CEDARS DRIVE, UXBRIDGE – REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE STATUTORY CONSULTATION FOR A PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE HILLINGDON HILL PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME ‘ZONE HN1’

Report Document

Decision / Minutes Document

Text extracted from PDFs

View Report Text

 
 
 
 
 
 
Democratic Services 
 
Location: Phase II 
Ext: 0833 
DDI: 01895 250833 
CMD No: 1131 
To: COUNCILLOR JONATHAIN BIANCO 
CABINET MEMBER FOR PROPERTY, HIGHWAYS 
AND TRANSPORT 
 
c.c. All Members of the Corporate Resources and 
Infrastructure Select Committee  
c.c. Aileen Campbell – Place Directorate 
c.c. All Ward Councillors for Hillingdon West 
 
 Date: 07 June 2024 
 
Non-Key Decision request                        Form D              
 
CEDARS DRIVE, UXBRIDGE – REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE STATUTORY 
CONSULTATION FOR A PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE HILLINGDON HILL PARKING 
MANAGEMENT SCHEME ‘ZONE HN1’ 
 
Dear Cabinet Member, 
  
Attached is a report requesting that a decision be made by you as an individual Cabinet 
Member. Democratic Services confirm that this is not a key decision, as such, the Local 
Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) 
Regulations 2012 notice period does not apply. 
 
You should take a decision on or after Monday 17 June 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. 
 
Rebecca Reid 
Democratic Services  Apprentice 
 
Title of Report: CEDARS DRIVE, UXBRIDGE – REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE 
STATUTORY CONSULTATION FOR A PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE HILLINGDON HILL 
PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME ‘ZONE HN1’ 
 
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 Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
CEDARS DRIVE, UXBRIDGE – REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF 
THE STATUTORY CONSULTATION FOR A PROPOSED 
EXTENSION TO THE HILLINGDON HILL PARKING MANAGEMENT 
SCHEME ‘ZONE HN1’ 
 
Cabinet Member(s)  Councillor Jonathan Bianco 
   
Cabinet Portfolio(s)  Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport 
   
Officer Contact(s)  Aileen Campbell – Place Directorate 
   
Papers with report  Appendix A – Location Plan 
Appendix B – Summary of Formal Consultation Responses 
Appendix C – Plan of proposed amendments to double yellow lines. 
Appendix D – Plan of proposed amendment outside No. 43 Cedars 
Drive. 
Appendix E – Plan of proposed amendment outside No. 33 Cedars 
Drive.  
Appendix F – Plan of Cedars Drive included within Zone HN1. 
 
HEADLINES 
 
Summary 
 
 To inform the Cabinet Member of the responses received during 
the statutory consultation for a proposed extension to the 
Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme. 
   
Putting our 
Residents First 
 
 
Delivering on the 
Council Strategy 
2022-2026 
 This report supports the Council objective of Our People. The 
request can be considered as part of the Council’s annual 
programme for on-street parking controls.  
 
This report supports our commitments to residents of: 
Safe and Strong Communities. 
   
Financial Cost  The estimated cost of the recommendations set out in this report is 
£7,000.  
   
Relevant Policy 
Overview Committee 
 Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee 
   
Relevant Ward(s)  Hillingdon West 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport: 
 
1. Notes the responses received during the 21-day formal consultation on a possible 
extension to the Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme;  
 
2. Based on the views expressed during the consultation and following discussions 
with local Ward Councillors , recommends that the proposed extension to the 
Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme  is implemented  in Cedars Drive, 
Uxbridge as seen in the plan attached as Appendix F;  
 
3. Based on the views expressed during the consultation and following discussions 
with local Ward Councillors, recommends that the proposed ‘at any time’ waiting 
restrictions in the entirety of Attle Close, Bishops Close and Mills Close are deferred 
due to the apparent lack of support, but instead asks officers to organise for double 
yellow lines to be  formally advertised in Bishops Close and Mills Close  at their 
junctions with Cedars Drive as seen on the plan attached to this report as Appendix 
C;  
 
4. Asks officers to organise for formal consultation to take place on a proposed 
extension to the double yellow lines  from the junction with Buckingham Grove to 
outside No. 43 Cedars Drive to replace the single yellow line , as seen in the plan 
attached as Appendix D, prior to implementation of the scheme in Cedars Drive;  
 
5. Asks officers to organise for formal consultation to take place on a proposed single 
yellow line  outside Nos. 33 and 35 Cedars Driv e to replace the residents’ permit 
holders only bay as seen in the plan attached as Appendix E, prior to implementation 
of the scheme in Cedars Drive; and 
 
6. Considers requests from residents for  amendments to be made to the scheme 
outlined in paragraphs 17 to 20 of this report, and asks officers review the situation 
in six months’ time following the scheme start date.   
 
Reasons for recommendations 
 
These recommendations are in line with the views expressed during formal consultation and 
discussions with local Ward Councillors.  
 
Alternative options considered / risk management. 
 
None at this stage. 
 
Select Committee comments 
 
None at this stage. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 
 
1. The Cabinet Member will recall a petition submitted to the Council from some of the 
residents of Cedars Drive, Uxbridge requesting a single yellow line to be implemented in 
front of Nos.1 to 43 Cedars Drive. The below statement was provided with the petition:  
 
“We the residents of Cedars Drive in Hillingdon are petitioning to have parking restrictions 
put in place on Cedars Drive.  
 
Why Parking Enforcement is needed:  
 
• Cedars Drive is a narrow highway and parked vehicles make it difficult to enter/exit 
driveways  
• Nearly every property has off street parking so the impact on residents is minimal 
• During the week, a number of contractors park their vans/lorry on the road 
• One resident appears to be running a car import/export business from his property, 
and parks a number of vehicles on the highway 
• Displacement from Vine Land and Chetwynd Drive, which both have parking 
enforcement measures, is exacerbating the situation 
• People who live far away park their vehicle on these roads, then catch the A10 bus 
to Heathrow to fly off on holiday for a week or two 
• Some local businesses/venues, such as the RAF Cricket Ground, tell their 
visitors/customers to park on Cedars Drive  
 
Proposed Solutions:  
 
Introduce single yellow lines on the length of the road, with enforcement for two hours per 
weekday (Mon – Fri 1100 – 1300)  
 
Please also see attached photos of the situation where emergency services were unable 
to get to the desired location due to the parking situation as well vehicles being parked on 
the street without number plates, without tax and without MOT.” 
 
2. The lead petitioner was invited to a petition hearing at which they advised that a single 
yellow line was the minimum action residents would like to see introduced in Cedars Drive, 
but the ideal outcome, with the support of the  local Ward Councillor who was present,  
would be for the road to be included in the nearby Hillingdon Parking Management Scheme 
‘Zone HN1’.  
 
3. As mentioned in the petition report and informal consultation report which are available to 
view on the Council’s website, the Council has previously considered petitions for parking 
restrictions in Cedars Drive; these were unsuccessful due to the lack of support from 
residents at the time and date back from 2009, 2013 and 2017. At the most recent Petition 
Hearing which took place in 2023 , residents and the local Ward Councillor advised they 
felt there was now sufficient appetite from residents for a parking scheme as 33 out of 43 
properties in Cedars Drive had signed the petition. The Cabinet Member for Property, 
Highways and Trans port therefore instructed officers to add the request to the Council’s 
extensive parking scheme programme for informal consultation.  
 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
4. Officers conducted an informal consultation in an area agreed in liaison with local Ward 
Councillors. Households in Attle Close, Bishops Close, Buckingham Grove, Cedars Drive, 
Mills Close and any abutting properties were sent an informal consultation pack and asked 
whether they would support a single yellow line outside Nos. 1-43 Cedars Drive operational 
Monday to Friday 11am to 1pm’, or support being included in an extension to the Hillingdon 
Hill Parking Management Scheme operational ‘Monday to Friday 9am  to 5pm’, or 
alternatively if they would prefer no changes to the current parking arrangements.  
 
5. The results of this consultation indicated that of t he 53% of households who took the 
opportunity to respond in Cedars Drive, the majority supported an extension to the nearby 
residents’ permit parking scheme ‘Zone HN1’. The results from households in t he other 
roads consulted were balanced or  indicated a preference for no changes to be made to 
the current parking arrangements. As is usual practice, the results were shared with local 
Ward Councillors and the Cabinet Member who made the decision for officers to formally 
consult residents in Cedars Drive on a proposed detailed sc heme design. It was also 
recommended to consult residents in Attle Close, Bishops Close and Mills Close on 
proposed ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions based on  reported concerns of obstructive 
parking.  
 
6. Officers organised for statutory consultation to be carried out.  Residents in the plan 
attached as Appendix A were sent a copy of the detailed scheme design and letter advising 
residents on how to comments on the proposals if they wish to have their views considered.  
 
7. During the statutory consultation, which started on 31 January and ended on 21 February, 
46 comments were received overall. Of these comments, six were from residents of Attle 
Close, eight from residents of Bishops Close, 30 from residents of Cedars Drive, one from 
a resident of Mills Close and one  from a resident of  Vine Lane. All of the comments 
received during the 21- day period are attached to this report as Appendix B  with all 
confidential information redacted.  
 
8. Within the comments, s ome residents expressed their confusion as to why  Attle Close, 
Bishops Close and Mills Close had been included in the formal consultation, if residents 
were mostly unsupportive of parking restrictions during the informal consultation. Although 
a scheme could be considered for roads such as Cedars Drive  individually, the Council 
had received concerns of obstructive parking in the closes due to the narrow  width of the 
carriageways and the decision was made to set out and seek views upon proposals for 
double yellow lines in each close. Residents would then have the opportunity to write, as 
to whether they support or object to, the proposals during the formal consultation. Within a 
residents’ parking scheme, the highway needs to be either covered by a parking bay or 
yellow line. As the restrictions w ere proposed throughout the entirety  of the highway , it 
seemed sensible to include households  of Attle Close, Bishops Close and Mills Close 
within the scheme and subsequently within the legal Traffic Management Order for ‘Zone 
HN1’ which would entitle households to residents’ permits and visitors vouchers.  
 
9. During the 21-day consultation period, the comments received regarding the proposed ‘at 
any time’ waiting restrictions in the closes were almost unanimous in opp osition. One 
resident in Attle Close and one in Bishops Close supported double yellow lines due to the 
concerns of emergency service vehicles being denied access if a car was obstructing the 
road and  advised that restrictions would improve access to driveways. However,  the 
general consensus was that ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions would just cause problems for 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
residents. Numerous residents advised that obstructive parking is rarely an issue, and that 
in their experience, if obstructive parking does occur, this is often sorted amicably between 
residents. It was advised that any vehicles which park in the close are usually associated 
with deliveries, contractors doing building work  on a house, visitors, or residents 
themselves, most of whom are not parked for long an d, it was suggested, cause little 
inconvenience. Within one of the responses, it was  advised that there is currently an 
abundance of parking availability in Cedars Drive,  so if there is any persistent all -day 
parking, this is only an issue when drivers park inconsiderately , which is a problem that 
would not be solved by a parking scheme. However, another resident was concerned that 
the proposed changes could lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour or tension between 
residents, as there are not enough bays on Cedars Drive to accommodate those who 
would need to utilise the available on-street parking. Although opposed to the restrictions, 
one resident suggested that if a scheme were to be implemented in Cedars Drive, then 
residents of the closes could request for parking controls to be considered in the future, if 
they felt necessary.  
 
10. All the responses have been shared with local Ward Councillors. Although surprised at the 
level of objection to waiting restrictions, Ward Councillors acknowledged the opposition to 
the double yellow lines in the closes and it is therefore recommended that no further action 
is taken for the proposed double yellow lines in the entirety of Attle Close, Bishops Close 
or Mills Close  at the present time . However, it is recommended that double yellow lines 
are progressed on the junctions, as seen in the plan attached as Appendix C. It should be 
noted that  this will mean residents in the closes  will not be entitled to apply for virtual 
residents’ permits or visitors’ vouchers as the scheme will not extend into their roads. The 
Cabinet Member will already be aware that the Highway Code provides well -known 
standards relating to parking on junctions, but that does not provide for local parking 
enforcement by the Council and its representatives. 
 
11. 30 of the responses received overall were from residents of Cedars Drive.  Of these, two 
suggested changes with no specific view on whether they support or object the proposals, 
eight were from residents objecting  to the proposed extension, and a majority of  20 
residents responded in support of extending the ‘Zone HN1’ scheme into Cedars Drive.  
 
12. Residents who supported the scheme advised that the introduction of parking restrictions 
has been long overdue. The i ssues raised in the petition such as commuters and holiday 
makers taking advantage of the unrestricted parking and leaving their car in the road for 
long periods of time, were reiterated in some comments. A couple of residents explained 
that a scheme would also make it easier for vehicles providing assistance ( such as travel 
services for elderly residents ) to park, as they currently find it difficult due to the non-
residential parking taking up available parking. A resident also advised that there are often 
commercial vehicles parked in the road reducing the parking availability for local residents. 
Out of the 20 residents  who commented in support of the scheme, eight respo nded 
individually with the statement “I write in reference to Cedars Drive PMS Ref: 7.36/AC. I 
would like to offer my full support of the proposed scheme” with an accompanying signature 
and address. One of the concerns highlighted was the narrow width of the carriageway in 
Cedars Drive which when non- residential vehicles park inconsiderately, especially 
commercial, or larger vehicles,  which can cause issues for residents particularly with 
access and egress to their driveway. Residents were therefore supportive of a scheme as 
not only would there be parking bays which, as is usual practice are at least 0.5 metres 
away from the top of a dropped kerb, it would also mean that all-day non-residential parking 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
would be enforceable and during the operational times the only vehicles with a valid permit 
or visitors voucher for ‘Zone HN1’ should be taking up parking bays.  
 
13. Residents in Cedars Drive who objected to the proposed scheme extension advised that 
it is unnecessary as there is rarely an issue with parking in the road, especially one which 
would warrant a parking scheme. Residents in objection expressed how the large majority 
of properties in Cedars Drive have driveways; although in the petition this was noted as a 
positive for a scheme as there would be minimal effect on residents, for those who oppose 
the scheme, it  conveys how off-street parking is available for residents and  issues with 
parking availability is therefore minimal. A few residents spoke of their concern at the cost 
of residents’ permits and visitors vouchers , explaining  how this would greatly affect 
residents and make residents’ lives stressful and expensive , particularly those reliant on 
services such as childcare with  friends and family being deterred from visiting due to the 
parking restrictions . Those opposing the scheme from Cedars Drive, Attle Close and 
Bishops Close argued that the reasons listed in the petition to join the nearby scheme were 
no longer an issue. One example was the commercial or contractor vehicles parking in the 
road causing problems with parking; residents opposed to the scheme advised that the 
majority of  these vehicles would most likely belong to residents themselves, and if a 
property is having work such as renovations or repairs , then this would be expected as 
contractors would need somewhere to park . Furthermore, a couple of residents adv ised 
how households will occasionally host events or celebrations which would of course lead 
to an increase in parking within the road, but in no way significantly impact the day-to-day 
parking situation.    
 
14. As mentioned in the petition, there were a few responses which advised that one property 
is running an alleged car sales business who takes advantage of the unrestricted parking 
which impacts their neighbours. It was suggested that if there is a parking scheme then as 
the resident would need to apply for permits, thi s would reduce deter the number of cars 
being parked on the road. On the other hand, residents who opposed the scheme advised 
that a parking scheme which would impact all residents in the road should not be 
introduced because of the actions of one property, and the property owner would be able 
to purchase visitors vouchers to park vehicles on the road anyway. If a property is running 
a business from their property when not permitted to do so, this should be reported to the 
relevant department to investigate.   
 
15.  All of the responses and information submitted during the formal consultation have been 
shared with local Ward Councillors. Ward Councillors requested that the Council proceed 
in extending the Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme to include Cedars Drive 
between its junctions with Buckingham Grove and Vine Lane, as  there is a sizeable 
majority of residents in favour of an extension to the scheme.  
 
16. During the 21- day consultation period, there were a few amendments requested by 
residents. One request was for the single yellow line outside No. 43 Cedars Drive to be 
changed to a double yellow line which could extend from the junction with Buckingham 
Grove. Cars would not be permitted to park on the single yellow line during the operational 
times of the scheme. After consideration of the request, i t seems sensible to propose an 
extension to the double yellow lines  at this location as seen in the plan attached to this 
report as Appendix D, as it with cars parked parallel, it will prevent obstructive parking.  
 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
17. There was another request to extend double yellow lines to replace the parking bay outside 
Nos. 39 and 41 Cedars  Drive. This was because residents advised it can be difficult to 
manoeuvre and delivery vehicles allegedly have to drive onto the pavement to get around 
the junction with Chetwynd Drive. Removing these bays would result in the loss of parking 
where cars have already been parking for a long period of time, and upon approach to the 
junction from Chetwynd Drive drivers should have a clear view of any oncoming vehicles.  
It is therefore recommended that no changes are made to the proposed residents’ bay 
outside Nos. 39 and 41 Cedars Drive at the present time, but the parking situation be 
reviewed in six months’ time following the scheme start date.  
 
18. Another suggested amendment was the removal of the parking bays  on the bend outside 
Nos. 6 and 8 Cedars Drive and replacing these with yellow lines.  This would remove 
parking for up to four cars where parking is already at a premium . It is therefore 
recommended that no changes are made to the proposed residents’ bay outside Nos. 6 
and 8 Cedars Drive at the present time, but the parking situation be reviewed in 6 months’ 
time following the scheme start date.  
 
19. There were a few requests for specific parking bays to be removed to help with access to 
driveways. It is not the Council’s usual practice to implement parking restrictions such as 
yellow lines to assist with access to a dropped kerb. Whilst designing the scheme, officers 
mostly proposed bays where vehicles were naturally parked. An exception is the residents’ 
bays between Nos. 29 and 35 Cedars Drive where the parking availability was greater on 
the opposite side. Officers always try to maximise parking when designing a scheme where 
it is safe and practical to do so. It therefore seemed sensible to propose bays on the eastern 
kerbline where there would be more on-street parking availability  and drivers would be 
forced to slow  their vehicle on approach.  However, whe n visiting the location  (as they 
always do following suggested amendments ) officers noticed a newly implemented 
dropped kerb extension which has resulted in the gap between the dropped kerbs of Nos. 
33 and 35 now being too small to facilitate a resident’ permit holders only bay. It is therefore 
recommended that officers propose to remove the parking bay as seen in the plan attached 
to this report as Appendix E and replace it with a single yellow line.   
 
20. A request was also received for the bay outside No. 14 Chetwynd Drive to be removed due 
to a car being recently damaged from a car entering the road from Cedars Drive. It is 
unfortunate that a car has been damaged at this location. However,  removing the bay 
would remove parking for residents during the operational hours and it is therefore 
recommended that this bay is not removed at the present time.  
 
21. Some residents also requested a change in operational times. The proposed operational 
times of ‘Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm’ is an extension of the existing ‘Zone HN1’ scheme. 
Some residents suggested shorter times such as a couple of hours during the day or one 
hour midday. As the majority of residents supported the proposed times, it is recommended 
that the scheme is implemented with the proposed operational times of ‘Monday to Friday 
9am to 5pm’. However, if in the future residents would like to change the hours of the 
scheme, they are encouraged to submit a petition to the Council which can then be 
considered by the Cabinet Member.  
 
22. In summary, all of the responses received to the statutory consultation for a proposed 
extension to the Hillingdon Hill Parking Management  Scheme ‘Zone HN1’ operational 
‘Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm’ have been shared and discussed w ith local Ward 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
Councillors and the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport. All of the 
comments have been considered thoroughly and it is recommended that  the residents’ 
permit parking scheme ‘Zone HN1’ is extended to include Cedars Drive as seen in the plan 
attached as Appendix F, following statutory consultation for proposed amendments which 
are listed in the recommendations to this report. 
 
Financial Implications 
 
The estimated cost associated with the recommendations to this report is £7 ,000, to be funded 
from the Transport for London 2024/25 Grant Parking Management Schemes Allocation (subject 
to the relevant approval process with Transport for London and Capital Release protocols). 
 
 
RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION 
 
The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities 
 
To allow the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport to consider the responses 
received during the 21-day statutory consultation.   
 
Consultation carried out or required 
 
A statutory consultation was undertaken. 
 
CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS 
 
Corporate Finance 
 
Corporate Finance has reviewed the recommendations to this report and concurs with the 
financial implications as set out above.  
 
Legal 
 
The Council’s power to make orders introducing an extension to the Hillingdon Hill Parking 
Management Scheme in Cedars Drive, Uxbridge is set out in Part I of the Road Traffic Regulation 
Act 1984. The consultation and order making statutory procedures to be followed in this matter 
are set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 
1996 (SI 1996/2489). 
 
 
If the decision is taken to make the proposed order, Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 
1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 set out the signage 
requirements, which must be observed. 
 
 
In considering consultation responses, section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 
means that the Council must balance the concerns of the objectors with the statutory duty to 
secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.  
 
 
The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public 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. 

 
 
 
Cabinet Member Petition Hearing – 07 June 2024 
Part I – Public 
 
There are a set of well-established common law rules which set out the requirements of a lawful 
public consultation which are known as the Gunning principles. They were endorsed by the 
Supreme Court in the Moseley case.  
 
The principles can be summarised as follows:  
• Consultation should occur when proposals are at a formative stage;  
• Consultations should give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit intelligent 
consideration;  
• Consultations should allow adequate time for consideration and response;  
• The product of consultation should conscientiously be taken into account by the 
decision maker.  
  
There are a very significant number of judicial review cases which involve successful challenges 
to the lawfulness of a consultation undertaken by a public authority , so it is imperative that the 
Gunning principles are closely followed. 
 
  
Infrastructure / Asset Management 
 
None at this stage.   
 
Comments from other relevant service areas 
 
None at this stage. 
 
BACKGROUND PAPERS 
 
Petition received. 
 
Informal consultation report and decision notice.  
 
TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES 
 
Appendix A – Plan of the area included in the statutory consultation.  
Appendix B – Responses received during the statutory consultation period. 
Appendix C – Plan of the amended ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions in Bishops Close and Mills 
Close. 
Appendix D – Plan of the proposed extension to the double yellow lines to replace the single 
yellow lines outside No. 43 Cedars Drive. 
Appendix E – Plan of the proposed removal of the residents’ permit parking bay outside Nos. 33 
and 35 to be replaced with a single yellow line.  
Appendix F – Plan of the Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme ‘Zone HN1’ including 
Cedars Drive.  
  

Attle Close
I am writing to express my utmost concerns and opposition to the proposal of yellow lines on Attle Close. As a resident, I believe 
that implementing such restrictions will have an adverse effect on the wellbeing of the residents. 
Until now, I was not even aware of any parking problems in Attle Close. My wife and I have lived here since 2000, and in the 
twenty-four years that we have been here, we have not had any issues with access or parking in the close. 
Indeed, I drive a large van which I park on my drive, and I have not had any difficulty accessing my property ever. We have taken 
several pictures of the close, over the last three weeks that you have given us to investigate things and have struggled to even find 
any cars parked on the road. 
I have checked with the other residents, and they are as shocked as we are that you are considering double yellow lines, meaning 
no parking at any time. 
Moreover, the implementation of double yellow lines will lead to parking difficulties for residents and visitors. Many households 
have limited parking spaces available, and the absence of on-street parking will create inconvenience and negative impact on the 
quality of life for those residing on Attle Close.
There is one resident who lives on Cedars Drive who is having problems in manoeuvring his car onto his drive, because he likes to 
park his car sideways. This is the only issue that has been raised to me. 
I have checked the width of the road and found this to be 4.2 metres (which allows for a car’s width of 1.8 metres) and still gives 
2.4 metres for access for emergency vehicles, fire engine width of 2.3m and ambulance of 2.1m.
Unless the road is under reclassification to feed more than the 6 houses, how can it be justified to have double yellow lines or any 
yellow lines.  Vine Lane which carries a hundred times more traffic and feeds this zone has a smaller road width and is not yellow 
lined. 
I appreciate the council's dedication to ensuring the safety and functionality of our community, but I do not believe a parking 
problem exist that needs their attention. 
Object.
Comments considered as 
part of this report. See 
paragraph 9.   

Attle Close
In response to the letter sent to residents I would like to say that we have never had any parking problems and DO NOT want any 
restrictions in Attle Close.
There are 31 houses in the three closes and by putting double yellow lines in each, you will be creating a problem of parking for 
residents and visitors as I see there are only a few permit bays drawn on the plan and they are all in Cedars Drive.
Some of the residents in Cedars have a problem due to a family who have moved in and are running a car business and parking 
several cars out on the road. This should be addressed first. I have noted that when looking at different times on different days 
there are no cars parked in any of the 3 closes. If Cedars drive want permit bays then do this first and we will see if there becomes 
a problem of people parking in other roads and if so we can be asked again if we would like to then proceed with either single 
yellow line with a timed restriction or permit bays.
It seems that for a few people moaning we are all going to have no where to park.
Please be aware that some of the residents in the area have lived here for over 20 years and have never had any problems and it 
seems that one family in particular are effecting the whole community.
Object.
Comments considered as 
part of this report. See 
paragraph 9 and 14.    
Attle Close
I am opposed to double yellow lines!
I am in favour of Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm.
I have emailed before regarding the possible implementation of restricted parking in Attle Close. Saying, that my household 
'Absolutely' do not want double yellow lines!!! My concerns are where my family, friends and any contractors will park when they 
visit. 
There are not enough parking bays for residents, let alone visitors if all the Closes are double yellow lined.
Also, what is there to stop a resident buying as many permits as they like. Leaving their cars parked in the bays, for as long as they 
like. Which I'm sure will be the case and would be extremely anti social, legal unfortunately, so allowed to happen.
I also feel anxious that the friendly relationships formed over many years with neighbours, may become strained and cold.
Object.
Comments considered as 
part of this report. See 
paragraph 9.   

Attle Close
I have been told by one of my neighbours I need to respond to a recent letter regarding double yellow lines on Attle Close.
I can confirm I fully agree in putting double yellow lines on Attle Close as the road is very narrow and when cars are parked on the 
road it is a struggle for me to get my car out.
 
Support.
Comments considered as 
part of this report. See 
paragraph 9.   


Object.
Comments considered as 
part of this report. See 
paragraph 9, 13 and 
 
We are very much against the introduction of any parking restrictions on Cedars Drive and the neighbouring roads including Attle 
Close, Mills Close and Bishops Close.
We have two cars, one of which uses our one-car driveway for parking.
The second car is parked on the road, in front of our property -
- We virtually never have a problem parking with our second car in the above mentioned spot, and are very happy with road access 
and the availability of parking. Only extremely rarely do we have to park elsewhere, usually Cedars Drive where there are normally 
multiple spaces available.
Attle Close:
- Only extremely rarely do we have any issues with vehicles parked in the first part of Attle Close leading to the houses. Where this 
happens, it is almost always due to the residents themselves, e.g. visitors to one of the houses or deliveries to one of the houses 
(all of the houses are involved here – with the deliveries normally only taking minutes, the exception being supermarket deliveries 
which take a little longer but we are happy that a service is being provided for someone in the close so willingly accept this).
Cedars Drive :
- As we use our car at all times of the day, both weekdays and weekends, we can confidently say there is no significant issue with 
displacement parking from other roads, or from people parking to fly or catch a bus. We accept this might well happen on 
occasion, however as mentioned above Cedars Drive almost always has adequate parking available. Before making any decision on 
a parking scheme, we would advise the council to inspect the relevant streets themselves over a number of occasions to see if 
there are any significant issues, we feel confident there will be none. If there were any issue with parking in Cedars Drive, it would 
undoubtedly have a knock-on effect in Attle Close, something which we have never noticed.
The only exceptions to this were some occasions where there seemed to be a number of visitors attending what appeared to be 
religious events of some sort at no. / Cedars Drive following completion of their building works, leading to fuller parking in Cedars 
Drive and sometimes a car the first part of Attle Close.
We have not noticed this happening over the last three months at least. In any case, the cause of this is due to the residents of No. 
/ Cedars Drive themselves, not displacement parking or a general issue with parking. The problem seems to have sorted itself out, 
possibly following other residents making their feelings known to the owner we presume, however any future occurrences would 
best be discussed by the residents or the council directly with no. / Cedars Drive – introducing parking restrictions absolutely 
would not be an appropriate answer, as the disadvantages to other houses on these roads, including ourselves, would be vastly 
greater. For information, no. / Cedars Drive has a fully paved front garden capable of taking we estimate c.8-10 cars.
 A i   i  i h  ki    h  d i   i  Th    idi   i   h  id  
                      
                     
                       
                         
                      
                  
                      
                    
   
                      
                  
                     
                   
                      
                       
                      
                    
        
                       
                 
                   
                       
           
                     
                  
                     
                     
                 
                     
                     
                      
                      
 

   
     
    
Attle Close
                    
     
            
             
                        
                     
  
 
                         
                        
                    
                       
  
                          
                      
                  
                      
                        
             
                      
                      
          
                           
                     
                  
                    
                    
                   
- Again, any issue with contractors taking spaces on the road is a non-issue. The contractors are providing a service to the residents 
of Cedars Drive themselves, for the purpose of carrying out building work. To stop contractors using the road for parking would be 
against the rights of residents to have building works carried out. We are certain a number of the petitioners themselves are 
involved here. There may be some who have not had building work carried out, however both future owners of those as well as 
other properties may wish to do so and should be allowed to do so without any hindrance. The building works at no. / Cedars in 
particular were very extended, and since then other properties have also had or are having work carried out. We have found the 
owners and contractors generally very considerate and co-operative and are happy to leave them to complete their work 
efficiently as possible. Any issues navigating the road due to poorly parked cars are very infrequent and very minor in the overall 
situation. As most of the properties on Cedars drive have already been significantly extended, we anticipate the frequency of this 
to reduce even further
- Any issues which there might have been, would have been more noticeable to the petitioners recently as not only have several 
properties undertaken building works, but these have coincided with other works by utilities (e.g. gas pipe replacement, a nation-
wide project we believe, and e.g. telephone mast replacement). Again these are outside the control of residents, and at the same 
time are for their benefit – having now been completed, any impact from such works should be negligible going forward.
- Almost all the properties in Cedars Drive, as well as Attle Close etc, have driveways allowing parking for multiple vehicles. It 
appears to us that many petitioners are happy with their own situation, and seem to want it all – relatively infrequent and minor 
parking or passing issues are being blown far out of proportion apparently without a care for the significance of a parking scheme 
for those who cannot financially afford larger driveways, or with other issues which a parking scheme would cause them including 
the significant cost of both resident and visitor permits.
- As all the cost and inconvenience of any scheme would fall on those owners without large driveways (and who would likely be 
more represented amongst the non-petitioners, those with large driveways would likely not require on-street permits so would 
not need to pay), other solutions could be considered, e.g. free residents permits, resident-only bays, reserved bays, free visitor 
permits, etc, as happens in other much more congested areas (e.g. Hayes Town - Neild Rd, St Anselm's Rd, …etc), although we still 
would very much be in favour of no parking scheme at all.
A major source of concern is that the petitioners haven’t discussed any issues directly with many of the other residents, for 
example we believe (from word of mouth communication with neighbours, but without official confirmation) that no. / Cedars 
Drive and no./ Attle Close may be amongst the petitioners or even lead petitioner(s) – however they have not talked with 
ourselves and at least one other owner in Attle Close beforehand even though we are immediate neighbours of theirs. Any petition 
where petitioners have not sufficiently involved immediate and close neighbours surely has questionable validity. In addition, the 
                     
                     
                      
                      
 

Bishops Close
I write in reference to Cedars Drive PMS Ref: 7.36/AC. I would like to offer my full support of the proposed scheme. Support.
Comments considered as 
part of this report. See 
paragraph 9.  
   
     
    
 
                    
     
            
             
                        
                     
  
 
                         
                        
                    
                       
  
                          
                      
                  
                      
                        
             
                      
                      
          
                           
                     
                  
                    
                    
                   
                       
                      
                     
                       
                         
                      
                  
                      
                    
   
                      
                  
                     
                   
                      
                       
                      
                    
        
                       
                 
                   
                       
           
                     
                  
                     
                     
where petitioners have not sufficiently involved immediate and close neighbours surely has questionable validity. In addition, the 
council could go on location to inspect the parking arrangements which each of the petitioners already have – we feel confident 
that the majority will be seen to have very generous existing facilities which many non-petitioners and other residents of the area 
and the borough as a whole could only dream of. Photographs of the parking situation across the Cedars Drive area over various 
times and days, could be included in any analysis, and be made available to all residents, before further discussion and a decision 
being made.

Object.
Comments considered in 
the body of the report. 
 
I am writing to make you aware of my objection to proposed parking restrictions at Cedars Drive, Hillingdon.
The arguments for this petition are very weak and I feel very strongly about the reference that objects to RAF service men and 
women parking in the area while playing cricket.
It concerns me that the arguments ‘for the parking restrictions’ were not communicated in the letter sent to local residents 
notifying them of the ‘Formal consultation of extending Zone HN1’.
Would you agree it is impossible to make an argument against a petition for a parking scheme unless you know the argument 
made for it? 
The double yellow lines proposed for Bishops Close and Attle Close are way over the top.
This is the third time parking restrictions have been proposed in the area - each time we have said we don’t want them.
However, having been presented with a fait en accompli in the parking plan proposal diagram I fear that this time responses may 
be influenced and residents may respond with approval with some restrictions rather than double yellow lines (the lesser of two 
evils).
And this response would be due to a lack of clarity in the process.
I have posted a response to the 'Why parking enforcement is needed' Petition below in BOLD 
Why Parking Enforcement is needed: 
- Cedars Drive is a narrow highway and parked vehicles make it difficult to enter/exit driveways 
Cedars Drive is a similar width to other side roads is the area. What defines a narrow highway? 
- Nearly every property has off street parking so the impact on residents is minimal 
This should be stated as a reason why parking enforcement is NOT needed! 
- During the week, a number of contractors park their vans/lorry on the road 
This would be the owner of a window glazing company who lives at the south side of Cedars Drive.  Are you aware that he now 
parks his van on his drive? 
I am not aware of any other contractor parking their vans/lorries on Cedars Drive. If a person is renovating a property, then 
their contractor should be allowed to park outside. This would only ever be short term. 
- One resident appears to be running a car import/export business from his property, and parks a number of vehicles on the 
highway 
This is true and I would imagine that this has upset a number of residents in the immediate location on Cedars Drive. This 
person parks two Mercedes cars on Cedars Drive - they are never moved.  
Di l  f  Vi  L d d Ch d D i  hi h b h h  ki  f   i  b i  h  i i  
           
                           
 
                     
                 
                       
   
            
                   
                          
                    
            
                     
              
                       
                       
         
                   
                        
                
                  
                    
                
                      
                   
                   
                     
                  
                     
        
                      
                 
                      
   
                     
   

   
     
Bishops Close
                 
                       
       
                    
         
                      
   
               
                      
                      
                    
             
                
     
                
                  
               
             
              
                          
      
                      
               
                      
 
                       
              
Displacement from Vine Land and Chetwynd Drive, which both have parking enforcement measures, is exacerbating the situation 
More restrictions would only have a knock-on effect for other areas. 
People who live far away park their vehicle on these roads, then catch the A10 bus to Heathrow to fly off on holiday for a week or 
two 
How often do we think this actually happens?  This sounds like a one off, if it ever happened at all. 
Some local businesses/venues, such as the RAF Cricket Ground, tell their visitors/customers to park on Cedars Drive 
Yes, and who would have a problem with our RAF servicemen and women parking at the bottom of Cedars Drive for two hours 
on a Wednesday afternoon.
This only happens during the cricket season, 2 months in the summer. 
The argument for parking restrictions is weak. And NOT supported by the majority of residents in the affected area. 
We have lived in Bishops Close for 16 years and there has never been an issue with parking. I am aware of a resident on Cedars 
Drive parking multiple Mercedes vehicles outside of other properties, perhaps this has caused the issue. But I would imagine that 
there is still plenty of room for other vehicles on the street. 
On occasion, overnight visitors have parked in the narrow road leading into Bishops Close and have obstructed the bin lorry, BUT 
this is approximately 5 times in 16 years and not a matter of concern. 
I fail to see how the Council representative or the Cabinet Member who visited the area between 9-5pm to view parking on the 
affected streets viewed a street with parking issues. I worry that this proposal is the result of only SOME residents on Cedars Drive 
becoming upset by the owner of the Mercedes cars. 
We object strongly to double yellow lines within Bishops Close. And also the other parking restrictions in the area. 
- Our fear is that if restrictions are actioned on Cedars Drive, then it's possible that more cars would park in Bishops Close (however 
as stated before, we are not aware of an overload of vehicles parking in Cedars Drive). 
- Attle Close, Mills Close and Bishops Close are different sizes/shapes and should not be treated the same. 
- Double yellow lines are excessive an not well thought through. Where would my elderly relatives park when they visit? 
- The only place we need double yellow lines are on the corners of the roads/closes. 
- DANGEROUS PARKING BAY. There is a parking bay outside 14 Chetwynd Drive that is in a dangerous position. The car parked 
there was recently damaged by a car turning into the drive. Please remove this space before it happens again. 
- The new road markings, insta

View Decision / Minutes Text

Executive Decision Notice – 18 June 2024  
 
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 CEDARS DRIVE, UXBRIDGE – REPORT ON THE OUTCOME 
OF THE STATUTORY  CONSULTATION FOR A PROPOSED 
EXTENSION TO THE HILLINGDON HILL PARKING  
MANAGEMENT SCHEME ‘ZONE HN1’ 
Reference No. 1131 
Date of decision Tuesday 18 June 2024  
Call-in expiry date Tuesday 25 June 2024  
Relevant Select 
Committee 
Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee 
 
Relevant Wards N/A 
 
Decision made 
 
Cabinet Members 
making the decision 
Councillor Jonathan Bianco  – Cabinet Member for  Property, 
Highways & Transport   
Decision Approved 
 
That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and 
Transport: 
 
1. Noted the responses received during the 21 -day 
formal consultation on a possible  extension to the 
Hillingdon Hill Parking Management Scheme; 
 
2. Based on the views expressed during the 
consultation and following discussions  with local 
Ward Councillors, recommended  that the proposed 
extension to the Hillingdon Hill Parking Management 
Scheme is implemented in Cedars Drive, Uxbridge as 
seen in the plan attached as Appendix F of the 
associated report; 
 
3. Based on the views expressed during the 
consultation and following discussions  with local 
Ward Councillors, recommended  that the proposed 
‘at any time’ waiting  restrictions in the entirety of 
Attle Close, Bishops Close and Mills Close are 
deferred due to the apparent lack of support, but 
instead asked officers to organise for double  yellow 
lines to be formally advertised in Bishops Close and 
Mills Close at their  junctions with Cedars Drive as 


Executive Decision Notice – 18 June 2024  
 
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk  
seen on the plan attached to this report as Appendix 
C; 
 
4. Asked officers to organise for formal consultation to 
take place on a proposed  extension to the double 
yellow lines from the junction with Buckingham 
Grove to outside No. 43 Cedars Drive to replace the 
single yellow line, as seen in the plan attached as 
Appendix D, prior to implementation of the scheme 
in Cedars Drive; 
 
5. Asked officers to organise for formal consultation to 
take place on a proposed single  yellow line outside 
Nos. 33 and 35 Cedars Drive to replace the residents’ 
permit holders only bay as seen in the plan attached 
as Appendix E, prior to implementation of the 
scheme in Cedars Drive; and 
 
6. Considered requests from residents for amendments 
to be made to the scheme  outlined in paragraphs 17 
to 20 of this report, and ask ed officers review the 
situation in six months’ time following the scheme 
start date. 
Reason for decision These recommendations are in line with the views expressed 
during formal consultation and discussions with local Ward 
Councillors. 
Alternative options 
considered and 
rejected 
None at this stage.    
Classification Part I – Public 
Link to associated 
report  
Here 
Relevant Officer 
contact & 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 Tuesday 25 June 2024  
 
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. 

Executive Decision Notice – 18 June 2024  
 
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk  
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

Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions

CEDARS DRIVE, UXBRIDGE – REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE STATUTORY CONSULTATION FOR A PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE HILLINGDON HILL PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME ‘ZONE HN1’

Report Document

Decision / Minutes Document

Text extracted from PDFs