Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Objections to the proposed double yellow lines in Pynchester Close, Ickenham
Report Document
Can't see the PDF? Download Report
Decision / Minutes Document
Can't see the PDF? Download Minutes
Text extracted from PDFs
View Report Text
Democratic Services Location: Phase II Ext: 0636 DDI: 01895 250636 CMD No: 1555 To: COUNCILLOR STEVE TUCKWELL CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH c.c. All Members of th e Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee c.c. Dan Kennedy – Corporate Director of Residents Services c.c. Kevin Urquhart – Residents Services Directorate Date: 07 November 2025 Non-Key Decision request Form D OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINES IN PYNCHESTER CLOSE, ICKENHAM 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 Monday 17 November 2025 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. Naveed Ali Democratic Services Title of Report: OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINES IN PYNCHESTER CLOSE, ICKENHAM 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 Planning, Housing & Growth Cabinet Member Report – 07 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINES IN PYNCHESTER CLOSE, ICKENHAM Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Responsible Officer Dan Kennedy - Corporate Director of Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Kevin Urquhart – Residents Services Directorate Papers with report Appendices A – C HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member on the responses received to the formal consultation for the proposed installation of double yellow lines in part of Pynchester Close, Ickenham Putting our Residents First De livering 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 T his report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities Financial Cost The estimated cost associated with the recommendations to this report is £100, to be funded from existing Transportation Services revenue budgets. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Ward(s) Ickenham & South Harefield RECOMMENDATIONS T hat the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth: 1) N otes the responses received to the formal consultation for the proposed installation of double yellow lines in Pynchester Close, Ickenham; and 2) Fol lowing discussion with the local Ward Councillors , d ecides that formal consultation be carried out on the revised proposals for shortened double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham , as shown Appendix C. Cabinet Member Report – 07 November 2025 Page 2 (Part 1 Public) Reasons for recommendations T he recommendations reflect the majority of responses received to the consultation with residents and views expressed by the local Ward Councillors after considering the individual responses from all of the residents who took the opportunity to respond to the consultation. A lternative options considered / risk management T he Council could have decided to install the double yellow lines as they were proposed or deferred the proposals altogether. S elect Committee comments N one at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. T he Council recently received a petition signed by a resident of Pynchester Close, Ickenham requesting the Council to consider the introduction of double yellow lines within their road to help prevent obstructive parking and enable safe and easy access to their off-street parking area. 2. P ynchester Close is a small cul-de-sac off Hoylake Crescent in a series of roads northwest of Ickenham Village town centre. The roads within this general area can occasionally suffer from non- residential parking associated with the town centre and commuter parking as several nearby roads benefit from a Parking Management Scheme. 3. A lthough the petition was only signed by one resident, a local Ward Councillor supported the request and therefore officers investigate d these concerns as part of the road safety programme. Following discussion with the local Ward Councillors , officers developed proposals for double yellow lines to be installed at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, with a continuation of the double yellow lines on the northwest side of the road to help ensure clear access for residents. 4. F ollowing the above, formal consultation on the proposals for double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham was carried out between 17th September 2025 to 8th October 2025. Adjacent residents were delivered a letter and plan of the proposed amendments as well as a public notice placed on the adjacent signpost for the affected parking place. A plan of the proposals is attached as Appendix A to this report. 5. D uring the formal consultation, the Council received two responses generally in favour of the proposed restrictions and three responses in objection to them. Attached as Appendix B to this report are all of the responses that were received with some minor redactions to protect the identity of residents. 6. T he main concern of the residents who were objecting to the proposals was that they felt the restrictions proposed would result in the loss of valuable parking space which they stated is often used by residents who live in Pynchester Close and the surrounding streets. It was Cabinet Member Report – 07 November 2025 Page 3 (Part 1 Public) noted that although most residents have some form of off -street parking, most only have enough space on their driveways to accommodate one vehicle. As a result, resident s must rely on the surrounding on- street parking if they have more than one vehicle or have any visitors. 7. One resident who objected suggested that as an alternative the Council could consider allowing footway parking to take place to ensure the roadway is kept clear whilst still maintaining some parking for nearby residents . In response, the Council is unable to consider partial footway parking within Pynchester Close as the widths of the footway would not allow a clearance of 1.5 metres to be maintained for pedestrians. In addition, formalised footway parking may prevent residents living further into Pynchester Close from parking across their driveway entrances, since vehicles must be parked within the marked parking places for such schemes. 8. A suggestion was made to consider introducing limited time parking restrictions in Hoylake Crescent to prevent and displace commuter parking from causing residents difficulties. However, it is recommended that if residents wish to consider such a scheme for their road, they should first petition the Council so that it can be established if a proposal would be supported by the majority of residents who live there; it may be noted that similar proposals have been rejected here in the past when the Council informally consulted residents on the idea. 9. The responses to the formal consultation have been shared with the local Ward Councillors. Following consideration of the comments made, as a compromise and to address the road safety concern at the junction , it is recommended that a shorter length of restrictions be proposed within Pynchester Close as shown on Appendix C of this report. This is the minimum length of restrictions that could be considered effective in improving visibility for pedestrians and vehicles negotiating this junction whilst retaining as much kerbside parking space as possible. 10. In summary, the outcome of the formal consultation indicated that the majority of nearby residents who responded were opposed to the proposed restrictions. However, there are still some residents in favour of the restrictions in the view that they would improve road safety. In response to the concerns raised with the proposals, it is recommended that the least amount of double yellow lines possible is progressed to ensure some parking remains within Pynchester Close whilst still improving sightlines at the junctions. The recommended revised proposals are shorter than the standard distance defined in the Highway Code where cars should not be parked near to a junction. Following discussion with the local Ward Councillors, it is recommended that formal consultation on revised proposals for double yellow lines be progressed as shown on Appendix C of this report. These proposals although shorter than the previously proposed double yellow lines will still help improve sightlines and promote road safety at this junction which is a short distance away from a primary school. Financial Implications The estimated cost associated with the recommendations to this report is £ 100 if the revised proposals are implemented following formal consultation. Subject to the Cabinet Member’s approval of the recommendations in this report, these costs can be funded within the existing transportation budget. The revised proposals will be grouped with other road safety related Cabinet Member Report – 07 November 2025 Page 4 (Part 1 Public) proposals requiring formal consultation to help reduce the overall costs for the Council. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities The recommendation of this report is to proceed with formal consultation on revised proposals for double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoy lake Crescent, Ickenham, which are intended to improve visibility for both motorists and pedestrians by preventing vehicles from parking too close to the junction. Consultation & engagement carried out (or required) Formal consultation was carried out between 17 th September 2025 to 8th October 2025 for the proposed installation of double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham. If the recommendations of this report are approved, then further formal consultation will be carried out for the revised proposals as shown on Appendix C. If any objections are received in responses to these revised proposals, a further Cabinet Member report will be required to consider these comments. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance have reviewed the recommendations to this report and concurs with the financial implications as set out above. Legal The Council’s power to implement the proposed double yellow lines (i.e. ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions) at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham is set out in section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The consultation and order -making statutory procedures to be followed are set out in Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. Consultation must also meet the standard set by established common law principles in public law, namely fairness and adequacy. If the decision is taken to make the proposed order, Part 5 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 exercising any of the powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 122 of the 1984 Act requires the Council to consider its statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians), and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. These powers must be exercised so far as practicable having regard to the following matters: Cabinet Member Report – 07 November 2025 Page 5 (Part 1 Public) (a) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises; (b) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected and the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles, so as to preserve or improve amenities of the areas through which the roads run; (c) the national air quality strategy; (d) the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and (e) any other matters appearing to the Council to be relevant. Moreover, the Council has various statutory duties in relation to road safety, such as under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This report states that the proposed double yellow lines will help to address a present road safety concern. Pursuant to established public law principles on consultation, the decision maker, when deciding whether to approve the recommendation to introduce the proposed waiting restrictions, must be satisfied that all consultation responses, which are set out within Appendix B, including those that do not accord with the officer’s recommendation, were conscientiously taken into account. Regulation 13 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 also requires the Council to consider all objections made. In this instance, the consultation responses have informed the revision of the proposed double yellow lines to the least amount possible to ensure some parking remains within Pynchester Close whilst still improving sightlines at the junctions. The Council must also be mindful of its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL. TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES • Appendix A – Plan – Proposed double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham • Appendix B – Table – Responses to the formal consultation for proposed double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham • Appendix C – Plan – Revised proposals for double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham Pynchester Close, IckenhamProposed double yellow linesNEW DOUBLE YELLOW LINE & TERMINALKEYCROSSOVER (INDICATIVE ONLY) Comments Officers response I whole heartedly support their introduction. Having had many years of problems with cars parking opposite our drive, in such a narrow road as Pynchester Close, there presence have made access to and from our drive extremely difficult, Plus over the years of watching both commercial lorries and the council lorries having great difficulty reversing into Pynchester Close because of the parked cars, I again can completely understand their necessity. Another factor to take into consideration is, if vans /cars are parked on the corner of Hoylake and Pynchester it makes sight of on coming traffic up Hoylake Crescent somewhat impossible and very dangerous. Thank you for your consideration of this action Noted as part of this report. I am writing to formally object to the proposed installation of double yellow lines in Pynchester Close. While I appreciate the council’s intention to improve road safety and manage parking, the proposed changes would cause significant practical issues for my household and do not fully address the reality of parking conditions on this narrow road. Driveway and Parking Access: My driveway does not have a full-width dropped kerb and therefore cannot safely or legally accommodate two cars. As a result, we rely heavily on being able to park one of our vehicles on the opposite side of the road. Both my husband and I require our own cars for work, so we cannot manage with just one vehicle. If the proposed double yellow lines go ahead without any additional measures, we would lose vital parking space and face daily difficulties accessing our own property. Visitor and Elderly Access: The loss of parking will also affect our ability to accommodate visitors. This is especially problematic for elderly visitors who have limited mobility. Removing the closest on-street parking would pose a serious risk to their safety and wellbeing. Effectiveness and Impact of the Proposal: Without additional action, such as extending the dropped kerb outside my property, the proposed yellow lines will simply move parked cars from one side of this narrow street to the other. There will still be space for two vehicles to park freely outside mine and my neighbour’s homes, which means the intended benefit of the restrictions would be undermined. This would not solve the access issues and may even create new ones. Suggested Solution: I would be fully supportive of the yellow line proposal if the council also agrees to extend the dropped kerb across the full width of my driveway. Extending my dropped kerb, and potentially my neighbour’s, would ensure better access for residents, reduce street congestion, and make the proposed restrictions more effective overall. I respectfully request that the council reconsider the proposed changes or, at the very least, carry out a site visit to properly assess the impact this would have on local residents. I would also appreciate it if the council could explore the feasibility of the dropped kerb extension as part of a more practical, balanced solution. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would be grateful to receive confirmation that my objection has been received and taken into consideration. Noted as part of this report, see paragraphs 6 and 9 Pynchester Close, Ickenham - Responses to formal consultation for proposed double yellow lines Comments Officers response Pynchester Close, Ickenham - Responses to formal consultation for proposed double yellow lines Following receipt of your letter regarding the proposed introduction of double yellow lines at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent, my wife and I have the following comments. We made space for two cars to park in front of our house and exit onto Pynchester Close via a dropped kerb. We acknowledge that double yellow lines at the immediate junction with Hoylake Crescent would stop cars being parked there and improve the visibility when exiting onto Hoylake Crescent. However we cannot understand why the double yellow lines are being extended from Hoylake Crescent, right up to number 2 Pynchester Close, a considerable distance. Cars parked here have no impact on the visibility at the junction in question, nor do they block any house holders entry or exit, so why continue the double yellow lines this far down the close? If cars then had to be parked elsewhere, other areas of Pynchester Close or Hoylake Crescent would be similarly affected. Having looked around the immediate vicinity we can’t find similar extensions of double yellow lines, so why is this being proposed? Pynchester Close is not a wide road with considerate house owners and we have not seen long term parking that obstructs entrances or prevents cars moving up and down. Reducing the available parking can only lead to problems of this nature. Consequently, we object to the proposals as they stand. Noted as part of this report, see paragraphs 6 and 9 I have been a resident at this address for the past 21 years. I would like to voice my disapproval of the proposed double yellow lines being considered at the entrance to the Close. The parking requirement in our Close is already high as many of the properties do not have the space for adequate parking and to reduce parking opinions further by introducing yellow lines does not help the situation only pushes it out into the neighbouring streets. Would your department by open to considering the introduction of an alternative solution and introduce a parking method allowing residents to park half on the pathway and half on the road, or something similar. This way the parking remains as is and allows the space at the entrance to the Close to be utilised thus improving access and indeed better overall use of the stretch of road in question. Please let me know your thoughts. Noted as part of this report, see paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 Comments Officers response Pynchester Close, Ickenham - Responses to formal consultation for proposed double yellow lines In regards of the proposal of the double yellow line this is a good idea. Unfortunately that road has more car parking on the road making it difficult for other residents to get their own vehicles out. A few homes on that street have 3 cars or 2 cars and a van already making it congested. My only concern is the homeowners and commuters will then attempt to park outside onto Hoylake Crescent, obstructing our drives. Maybe if there is a no parking between 8am to 10am and then 3pm to 4pm this would reduce the congestion issue. We already have unhinged drivers in the area who are putting kids and wildlife at risk by speeding. Common points of speeding are at the top of Hoylake near No.1 , the two bends in Hoylake near No. 114 and top of Hoylake meeting Wallasey / Coptall side . I worry these speed drivers will cause a serious accident with the over flow of parked cars on Hoylake Crescent. It maybe useful to put double yellows bends of all side roads especially near the BreakspearSchool. Noted as part of this report, see paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 Pynchester Close, IckenhamRevised proposals for double yellow linesNEW DOUBLE YELLOW LINE & TERMINALKEYCROSSOVER (INDICATIVE ONLY)
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 17 November 2025
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 OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DOUBLE YELLOW
LINES IN PYNCHESTER CLOSE, ICKENHAM
Reference No. 1555
Date of decision Monday 17 November 2025
Call-in expiry date Monday 24 November 2025
Relevant Select
Committee
Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee
Relevant Wards Ickenham & South Harefield
Decision made
Cabinet Members making
the decision
Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Cabinet Member for Planning,
Housing & Growth
Decision Agreed
The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth:
1) Noted the responses received to the formal
consultation for the proposed installation of
double yellow lines in Pynchester Close,
Ickenham; and
2) Following discussion with the local Ward
Councillors, decided that formal consultation be
carried out on the revised proposals for
shortened double yellow lines at the junction of
Pynchester Close and Hoylake Crescent,
Ickenham, as shown in the Report - Appendix C.
Reason for decision The recommendations were based on the majority of
responses received from residents during the consultation,
together with comments from the local Ward Councillors.
The feedback indicated support for measures to improve
safety at the junction of Pynchester Close and Hoylake
Crescent.
Alternative options
considered and rejected
The Council could have decided to install the double yellow
lines as they were proposed or deferred the proposals
altogether.
Classification Part I - Public
Executive Decision Notice – 17 November 2025
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
Link to associated report The Link to the report can be found here
Relevant Officer contact
& Directorate
Kevin Urquhart – Residents Services 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 Monday 24 November 2025
However, this is subject to the decision not being called in by
Councillors on the relevant Select Committee. Upon receipt of a
valid call-in request, Democratic Services will immediately advise
the relevant officer(s) and the decision must then be put on hold.
Councillor scrutiny
call-in of this
decision
Councillors on the relevant Select Committee shown in this notice
may request to call-in this decision. The request must be before the
expiry of the scrutiny call-in period above.
Councillors should use the Scrutiny Call-in App (link below) on their
devices to initiate any call-in request. Further advice can be sought
from Democratic Services if required:
Scrutiny Call-In - Power Apps (secure)
Further information These decisions, where applicable, have been taken under The
Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access
to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.
This is the formal notice by the Council of the above executive
decision, including links to the reports where applicable.
If you would like more information on this decision, please contact
Democratic Services on 01895 250636 or email:
democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk.
Circulation of this decision notice is to a variety of people including
Members of the Council, Corporate Directors, Officers, Group
Secretariats and the Public. Copies are also placed on the
Council’s website.
Democratic Services
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW