Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Outcome of formal consultation for possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Zone WR2 in part of Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip
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: 1608 To: COUNCILLOR STEVE TUCKWELL CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH c.c. All Members of the Corporate Resources & Infrastructure c.c. Ward Councillors for Ruislip c.c. Dan Kennedy – Corporate Director Residents Services c.c. Kevin Urquhart – Residents Services Date: 23 January 2026 Non-Key Decision request Form D Outcome of formal consultation for possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Zone WR2 in part of Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip 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 02 February 2026 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: Outcome of formal consultation for possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Zone WR2 in part of Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip 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 – 23 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Outcome of formal consultation for possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Zone WR2 in part of Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Economic Growth Responsible Officer Dan Kennedy - Corporate Director of Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Kevin Urquhart – Residents Services Papers with report Appendices A to C HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member on the responses received to the formal consultation for a proposed extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 outside Nos. 2 - 12 and 1 - 17 Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Live in good quality, affordable homes in connected communities This report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities Financial Cost The estimated cost associated with the recommendations to this report is £5 ,000, to be managed within existing Transportation Services revenue budgets. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee. Ward(s) Ruislip Ward RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth: 1) Notes the responses received to the formal consultation for the proposed extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 outside Nos. 2-12 and 1-17 Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip. 2) Approves the installation of the extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 in Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip outside Nos. 2-12 and 1-17 Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip, as it was proposed. Cabinet Member Report – 23 January 2026 Page 2 (Part 1 Public) Reasons for recommendations The 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. Alternative options considered / risk management The Council could have decided to defer the proposed extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. In 2024 , some residents of Bembridge Gardens petitioned the Council requesting the incorporation of part of the road into the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2. Bembridge Gardens is a residential road consisting of two parts, the northern section consisting of 14 houses (which forms a through route between Ly mington Drive and Chichester Avenue) and the southern no through end of the road comprising four blocks of flats. This petition had only been signed by residents living in the houses within Bembridge Gardens and specifically asked for an extension to the scheme to be reconsidered for just the part of the road outside where they live. 2. Following consideration of the petition, the Council carried out an informal consultation with all residents of Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip to see if the majority of residents who support their road being included in an extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Zone WR2. All residents of Bembridge Gardens received a letter and a questionnaire to indicate their preference either for or against their road being included in a possible extension to the Zone WR2 Scheme. Residents were also provided with a prepaid reply envelope so that they could return their completed questionnaire free of charge. 3. The responses to the informal consultation indicated a clear majority in favour of a scheme outside the houses in the section of Bembridge Gardens between the junctions of Chichester Avenue and Lymington Drive. However, the majority of residents in the flats indicated that they did not support an extension to the scheme in the section of the road where they live. As a result, and following discussion with the local Ward Councillors, it was decided that a scheme extension should be progressed to formal consultation to just include the residents of Nos. 2 - 12 and 1 - 17 Bembridge Gardens. 4. Following the above, formal consultation for the proposed extension to the Zone WR2 scheme was carried out between 5 th February to 26th February 2025. All residents, including residents living the flats which are not included in the proposed scheme, were delivered a letter and plan of the proposed extension to the Zone WR2 scheme outside Nos. 2 - 12 and 1 - 17 Bembridge Gardens. Cabinet Member Report – 23 January 2026 Page 3 (Part 1 Public) 5. All of the comments submitted by residents during the consultation have been summarised in the table attached as Appendix B to this report. These comments have been shared with the local Ward Councillors for consideration. 6. The main concern raised in response to the proposals was that the residents of the flats in Bembridge Gardens would not be entitled to apply for any sort of permit to park within the Zone WR2 scheme. As parking would remain unrestricted outside the flats, residents are concerned that this will compound the parking problem and make it increasingly difficult to park anywhere close to where they live. 7. As the Cabinet Member will be aware . it is the Council’s policy to not issue permits to residents who are outside the scheme. For residents to be included in the scheme, it must include restrictions within the section of the road where they live also. Including residents beyond the extent of the scheme would set a precedent for other roads that are not included to request permits to park within a nearby scheme, thereby potentially undermining the purpose and benefits that the se schemes provide. For this reason, it is not possible to be able to provide residents beyond the extents of the scheme with any form of permit to park within the nearby zone. If the residents of the flats would like to be included in the scheme and for the restrictions to be extended to th e parking area outside the flats, then the most effective way this could be reconsidered is by way of a future petition to the Council. 8. Two residents who responded to the formal consultation have suggested that the existing Zone WR2 scheme be removed from Chichester Avenue as they feel it is not required because the residents there have off-street parking so rarely need to rely on the on-street parking during the day. In response, the Council is only likely to consider removing a road from a scheme if the residents who live there were to petition the Council and request this. Proposing the removal of a Parking Management Scheme would have to take the form of formal consultation to revoke the Traffic Management Order, the legal document that defines the scheme. It is unlikely residents of Chichester Avenue would support such a proposal, and the revocation of the scheme would likely receive significant opposition. 9. The remaining four responses to the formal consultation were broadly in favour of the scheme extension as it was proposed. 10. In summary, the outcome of the formal consultation has been shared with the local Ward Councillors, who, after careful consideration of all the responses received, have indicated they continue to support the installation of this extension to the WR2 scheme as it was proposed. As mentioned above, the Council can only issue permits to residents within the Parking Management Scheme and the only way the residents of the flats could be included would be to extend this to the parking areas outside the flats. It i s therefore recommended that the Council proceeds with the installation of the Parking Management Scheme outside Nos. 1 - 17 and 2 - 12 Bembridge Gardens, as proposed and shown on Appendix C. Financial Implications The estimated cost associated with the recommendations in this report is £5,000, which will be funded from the approved budget allocation for Transport for London’s 2025/26 Grant Parking Cabinet Member Report – 23 January 2026 Page 4 (Part 1 Public) Management Schemes Allocation Budget. The cost will be 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 The recommendations of this report will allow the Council to formally consult on a possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 within the section of Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip where residents have indicated that they would support a scheme extension. Consultation & Engagement carried out (or required) Formal consultation was carried out between 5 th February and 26 th February 2025 for the proposed introduction of a Parking Management Scheme outside Nos. 2 - 12 and 1 - 17 Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip. All residents of Bembridge Gardens, including residents living outside of the proposed scheme area, were delivered a plan and letter informing them of the proposed extension to the scheme. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed the report and concurs with the financial implications set out above. Legal The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers the Council to introduce various road traffic measures. The Council’s power to exten d the West Ruislip Parking Management Zone WR2 in part of Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip, as proposed in this report, is set out in Part I 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. 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 requires the Council to balance the concerns of the objectors with the 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. This statutory duty must be exercised so far as practicable having regard to the following matters: Cabinet Member Report – 23 January 2026 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 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. 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. 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. The principles can be summarised as follows: (a) Consultations must occur while proposals are still at a formative stage. (b) Sufficient information needs to be supplied for the public to give the consultation ‘intelligent consideration’. (c) There needs to be adequate time for the consultees to consider the proposal and respond. (d) Conscientious consideration must be given to the consultation responses before decisions are made. 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 – Extent of formal consultation area for a possible extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 in Bembridge Gardens Appendix B – Table – Responses received to the formal consultation for a proposed extension to the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme Zone WR2 in part of Bembridge Gardens Appendix C – Plan – Plan showing the extent of the West Ruislip Parking Management Scheme with the recommended addition of Nos. 1 to 17 and 2 to 12 Bembridge Gardens Approximate address Comments Officers response Bembridge Gardens I would like to say, am happy for the proposal for the permit ,and the cost for the permit too. Noted as part of this report. Bembridge Gardens I would like to confirm my support for the consultation to extend the WR2 zone into Bembridge Gardens. I believe the petition submitted last year together with the feedback for the informal consultation showed that residents are in favour of this amendment. I noted that your plan drawing is slightly out of date ‐ there is no longer a disabled parking space on the East side of Bembridge Gardens (outside Nos. 1‐3). There are also two additional dropped kerbs, outside Nos. 8 and 10. Noted as part of this report. Bembridge Gardens This is my response to your letter February 2025 regarding the consultation for extension of the WR2 PMS in Bembridge Gardens Ruislip houses 1‐17 and 2‐12 only. I fully support the proposal to include the above portion of Bembridge Gardens in to the WR2 PMS. I understand that a permit or visitor permit will be valid within the entirety of the WR2 scheme. On this basis, I support it. Noted as part of this report. Bembridge Gardens We have recently received your letter regarding proposed permits outside our property, we are please to hear that there is a chance that permits can be put in place its much needed!! The parking around is so difficult I have a young child and find it near impossible to park all the time – we would be purchasing x1 virtual permit. Please keep us updated we are very ,much in favour of these being introduced. Noted as part of this report. Bembridge Gardens Following our phone communication last week and your letter dated February 2025, regarding the parking problem, the areas around Bembridge Gardens, Ruislip. If the Council goes ahead with the next stage of there plans this will further restrict the parking spaces for all of the flats i.e. Kestrel Court, Falcon Court and the surrounding flats. This is going to cause even more difficulties to find a parking space. We should at the very least be allowed if we choose to purchase a parking permit so that we can park in the surrounding areas. It is grossly unfair that we are being even more restricted with our parking. The number of car owners in the flats exceeds the number of parking spaces available. We should be allowed to park near where we live. Therefore I reiterate we should be allowed to purchase a parking permit. See paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of this report. Approximate address Comments Officers response Further to your correspondence dated February 2025, please let me first point out that the diagram of proposed parking is not up to date. Number 8 and 10 Bembridge Gardens have elected to do away with their front gardens and now have off‐street parking. Having lived in Bembridge Gardens for some 47 years I can say with certainty that the worst thing that has happened to the estate is your introduction of parking controls and I strongly object to these restriction as do all the residents I have discussed this with. The reasons for my objections are as follows: ‐ PARKING RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCED BY ATTRITION – Since 2011 there have been repeated attempts to introduce parking restriction on the estate. Despite previously being rejected, parking restrictions were introduced in Chichester Avenue during COVID. This was totally inappropriate as residents were unable to get together and fully discuss the ramifications. The result has put increased and unacceptable parking issues on surrounding streets including Bembridge Gardens. Parking restriction should not have been introduced in Chichester Avenue and should be removed to alleviate parking issues on the estate. INAPPROPRAITE PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE FLATS – Should parking restriction be introduced in Bembridge Gardens it will be impossible for the flats to have sufficient parking for themselves and their visitors. The only benefit will be the ability to collect parking fines as an income for the council. PERMIT CHARGES – The cost of living is expensive enough without unnecessary charges being levied for an unnecessary scheme. RAINWATER RUNOFF – Where residence have elected to do away with front gardens and park in front of their houses the lack of vegetation has had an inevitable effect. Despite the requirement of soakaways increased rainwater runoff is apparent as the drainage system in Chichester is no longer able to cope with heavy periods of rain. If this continues there will undoubtedly be a potential for flooding. TRAFFIC CALMING – There are now no cars parked in Chichester Avenue during the scheme times of 15:30 to 16:30. When cars were free to park there it had a traffic calming effect which has now gone. Cars now use this cut through as a race track at a time when children are coming home from school. Let us hope the inevitable accident does not happen. THE RESIDENCE OF CHICHESTER AV. WILL NOT BE EFFECTED BY LIFTING PARKING RESTRICTION ‐ The majority of houses in Chichester Avenue are large detached properties and have off road parking and can accommodate two or three cars on their drives. They cannot possibly have a need to restrict parking outside their properties and put pressure on the rest of the estate. ENVIROMENTAL EFFECT – The parking restrictions have forced residents to elect to have offroad parking. Instead of what were once well‐kept front gardens we now have something that resembles an NCP carpark. I look forward to confirmation that the scheme will not be introduce in Bembridge Gardens and will be removed from Chichester Avenue. See paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of this report. Bembridge Gardens