn’t. I think this also needs to be a consideration in your consultation. Some residents may not respond to your notice, particularly if they don’t have a car or don’t want to pay for a permit. Approximate address Comments Hamble Close Seaford Close Seaford Close I would like to officially object to the proposed parking permit scheme for Hamble Close. I have not changed my mind from the previous proposal which I objected to. To my knowledge the home owners, including myself, in this road have not had any problem parking here. And all bar one rejected this previously. We don’t get people parking here that don’t live here. Even though permit parking has been installed in other local roads, this has not had an effect on Hamble Close, therefore I feel it is unnecessary for us. Photos can be supplied to show this. I do not wish to have the inconvenience of this for myself or visitors or any extra costs To bare. With the cost of living increasing all the time, this would be an added burden. Please do not penalize the majority for the minority. I have lived here many years it has not been an issues. As this has previously been rejected & nothing has changed, I trust the decision will remain the same. I would be impacted by the proposed change to the WR2 parking zone. Note that I purchased the property recently and was therefore not part of the pre‐consultation referenced in your letter (ref KU/7.40.). I would like to formally oppose the proposed extension to the parking zone. We currently have the luxury and flexibility of being able to park anywhere within the Close. In addition, when guests visit, they can also park anywhere which results in a hassle free experience and cost free experience. I have never had issues finding parking, and nor have my guests. I would therefore question the purpose of the extension to the zone. The letter provides no indication on the reasons why this is proposed. Please could you elaborate as to what the reasons are? I note that the letter states that the pre‐consultation found in favour of the extension. Is there somewhere that the findings of this consultation response can be reviewed, or at least the number of responses received in favour and opposed to the proposal? Many thanks for your recent letter inviting comments on the proposed extension to the WR2 parking scheme. I’m a long term resident of Seaford Close and would welcome this, as over the years parking spaces have become more crowded and problematic, so I hope that the scheme is approved and can go ahead. Approximate address Comments Seaford Close Seaford Close I wanted to respond to the proposed extension to the West Ruislip parking, mentioning some concerns the my family and I are consider unfair and potentially problematic. Let me start with the fact the cost of permits now and the change that you do not receive one free anymore, this basically largely effect the flat as the large family homes have private drives. The flats have no option but to park on the street, as you can imagine in the cost of living crisis that we are now in that extra pressure on the young family’s and pensioners that live in the flats in my opinion, is rather unfair. My second point, my partner has to be on call for a few weeks each month so he has work cars, so does this mean by your proposal he will have to pay to park this vehicle. Thirdly I also share a car with my mum as atm due to our financial circumstance, so the car is registered to my mothers address should this effect me registering this car for a permit? I would appreciate these points to be considered, as to me the people that will be largely impacted by this will be the flats. Who in my opinion need the most support during times like this. I hope this email finds you well, I received your letter about the parking extension plan to Seaford close. According to the cost of living crisis that we are currently facing and considering that this scheme will make me pay extra money for a parking permit, I am completely against this plan. As a single mom with limited income resources, one of the most important reasons that I chose this area for living was free and easy access to parking near my home and I never had a problem finding parking in the entire time I have lived here. Approximate address Comments Seaford Close Seaford Close My husband and I are for the proposal as this will stop people parking here then travelling off to London for the day by other forms of transport. Thank you for your letter Ref KU/7.40 once again outlining this scheme. There has been far less intrusive parking by non residents, since the last time that this proposal reared its head. The many HS2 workers that parked in SEAFORD CLOSE rather excessively for a while, has now ceased, since a parking facility was provided for them. There are a small number of non residents that do park in this Road, but they are not causing particular problems generally. I do object to having to now pay to park a vehicle near my property, whereas before, the first vehicle was free, and the fact that these costs are most likely to increase, whilst we are all in a cost of living crisis, is I find, unacceptable. To use my vehicle, I have to pay Road Fund Licence, and to cap it all, the absolute imposition of ULEZ charges, already. I do not approve of further charges I’m afraid. The scheme also is likely to inhibit the activities of various trades people, as well as visitors, who will almost certainly bring a non permitted vehicle when working/ visiting. Also, there appears to be no provision for longer term visitors, other than more charges. It also restricts my ability, for instance, if I wanted to wash one of our family’s vehicles in the street, I would have to be wary of when I could do this, with a non permitted vehicle. I do not want to have to think of such restrictions, and find them totally unacceptable. Our freedoms are being imposed upon ! You also state that other residents with Zone WR2 permits, may park across our dropped kerb, and that the Council would be limited as to what enforcement action they could undertake ‐ again, an unacceptable situation to be in. This is of particular importance to us, as the dropped kerb to our property is already not even the width of, or indeed in line with, our single garage, as built from the outset in 1970, and already causes a limiting factor, accessing our driveway. If I were to change my vehicle ( that supposedly had one of these permits) mid term, I also suspect that I would have to forfeit the remaining term of that permit, and pay for another vehicle from scratch, as they would not be transferable……More excessive cost, that I would not be prepared to put up with. ( I am retired, on a workplace pension, not yet in receipt of a State Pension, so please bear this in mind whilst trying to extract money from us). The one thing that I would see as of benefit in SEAFORD CLOSE, would be the extension of the double yellow lines near No. 71. Thank you for your time, in reading my responses. Approximate address Comments Seaford Close Seaford Close Seaford Close Many thanks for your letter regarding the possible extension of the parking permit scheme into Seaford Close, Ruislip. Personally and as a family we don't feel parking permits are necessary in Seaford Close, we have no issues parking, its residential and all residents park respectfully. We are quite tucked away. so for us it would be a no to parking permits in Seaford Close. I am writing to you to tell you I am totally against your proposal to put parking restrictions on Seaford close. I have never had an issue with any parking problems on this road and I have lived here for over 20 years I have been to all the houses on the close and 98% of the residents are totally against it, and other 2% we’re not in. Also, if you decide to go ahead with this, you are going to be charging every car on the road which is unheard of because usually at least one house. Is given a free parking ticket and therefore i would ask you to have a meeting with The householders in Seaford close so you could get a firsthand view of how we are all feeling about this. Please do not do it. We don’t need it PS. I have also tried to email you on the email that you have given us to get back to you and I have also found the telephone number that you have given to us and they do not exist so I don’t know what game you’re playing. I am writing to you directly to Hillingdon Council and this should be forwarded on to you. I’m also going to go and see my local MP to let him know how we are feeling about what you are deciding to do Further to your letter (Your Ref: KU/7.40), I would like to advise you that I fully and unreservedly support the proposed extension to the WR2 parking zone outlined in your letter. I do have one question with regard to your comment stating that there would be limited action that the council could take, in the event of another permit holder parking across the dropped kerb in front of my driveway. Specifically, please could you advise whether this limited ability to take action would apply only during the hours in which the scheme is in operation (in this case, two hours per day) or whether this would apply at all times? Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Approximate address Comments Seaford Close Seaford Close Seaford Close does not have a parking problem between 9am and 6pm during the week. Parking controls are not needed or wanted, as the residents have stated in the past. The “Virtual Parking Scheme” – no street markings or signs – if someone, with no knowledge of the scheme, parks then is fined – how could that stand in a court of law? Entrapment ! I have driven for some 60yrs and in many countries around the world. In all the westernized I have driven in, all drivers seem to comply with an unwritten rule, that you do not park across a drive entrance or exit. It’s common sense and, having lived in Seaford Close for about 40yrs, I have not seen anyone doing that here. If people began doing it, it will only cause trouble. What are the council trying to do? The WR2 permit is totally daft, and another money grab. I was dismayed to receive this letter, as I was hoping that the plan had been rejected after such a long time. I am very happy with the current arrangements and have had no problems with parking in Seaford Close. I would like to oppose the intention to install fees and restrictions in my road :‐ 1) I am disappointed that residents would have to pay an annual fee to park even one car on the road, I expected that one car per property would be free. 2) I was under the assumption that a car could be parked legally over a driveway unless it was preventing a car from exiting the driveway. The information you supply suggests that a car with a virtual parking permit may block a driveway regardless. I have not had this difficulty yet, but may well now experience it as it has been highlighted in the letter. Houses in the road with a driveway, could park off street and not need a permit. If on returning home, the access to their drive is blocked, it may be impossible to find a free parking place within walking distance. They will thus be pressured into paying for a permit they should not need. 3) The central green area is at present used occasionally for parking. If the restrictions take place, this could be used more frequently as parking space. 4) We were warned some time ago, when a similar scheme was proposed, that we would probably get parking in our road from the cars that would be prevented from parking in surrounding streets, which were requesting the restrictions. Fortunately, this did not happen. Thank you for reading my response, although I am afraid it will not have any effect on the result of the intended plan. Approximate address Comments Seaford Close Seaford Close We support the scheme and have following comments and changes we request to the proposed plan. 1. Seaford Close is a close where there is a round turn between and near house number 56, 57 and 58. If cars parked here blocks the turning of bigger trucks such as garbage lorries From council. There is a sharp turn in small place for such big trucks from council. The space between dropped curbs is not sufficient for parking a car and also blocks driveways making it very difficult for residents to get cars out of private drives. Hence we request to add a yellow line on corners important for turning especially between number 57 and 58. 2. We would request marked parking bays to be made where owners are expected to park inside the box. Please could I request you to review the comments and visit the area if possible to see how the cars parked on the turning can block and create problems. We would like to have marked parking bays so as to avoid blocking driveways. Is this a possibility ? With reference to the proposed extension of the parking management scheme in Seaford Close, HA4 Your Ref: KU/7.40 Many thanks for the proposals that you recently sent. In my view there isn’t a parking problem on Seaford Close that requires this proposal, for the following reasons: •The majority of houses have already 1 or 2 car parking spaces on their drive ways •There is enough space for car owners from owners who live in the flats (1‐36), to park on the designated spaces and exisƟng road areas It’s also worth noting that the parking situation in the road has changed ‐ Now that HS2 have a large carparking area (in the depot opposite West Ruislip underground/train station), the number of ‘non‐Seaford Close residents’ (primarily HS2 workers) has decreased. I’m also against the proposal from a financial perspective:, both from council resources (extra road‐furniture/signage, monitoring/enforcement and management) and also from a resident’s aspect having to pay for permits (which I’m