Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Outcome of formal consultation for proposed double yellow lines and a footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104
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: 1076 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. Kevin Urquhart – Place Directorate c.c. Ward Councillors for Belmore Date: 19 March 2024 Non-Key Decision request Form D Outcome of formal consultation for proposed double yellow lines and a footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 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 27 March 2024 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 proposed double yellow lines and a footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 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 – 19 March 2024 Page 1 (Part 1 Public) Outcome of formal consultation for proposed double yellow lines and a footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 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 HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member of the outcome of the statutory consultation for a proposed installation of double yellow lines and a footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104. 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 There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report. Relevant Select Committee Property, Highways and Transport Select Committee Relevant Ward(s) Belmore RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member: 1. Notes the comments received during the statutory consultation for the proposed installation of double yellow lines and a footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104. Cabinet Member Report – 19 March 2024 Page 2 (Part 1 Public) 2. Decides to defer the proposed double yellow lines and footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes due to the response s received to the formal consultation and asks officers to keep the parking situation under review at this present time. Reasons for recommendation The recommendation reflects the majority of responses received to the formal consultation and a petition with 32 valid signatures opposed to the proposed restrictions. Alternative options considered / risk management The Council could have decided to proceed with the introduction of the proposed double yellow lines and footway parking place as they were proposed. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. The Cabinet Member will be aware of the petition which was submitted to the Council , signed by residents living at the western cul -de-sac section of Marvell Avenue, Hayes asking for measures to prevent obstructive parking in the turning head of the road. Following consideration of this petition the Cabinet Member instructed officers to add the request to the Council’s extensive parking scheme programme so that detailed proposals for possible measures to mitigate these concerns could be developed in liaison with the local Ward Councillors. 2. As a result of the outcome of this meeting, Council officers developed some possible proposals to introduce double yellow lines throughout the turning area outside Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Marvell Avenue. 3. Following the above, statutory consultation for installation of double yellow lines a single partial footway parking place in this part of Marvell Avenue was undertaken between 17 th January and 7th February 2024. A plan of the proposals that residents were formally consulted on are attached to this report as Appendix A. 4. During the consultation the Council received a total of 13 responses representing eight households within this section of Marvell Avenue. Attached as Appendix B is a spreadsheet of all of the responses that were received during the consultation. Some of the responses have been redacted to help protect the identities of the residents. 5. In addition to the responses received during the formal consultation a petition with 32 valid signatures was submitted opposing the introduction of these measures. The petition has a covering letter which states the following – Cabinet Member Report – 19 March 2024 Page 3 (Part 1 Public) “Opposition on to the proposed double yellow lines and footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue 81 to 89 96 to 104. 34 residents from 21 different households on this end of Marvell Avenue, have signed this petition against the double yellow line proposal, at the turning point of Marvell Ave. We the undersigned wish to be known, we are strongly opposed to the introduc tion of double yellow lines. We all feel it a total waste of council funding. The only area of consideration for double yellow lines, is in front of the allotment gate. Car’s parking along the kerb on both sides of the turning point, does not cause any obstruction for vehicles (video evidence clearly demonstrates this). The vehicles are legally parked and traffic enforcement has confirmed this. So, when there is no obstruc tion and free movement for all vehicles, there is absolutely no need for double yellow lines. During the site visit, it should have been noted, that there is no obstruc tion caused by the current parking arrangements. There are far more suitable measures, such as the residents registering their own driveways and calling parking enforcement, if they are concerned about an obstruction. This does not waste any council time or funds. At present, there are already measures in place that can be uti lised, without was ting council funds. This includes the implementation and enforcement of extensive double yellow lines. There is more than enough space for vehicles to manoeuvre and leave their driveways. The use of double yellow lines is completely unnecessary and raises the ques tion about why this has even been suggested in the first instance, without witnessing any obstructions. The car parked outside No 96 is legally parked and does not cause an obstruc tion to any vehicles entering or turning. Therefore, it is very unfair, the proposed plan only restricts the double yellow lines along 1 kerb. This is a qui et residential close, in comparison to a junction, such as the top of Marvell Ave joining Shakespeare Ave. The unnecessary introduction of double yellow lines will simply only cause vehicles to speed when leaving and entering their driveways, due to the increased space availability. The only unrestricted parking on this close, was in front of the allotment gate, which the original petitioners used to obstruct themselves. They have stopped parking here since the petition. The original petiti oners have taken over council land behind the allotment gate, without paying for the land. The only other unrestricted parking was a new resident, who parked on the pavement outside his house occasionally – this did not obstruct the road. The resident no longer parks in this manner. Additionally, there are currently limited parking spaces available on Marvell Avenue. The proposed plan will further limit parking availability. If the council believes there is a severe issue of unrestricted parking or obstruc tion, this should be monitored and verified by the council through mul tiple site visits. Permanent changes to the cul -de-sac, should not be based on the over exaggeration from the original petition starters.” 7. The majority of individual respondents to the formal consultation have said that the proposals within this section of Marvell Avenue were unnecessary as they do not feel there is a parking issue within this section of the road. They feel that these proposals would Cabinet Member Report – 19 March 2024 Page 4 (Part 1 Public) remove legitimate parking spaces for residents which do not hinder access . Only two responses were received in support of the proposed measured. 8. The petition which has mostly been signed by residents living in this section of Marvell Avenue, indicates that the proposals are not supported and residents feel that the current arrangements in this section of the road should remain as existing. 9. Ward Councillors were fully consulted and raised no views or opinions on the matter. Therefore, officers recommend that on the basis that the majority of responses to the consultation were opposed to the proposals, and that Ward Councillors have expressed no opinion, that no further action is taken to progress these measures at this present time and instead it is suggested that the matter be kept under review for the time being. 10. In summary, the majority of responses that have been received to the formal consultation for these proposals indicate that residents overall do not support the proposed changes. The petition submitted also shows clear opposition to the changes which were developed. The outcome of the formal consultation and petition has been shared with the local Ward Councillors, but they have not provided any feedback. It is therefore recommended that the Cabinet Member decides to defer the proposed double yellow lines and footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes due to the overall negative response to the proposals and instead asks officers to keep the matter under review. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? Due to the response that were received to the formal consultation, the current parking arrangements in this part of Marvell Avenue are recommended to remain as existing. Consultation carried out or required Statutory consultation was carried out between 17 th January to 7th February 2024 by the insertion of public notices in the local newspaper and displayed on site. Letters and plans of the proposals were also delivered to the adjacent residential properties. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed the recommendations to this report and concurs with the financial implications as set out above. Cabinet Member Report – 19 March 2024 Page 5 (Part 1 Public) Legal The Council’s powers to make orders imposing waiting restrictions are set out in Part 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The consultation and order making statutory procedures to be followed in this case are set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489). Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 means that the Council must balance the concerns of the objectors with the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic. In considering the consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public were conscientiously taken into account. 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 – Proposed double yellow lines and a footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue, Hayes near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Appendix B - Table – Response to the formal consultation Approximate address Comments Marvell Avenue We highly appreciate for the effort taken for the proposed yellow lines at the end of Marvel Avenue, UB4 0QT. We welcome gladly the plan and would highly request you to implement the same as we are still having trouble by the vehicles parked in these areas, creating difficulty in manoeuvring. Thanks once again for the precious time and effort taken for this problem raised by us. Marvell Avenue I wanted to reach out about the plan to add double yellow lines on Marvel Avenue, particularly at the end and turning head, but only on one side. I understand the idea behind it, making U‐turns smoother and safer. However, I'm a bit puzzled about why it's only happening on one side. It feels a bit off‐balance. Marvel Avenue has been pretty easy to navigate, and I've never had trouble turning or finding parking. The only location where double yellow lines should be implemented is in front of the allotment gates. Perhaps we can find a solution that doesn't involve putting double yellows on just one side, keeping things fair for everyone living on Marvel Avenue. Marvell Avenue I want to express my thank you for your proposal as it covered all the concerns we have had as a community. We also appreciate the partial footway parking bay you have allocated. This is the most idyllic proposal we could have hoped for and truly helps make a difference in all aspects of the concerns we raised. Thank you again for listening to our concerns and helping our situation. Marvell Avenue I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent proposal to implement double yellow lines at the end and turning head of Marvel Avenue. It has come to my attention that these restrictions are only being applied to one side, creating an evident imbalance in the proposed traffic management measures. While I understand that the aim is to facilitate U‐turns and enhance safety at the end and turning head of Marvel Avenue, I cannot overlook the apparent unfairness in implementing double yellow lines on one side and not the other. This raises questions about the equitable distribution of traffic management measures, potentially placing an undue burden on one side of the street. Over the years, I have not encountered significant challenges while turning my car around at this location on a daily basis. The existing setup seems to accommodate the needs of residents and drivers without causing disruption. I am inclined to believe that alternative measures could address potential concerns without resorting to the imposition of restrictive parking measures. I kindly request that the council reconsiders the decision to unilaterally implement double yellow lines on the sides and only restrict them to the turning head of Marvel Avenue. It is crucial to ensure fairness in the application of traffic management measures and to avoid creating unnecessary inconvenience for residents on one side of the street. I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that the council will carefully consider the implications of the proposed changes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Marvell Avenue Hello I am writing to you in relation to a proposal for double yellow lines to be applied around cul de sac of Marvell Avenue. I am confused as to why a single partial footway parking place is requested on one side and not the other. This suggests to me that some members of the cul de sac have not been given the same fair and equal right to what their opinions and preferences are. I was previously a driving instructor and in the past had no difficulty with guiding students to turn around at the cul de sac with vehicles parked on the same area of both sides where one side is being asked to be levied. There is adequate space to turn around as long as the prevention of vehicles to park along back end of cul de sac is enforced. So in principle I do not agree with this currant proposal. I urge you therefore to reconsider an amendment to currant plans. I have been a resident of marvell avenue for 20 years and have only ever experienced problems if back end is not kept clear. Not only will it be a waste of council funding but highlite a lack of equality/uniformity/understanding and fairness Responses to the formal consultation for the proposed amendments near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Marvell Avenue, Hayes Approximate address Comments Responses to the formal consultation for the proposed amendments near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Marvell Avenue, Hayes Marvell Avenue As a resident of Marvell Avenue for 67 years, I would like to point out that during all of these years, as drivers, my late husband, myself, daughter, son, son‐in‐law and grandsons have never ever experienced any obstructive parking. Also from 2017 ‐ ‐2021 my husband was seriously ill and cared for at home, consequently we had numerous necessary visits from Doctors, District nurses, Carers and daily and nightly help from family, all without problem. When ambulances were called upon they were able to reverse comfortably with no problem. Therefore, in my qualified opinion as a happy resident of 67 years. Double Yellow Lines are totally unnecessary and is an unjustified expense for the Borough. Marvell Avenue We are writing with regard to the proposal to introduce double yellow lines in the turning head at the cul‐de‐sac end of Marvell Avenue. We have used the turning head hundreds, perhaps thousands of times. We have very rarely found any problem in using the turning head, neither have we found things becoming more difficult recently. Occasionally, the turning head has been blocked by a lorry making a delivery, but, from what I see elsewhere in the Borough, double yellow lines would not stop this occasional use. We, therefore, object to the introduction of double yellow lines in the turning head of Marvell Avenue on the grounds that it is an unnecessary and expensive solution to a problem that does not exist. Marvell Avenue We strongly oppose the proposed restrictions at the above address. It would be a waste of council funding as yellow lines are unnecessary as parking on the curb of the cul de sac doesn't cause and obstruction to residents. All vehicles are able to easily manoeuvre around the two cars parked on the kerbs outside number 96 and 81. Also fire engines and ambulances can easily access number 87. In our view there is no need to make any changes to the current situation. Marvell Avenue I object to the proposed double yellow lines and footway parking place in the turning head of Marvell Avenue Hayes Nr Nos 81 to 89 and Nos 69 to 104. This has been poorly thought out, the turning, Generally the parking on the road is busy, but putting double yellow lines will create more parking congestion, as for creating a dedicated parking bay i see this as senseless, if anything the tree that the drivers kept knocking over should be replace. Parking on this section of Marvell Avenue needs to be looked at more holistically. 1) a number of residents have taken down their walls and now drive across the foot patch which has taken valuable general parking up, they should be forced to pay for a lowered drive way. The resulting damage to the foot paths means it’s safer to walk in the road. 2) the turning head ‐ most vehicles turn Right before reversing back so having a dedicated parking bay opposite no 89 is a greater risk due to blind spots on vans ‐ you will also notice that one resident puts a road cone out and has marked this as their parking space and gets aggressive if some else parks their. 3) I’m assuming it request has come from 89 and 104, as they have frequent visitors and deliveries that park in the turning area, they know that the council is very unlikely to enforce any parking restrictions on this road as its out of the way Please see attached some recent photos you will notice the cones from residents being protective of parking spaces plus vans parking. My recommendation to ease the issue experienced by all on Marvell Avenue is:‐ A) just put double yellow lines across the gate between 89 and 104, if this is done then turning in this space would be fine. B) mark the parking bays up correctly, many years ago we had white lines to mark off street parking. C) give warnings or notices to residents who drive across footpaths to park in the front gardens. D) the foot paths need to be updated and made safe. E) replant the Tree opposite no 89. Thank you for your consideration Approximate address Comments Responses to the formal consultation for the proposed amendments near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Marvell Avenue, Hayes Marvell Avenue I have been a resident of Marvell Avenue for the past 28 years, and am shocked that the council feels it necessary to waste time and council funding during these financially critical times on double lines in a place that it is not required. I can understand at the beginning of Marvell Ave Joining Shakespeare Ave it is absolutely required for the safety of merging traffic, as there is danger in corners causing blind spots, however not required on the close. Car’s parking along the kerb on both sides of the cul‐de‐sac, does not cause any obstruction for vehicles. We are legally parked and traffic enforcement has confirmed this. So when there is no obstruction and free movement for all vehicles, there is no need for double yellow lines. On the site visit, it should have been entirely clear, there is no obstruction caused by the current parking arrangements. We have requested a copy of the site visit report – however have not been provided with this information. There are far more suitable measures such as registering their driveways and calling parking enforcement if they are concerned about an obstruction. This does not waste any council time or funds. The use of double yellow lines is completely unnecessary and raises the question about why this has even been suggested in the first instance without witnessing any obstructions. The only unrestricted parking on this close, was in front of the allotment gate, which the petitioners used to obstruct themselves. The other residents who obstructed this area are the direct neighbours of the petitioners who are supporting this petition. They have stopped parking here since the petition. The only indication for double yellow lines is in front of that gate. They’re only intention is to remove the parking space on the right sided kerb, despite this not causing any obstruction to anyone on this road. Additionally, the petitioners have taken over council land behind the allotment gate, without paying for the land. They use this as additional parking space. The only other unrestricted parking was a new resident, who parked on the pavement outside his house occasionally – this did not obstruct the road. The resident no longer parks in this manner. There have not been any unrestricted parking incidents for a long period. There are no other cars blocking or parking to cause obstructions. All other cars parked in drives on this close, leave enough space for all other vehicles to turn and leave. If the council believes there is a severe issue of unrestricted parking or obstruction, this should be monitored and verified by the council through multiple site visits. Permanent changes to the cul‐de‐sac, should not be based on the over exaggeration and lies from the petition starters. We were not informed of the date of the petition hearing so we missed out on attending the hearing. We understood that there was inspection of the site. We do not have the report or know the outcome to the inspection. We are unsure as to the purpose of this inspection and what they say on the day to warrant further consideration of double yellow lines, there were no evident issues or concerns regarding vehicle access. Refuge collectors, delivery vans, builders, post office van, all vehicles of all sizes enter and leave without problems. I object to this waste of council funded money, without any indication at all. Approximate address Comments Responses to the formal consultation for the proposed amendments near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Marvell Avenue, Hayes I am writing to you to express my views in objection to the proposed plans, for the cul‐de‐sac section of Marvell Avenue. Firstly, as a resident of Marvell Avenue for 25 years, there has never been any prior complaints of difficulty manoeuvring or exiting driveways on the close. The petition states that a minority of residents find it difficult to manoeuvre and reverse from their driveways. However, there is more than enough space to enter and exit all driveways on the cul‐de‐sac. The current parking arrangements do not cause an obstruction to any residents. I have videos as evidence of large vans and vehicles manoeuvring without any difficulty. I disagree with the notion of using publicly funded money and making permanent alterations to the road, simply to benefit a few residents who selfishly want to further improve access to their driveways, when they are able to enter and exit with complete ease, which they have managed to do for more than 10 years. The only time there has been an obstruction, is when vehicles used to park in front of the hedge gate, which relatives of the petition starters used to do themselves. The only location, where it is deemed necessary for double yellow lines, is the small area in front of the hedge gate. There is no justification for the extensive proposed double yellow lines outlined. Additionally, if there is a car ‘obstructing a driveway’, the driveway can be registered and parking enforcement can be informed. At present there are already measures in place that can be utilised, without wasting council funds, both for the implementation and enforcement of extensive double yellow lines. There is more than enough space for vehicles to manoeuvre and leave their driveways. Therefore, it is surprising that this proposal has even been suggested. There are several roads nearby, just off Marvell Avenue, who have a much tighter close in comparison and have no double yellow lines. Secondly, there is currently limited parking spaces available on Marvell Avenue. The proposed plan will further limit parking availability. Additionally, the proposed yellow lines go ahead, there will be no availability for any guests, which will lead to resident’s not having parking availability on the road. This issue does not just affect the residents on the cul‐de‐sac. It will have a negative impact on the parking availability of all the residents on Marvell Avenue. Thirdly, it is very unfair that there is only one footway parking place outlined on the plan. There is no explanation outlined as to why that particular corner was excluded from the proposed double yellow lines. We have recently lowered part of our kerb outside our house. It is unfair to prevent parking outside our carriageway, especially when it does not cause any obstruction to any residents. The previous residents used to park in the exact same place near the kerb and this never resulted in any issues for over 28 years. This proposed plan will have an unfair negative impact, resulting in losing parking availability, when there is no obstruction caused at all. If there is a footway parking place proposed, the partial footway parking bay should be available on both corners. As seen in the videos, there is more than enough space to manoeuvre cars, based on the current parking arrangements. I would also like to add that there is a false narrative outlined in the original petition, that there is a danger to children on this quiet residential close. This is completely untrue, as the children who play on the road during the summer, make sure to stand in their driveway, when a car is reversing. There has never been any incident which has affected the safety of a child. There is absolutely no safety concern. Furthermore, the unnecessary introduction of double yellow lines will simply only cause vehicles to speed when leaving and entering their driveways, due to the increased space availability. At the moment the presence of the cars causes other vehicles entering to drive at an appropriate speed. Additionally, this is not a road where there is a crossing that affects the safety of civilians. There are only residents that walk to and from their vehicles. Lastly, as highlighted in the videos, all vehicles including large vans are able to easily enter and leave the cul‐de‐sac. There has never been an issue for emergency vehicles or refuse collection vehicles to enter or leave. We had often called emergency vehicles due to elderly relatives, access to the road was never an issue. Based on the above, the cost and justification of implementing this proposal is entirely unnecessary. The outlined indications and the extent of this proposal needs to be revisited. Marvell Avenue Approximate address Comments Responses to the formal consultation for the proposed amendments near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Marvell Avenue, Hayes Marvell Avenue I have been a resident of Marvell Ave for 28 years and object to this proposal for the following points: 1. The car parked outside our address is not illegally parked and does not cause an obstruction to any vehicles entering or turning. After the kerb was lowered to allow my dad to park his vehicle on the drive. We telephoned traffic enforcement, to confirm how my mums car should be parked. They advised to park as It was previously before the kerb was lowered, on the road of the footway, as this results in no obstruction. This is how my mum has been parking for 28 years and the previous owners before that. 2. You are allowing car to be parked outside number 81, but removing car opposite. With both cars parked causing no obstructions entering or leaving. Removing the car from outside 96 will be taking up another space on a fully occupied residential road. 3. It is not necessary and a waste of council funding, as the existing parking arrangements does not cause any obstructions. There is more than enough space for all vehicles including large vans to enter, exit and manoeuvre. 4. Those 2 cars do not cause any obstructions to any cars coming out of drives on entering or leaving the turning. It has never prevented or obstructed Ambulance, delivery van, lorries fire engines entering or leaving the turning. The video which will be provided to councillors will clearly show this. 5. There is no safety concerns to children. I grew up here and used to play on the cul‐de‐sac myself. The unnecessary introduction of double yellow lines, will just cause vehicles to over speed and turn the turning head into a playground. 6. Other nearby close such as Shelley close and Keats close, which as fork ends, is much tighter and has no double yellow lines required. 7. There are already measures in place, to prevent obstructive parking, such as if they register their driveways – they can call parking enforcement. This does waste council funds or time. This has already taken up unrequired resources. 8. It also does not make sense why the petition has reached this stage – despite a site visit that would have demonstrated the space availability. I strongly oppose this proposal. Approximate address Comments Responses to the formal consultation for the proposed amendments near Nos. 81 to 89 and Nos. 96 to 104 Marvell Avenue, Hayes Marvell Avenue I have been a resident of Marvell Avenue for the past 28 years. During these years we have never experienced any parking problems that needed double lines to the close. When we moved in, we were informed by the previous homeowner to park off the payment like the house opposite. There are only 2 cars parked off road parking on the close. A new resident has a Range Rover and parks on the kerb outside 81 as his car is larger than previous residents. These two cars have not caused any obstructions to cars/vehicles of any kind entering, turning or leaving the close. Over the last 2 to 3 years, some of the petitioners, would have their friends and relatives park in front of the gate to allotments entrance. The residents would still manage to get cars in and out of the close but never complain. One of our residents did put up a No Parking in front of the gates, but they continued to park there. Since starting the petition all these houses have stopped parking there. If double lines are needed it would be only to this area in front of the allotment gates. The new resident has a few times parked on the verge in front of number 89 but has not continued to this. We love gardening and we had to lose a small part of the garden to put one car off the road. If my car is taken off the road, it would mean losing the rest of the garden to house my car. Surely the environment should also be considered. On the road hardly any front gardens are left. Since the guests have stopped parking in front of the gate there is no problems to the close. So, if you are so determined to put double lines and resolve parking issues put it in front of the gate only. Currently, with the two cars parked on the entrance to the close, there are no obstructions or difficulties to residents or other vehicles entering the close (this includes vehicles of all sizes – refuse collection vehicles/fire and other emergency vehicles).