Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Outcome of informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, 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 DDI: 01895 277655 CMD No: 2026/1826 To: COUNCILLOR WAYNE BRIDGES CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS SERVICES c.c. All Members of th e Residents' Services Select Committee c.c. Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Residents Services c.c. Kevin Urquhart, Residents Services c.c. Ward Councillors for Ruislip Date: 19 October 2026 Non-Key Decision request Form D Outcome of informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, 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 Tuesday 27 October 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. Anisha Teji Democratic Services Title of Report: Outcome of informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, 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 Residents Services Executive Decision Report Cabinet Member Monday, 19 October 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Page 1 Outcome of informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Cabinet Member Lead Cabinet Member for Residents Services (Cllr Bridges) Chief Officer responsible Corporate Director of Residents Services Report author Kevin Urquhart Report classification and reason Public For General Release Relevant Committee Residents' Services Electoral Ward Ruislip 1. Executive Summary This report presents the outcome of an informal consultation on the potential introduction of a Parking Management Scheme (PMS) in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close and properties 180- 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip. The consultation followed a resident petition requesting permit parking measures to address parking pressures in the area. A total of 145 consultation packs were distributed, with 30 responses received, representing a 21% response rate. Results showed mixed views across the consultation area. Campbell Close demonstrated the strongest support, with 10 residents in favour and 2 opposed. Hale End Close showed only marginal support, with 6 residents supporting a scheme and 5 opposing it, although response levels were low. Residents at 180- 190 Eastcote Road generally preferred existing arrangements to remain unchanged, while only two responses were received from Hume Way, both supporting a scheme. A key concern raised by residents was the potential displacement of parking problems into adjacent housing-owned and private parking areas that could not legally be included within a Parking Management Scheme. Significant parts of the consultation area comprise private roads, housing-owned land, or parking areas subject to existing legal agreements, limiting the extent to which parking controls could be applied. Having reviewed the consultation findings, local Ward Councillors concluded that the overall response did not demonstrate clear or substantial support for a scheme across the whole area. They also expressed concerns that introducing controls in isolated locations could worsen parking conditions in neighbouring roads. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Member Monday, 19 October 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Page 2 The report therefore recommends that no further action be taken at this time and that existing parking arrangements remain unchanged. Should future evidence demonstrate stronger and broader resident support, the Council could reconsider parking management measures through a new petition and consultation process. There are no financial, legal, or operational barriers to adopting this recommendation. 2. Recommendation(s) That the Cabinet Member for Residents Services: 1. Notes the responses received to the informal consultation for the proposed introduction of a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip 2. Following discussion with the local Ward Councillors and consideration of the responses received to the informal consultation, decides that no further action be taken at this time to progress a Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip. 3. Reasons for decision The recommendation reflects the views of local Ward Councillors who following consideration of responses received have suggested that the current parking arrangements remain unchanged in the roads consulted at this present time. 4. Proposal 1. The Cabinet Member will be aware that earlier this year a petition was considered requesting the introduction of a residents’ permit parking scheme in Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180- 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip. Following discussion with petitioners, the Cabinet Member instructed officers to add the request on to the Council’s forward programme of works for informal consultation with residents of roads in this area agreed in liaison with the local Ward Councillors. 2. The extent of the informal consultation area was discussed with the local Ward Councillors . Following the discussion the Ward Councillors supported an informal consultation which formed a cohesive area in the roads closest to the leisure centre incorporating the residents of Campbell Close, Nos. 180-190 Eastcote Road, Hale End Close and Hume Way. 3. There is a mix of residential property types within the agreed informal consultation area. Whilst most of the main carriageway is adopted highway, there is also some parts of these roads which are considered private or housing revenue account owned areas. Attached as Appendix B is the plan showing the extent of the areas which are private and could not be included within a Parking Management Scheme for potential legal implications. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Member Monday, 19 October 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Page 3 4. Some properties in Hale End Close benefit from a shared private frontage which residents are utilising as shared off-street parking, there also appears to be a private car parking area at the northeastern end of the road . Within Campbell Close there are several private car parking areas and outside Nos. 1 to 32 Campbell Close some areas of hard standing which seem to be used for off- street parking. These private areas would not be included within a Parking Management Scheme. 5. The properties numbered as Nos. 180 to 190 Eastcote Road benefit from an access road dedicated for their access. This access road situated off to the side of Hume Way, is considered to be owned and maintained by Housing Services. As the Cabinet Member will be aware, these areas usually have underlaying legal agreements in place relating to appurtenant land. As a result, the Council is unable to easily impose a Parking Management Scheme on these areas as the legal agreements often allocate part of these areas for the specific use of a resident. 6. The majority of the rest of Hume Way is considered to be adopted highway, with exception to the sections which form an access in and out of the leisure centre. There are a number of flats which have their own private parking areas gated off from the main carriageway. On approach to Highgrove Leisure Centre there are several marked parking places which appear to be uncontrolled and extend into part of the road which is considered to be part of the car park for the leisure centre. 7. Following the above, all residents within the agreed informal consultation area were delivered a letter and a questionnaire to indicate their preference for a Parking Management Scheme or no change to the current parking arrangements. Residents were also provided with a prepaid reply envelope so that they could return their completed questionnaire. To ensure residents would be aware which sections of their road would be included within a Parking Management Scheme, the plan attached as Appendix B was included in the consultation pack so residents could decide from the outset if a scheme would be beneficial or detrimental to them. 8. Responses received to the consultation are tabulated in Appendix C . There were 30 responses received from 145 consultation packs delivered, representing a return rate of 21%. Residents were also given the opportunity to provide any further comments on the questionnaire that they felt were relevant. Attached as Appendix D is a table of all the comments received. 9. Responses to the informal consultation from Hale End Close indicated a marginal preference in favour of a Parking Management Scheme with six residents in support and five residents opposed. However, only 16% of the residents from Hale End Close took the opportunity to respond to the informal consultation. 10. The responses to the consultation from residents of Campbell Close indicated a preference for a scheme, with ten residents in support and two residents opposed to a scheme. A quarter of the total number of properties in Campbell Close took the opportunity reply to the consultation. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Member Monday, 19 October 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Page 4 11. Responses from the residents addressed as Eastcote Road indicated they w ould prefer the current parking arrangements to remain as they are with three residents opposed to a scheme and two in support. 12. Only two responses were received from the properties within the flats in Hume Way , both in favour of a scheme, but this represents less than 10% of the total residents who were sent the consultation documents in Hume Way. 13. A common view expressed by residents from all roads was concern that introducing a scheme within these roads without also considering measures within the housing owned areas would displace the parking problems within these parts. As set out above, there are legal implications preventing the Council from including these areas within a Parking Management Scheme, so a scheme could not be extended to these designated housing areas which residents currently use for parking. 14. The outcome of the informal consultation has been shared with the local Ward Councillors for this area. Ward Councillors are sympathetic to the concerns raised by petitioners in relation to parking and understand the difficulties that residents have explained to them. However, at this stage the Ward Councillors are not minded to support the introduction of a Parking Management Scheme in any of the roads consulted, on the basis just 21% of residents responded across the whole area. It was noted that responses from Hale End Close, where the petition for these measures had originated, just 11 out of 67 residents replied and the result was split six to five. Whilst there was some level of support for a scheme in Campbell Close, a scheme in isolation is likely to worsen the parking situation in the surrounding streets. Therefore, after careful consideration the Ward Councillors have indicated that they were prefer for the current parking arrangements to remain unchanged in these roads at this time. Should there be clearer and more substantial support indicated for a scheme in the future, then the proposals could be reconsidered. 15. As a result of the above and due to the overall response to the consultation not providing a definitive view in favour of a scheme in all of the roads consulted, combined with the views of the local Ward Councillors, it is recommended that at this stage the current parking arrangements within Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip remain unchanged at this time. 5. Corporate implications Financial (mandatory) Y Equalities impact assessment Legal (mandatory) Y Workforce Alternative options (mandatory) Y Public Health Risk management (mandatory) Y External partners Asset Communications Procurement Committee comments Planning Digital Climate Change Heathrow expansion Executive Decision Report Cabinet Member Monday, 19 October 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Page 5 a) Financial As no further action is proposed at this present time, there are no financial implications in relation to the recommendations of this report. b) Legal The Council’s power to implement a Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip is set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The formal consultation and order-making statutory procedures to be followed before making use of the power 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. Any consultation must also meet the standard set by established common law principles in public law, namely fairness and adequacy. 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: (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, which are relevant when deciding on road traffic measures. Pursuant to established public law principles on consultation, the decision maker, when coming to a decision regarding the progress of the proposal for a Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip, must be satisfied that all consultation responses, including those that do not accord with the officer's recommendation, were conscientiously taken into account. To this end, the appendices and content of the report should be referred to. In this report, it is highlighted that the consultation responses helped to inform the recommendation within this report not to proceed any further with the proposal. The Council must also be continuously mindful of its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Member Monday, 19 October 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Page 6 c) Alternative options Alternative Options Rationale for rejecting option Option A – Progress proposals for a Parking Management Scheme This option has been rejected as residents have not indicated enough support for a Parking Management Scheme and because of the views of the local Ward Councillors. Option B – Progress proposals for a Parking Management Scheme in part. This option has been rejected on the basis the parking situation will worse n in the surrounding streets if proposals are progressed in one road in isolation to the others. Do nothing It is recommended that no further action is taken as part of this report. d) Risk management Risk Mitigation As a result of the parking arrangements remaining unchanged there is a risk the parking situation may worsen in time. If parking continues to be an issue for residents then it is suggested that they petition the Council afresh and obtain as many signatures from residents as possible within all of the roads in this area. The Council could then review the parking situation again, in the knowledge proposals are more likely to be supported by the majority. e) Other implications NIL 6. Delivering the Cabinet’s Priorities 2026-2030 The Council’s ambition is to make Hillingdon an even better place to live, work and invest. This report support the delivery of the following Cabinet Priorities: 1 Being easy to deal with 2 Being brilliant at the basics 3 Putting our residents first Y The recommendations set out in this report demonstrate the council has taken the views of residents into account when considering the request for a Parking Management Scheme. 4 Delivering Hillingdon homes for Hillingdon people 5 Supporting future generations Executive Decision Report Cabinet Member Monday, 19 October 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Page 7 6 Being open for business 7. Consultation & engagement Residents of Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180- 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip were informally consulted on proposals for a possible Parking Management Scheme. No further consultation is required as the recommendation of this report is for the current parking arrangements to remain unchanged. 8. Timetable for implementation No further proposals are recommended as part of this report. List of appendices attached Appendix A – Location plan Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180- 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Appendix B – Plan showing area of Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180- 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip where a Parking Management Scheme could not be applied. Appendix C – Responses to informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Appendix D – Additional comments made in response to informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180- 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip List of Background Papers Informal consultation documents posted to residents of Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Minutes from the petition hearing - Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth - Wednesday, 15th April 2026 6.00 pm Petition requesting a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme covering Hale End Close, Hume Way and Eastcote Road. Hale End Close, Campbell Close, Hume Way and 180 to 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Private or housing areas would not be included in a proposed scheme. Key Housing or private areas which would not be included in a resulting Parking Management Scheme I would support a Parking Management Scheme I would prefer no changes to the current parking arrangements Number responded Number delivered Percentage responded Campbell Close 10 2 12 48 25% 180-190 Eastcote Road 2 3 5 6 83% Hale End Close 6 5 11 67 16% Hume Way 2 22 4 8 % Total 20 10 30 145 21% Monday-Friday Monday-Saturday Everyday Campbell Close 12 8 180-190 Eastcote Road 11 1 Hale End Close 25 Hume Way 11 Total 44 15 1pm-2pm 9am-5pm 8am-10pm Campbell Close 11 0 180-190 Eastcote Road 21 Hale End Close 11 5 Hume Way 2 Total 14 18 Days Times Time of operation preference if a scheme was introduced Comments made in response to the informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180- 190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Approximate Address Comment Comments made in response to the informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Campbell Close I wish to object to the proposed Parking Management Scheme. Whilst I appreciate the Council's desire to address non-residential parking associated with the nearby leisure centre, I do not believe the proposal will achieve its intended aim within Campbell Close and may instead create new problems for residents. The consultation letter states that significant sections of Campbell Close are considered "private" or housing property and therefore would not be included within any permit scheme. The result is that some residents would be subject to permit controls and permit charges, whilst other parking areas would remain unrestricted. This creates an obvious and unfair imbalance. Residents who currently park on the adopted highway would be forced either to purchase permits or compete for the unrestricted spaces. At the same time, residents with access to parking in the excluded housing areas would not be affected in the same way. Rather than resolving parking issues, the proposal risks transferring them into the unrestricted areas and creating unnecessary tension between neighbours. I am particularly concerned that: Residents whose current on-street spaces become permit-controlled will naturally seek to use the unrestricted housing or private parking areas instead. This will increase competition for a limited number of spaces and could lead to disputes between residents over parking availability. Residents may begin parking outside other homes simply because those unrestricted spaces remain available. The proposal effectively creates two classes of residents: those who must pay to park and those who can continue parking without any charge At present, residents generally use established parking patterns. Introducing restrictions on only some spaces will inevitably encourage residents to compete for unrestricted locations. This is likely to create neighbour disputes and resentment where none currently exists. Residents living within the same road should not be subjected to materially different parking restrictions and financial obligations purely because of the ownership status of the land adjacent to their homes. The Council has also identified the nearby leisure centre as a likely source of parking pressure. However, the proposal appears likely to make this problem worse rather than better. Once permit restrictions are introduced on some roads, visitors seeking to avoid leisure centre parking charges will inevitably look for any remaining unrestricted parking areas nearby to avoid leisure centre parking charges, users will inevitably look for any remaining unrestricted parking areas nearby. As Campbell Close would retain areas outside the scheme, these locations are likely to become even more attractive to non- residential parking. This could result in unrestricted spaces being occupied by leisure centre users for long periods, further reducing availability for local residents. The proposal does not remove parking demand; it simply moves it from one part of the road to another. If leisure centre users can no longer use permit-controlled spaces, they will naturally seek unrestricted spaces. The scheme therefore risks displacing the problem rather than solving it. If leisure centre users are displaced into unrestricted areas and residents from permit-controlled areas are also competing for those spaces, what measurable benefit will existing residents actually receive? As a resident who works full-time away from home, I am especially concerned about the practical impact. Residents who are at home during the day will be in a much better position to secure unrestricted spaces and leave their vehicles there. Those returning home after work are likely to find those spaces already occupied and will effectively have no option but to purchase permits and use the controlled bays. Approximate Address Comment Comments made in response to the informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip This means that residents who are away working during the day could end up bearing the financial burden of the scheme, while others benefit from unrestricted parking and avoid permit costs entirely. That outcome does not appear equitable. Furthermore, the consultation documentation does not provide any objective evidence demonstrating either the scale of the parking problem or the likely effectiveness of the proposed solution. While the letter refers to a petition from some residents and concerns regarding non-residential parking, it does not include any parking occupancy surveys, vehicle counts, duration studies, or other supporting data showing the extent to which leisure centre users or other non-residents are currently affecting parking availability in Campbell Close. Nor does it provide any assessment of how parking demand would be displaced into the unrestricted housing and private parking areas that would remain outside the scheme. Before introducing ongoing permit charges and restrictions for residents, the Council should first demonstrate, through robust evidence, that a significant problem exists and that the proposed scheme would deliver a measurable improvement rather than simply relocating parking pressures elsewhere. For these reasons, I do not support the introduction of the proposed Parking Management Scheme and would prefer no changes to the current parking arrangements. Campbell Close Hello, I would like to strongly advise that the scheme be in place every day, from 8:00am to 10:00pm. Because of Highgrove Leisure Centre getting rid of a number of parking spaces in their car park, the issue of not being able to park near my own home in Campbell Close is a nightmare. Even dropping off and picking up my partner from her evening shifts sometimes means I am unable to park safely. There has also been an increasing number of people just parking up and loitering, not going to the leisure centre or even visiting. It would be greatly appreciated by myself, and all the affected residents, to have this scheme in place at its full effect. Thank you. Campbell Close I am sick to death of non-residents, mainly gym users, using residents' parking spaces. Not only that, cab drivers driving to the bottom of our road, where the woods are, are using it to relieve themselves. School open evenings are the worst. They park outside your house. Campbell Close I would like parking restrictions because it is not only people who use the swimming pool daily, it is also people attending the school in Warrender Way, Bishop Ramsey. In addition, some residents' friends in Hale End Close park their vans in Campbell Close for long periods. We have to wait until they are towed away due to being untaxed. Approximate Address Comment Comments made in response to the informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Campbell Close The areas you have marked as not considered for the PMS should be included, as we, as residents, do not have any say over these spaces. They are not considered private. They are used by the public, leisure centre visitors and residents' guests. Our problem will be solved if you include these areas as well. I urge you to reconsider this, please, as these spaces are very much part of the problem. Eastcote Road I wish to formally object to the proposed parking permit scheme. Although I have a driveway, it only provides parking for one vehicle, which I need because of my disability. My wife also requires a parking space outside our home for our second car. She relies on this vehicle every day for essential family responsibilities, including school runs, shopping, appointments and other day-to-day commitments. The area outside our home currently works well and does not create any parking or traffic problems. I respectfully ask the Council to leave the highlighted section of the road exactly as it is, without introducing permit restrictions or additional yellow lines. There is currently enough space for my wife's car and, when needed, for family members who visit to support us from time to time. Introducing permit restrictions or additional yellow lines would remove the parking space my wife relies on. It would also create additional costs through resident and visitor permits, placing an unfair financial burden on my family. I believe this proposal could disproportionately affect me compared with other residents. Under the Equality Act 2010, the Council has a duty to consider how its decisions affect people with all kinds of disabilities and to make reasonable adjustments where needed. I respectfully ask the Council to consider my individual circumstances and retain the highlighted area outside my home without permit restrictions or additional yellow lines. For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed parking permit scheme and ask that the highlighted area outside my property remains unchanged, ensuring there is sufficient space for my wife's vehicle and family members who provide support. Eastcote Road There are only four houses on Slip Road. If you have to go out, by the time you could be away from home for 15 minutes, I have no parking space outside my home. When I have visitors, they have nowhere to park and have to park in Clydesdale Road. It is constant. Residents from Hale End and the pool constantly park there. I have a son with special needs whose frustration escalates as he does not like change. I have been given parking tickets. My car has several scratches where vehicles have sped on the Slip Road, as it is tight to get through when cars are parked appropriately. If I can park outside, we should also be able to double park when visitors attend our property, as I have been informed that Slip Road does not come under the highways. Approximate Address Comment Comments made in response to the informal consultation for a possible Parking Management Scheme in Campbell Close, Hume Way, Hale End Close & 180-190 Eastcote Road, Ruislip Eastcote Road Having residents' permits would not benefit us at all, as the parking outside my property is not included in the scheme, and it would be worse for us as everyone going to the gym will target these places first, which is a major problem we have now. I raised this issue when the Highgrove car park started charging for parking, but was told this was a temporary measure at the time to pay for works at Highgrove. This was ten years ago. I did request a disabled bay outside my house, but was told it was not possible as this is council land. Previously, I used to use cones to stop other cars parking outside my house as I am registered disabled, but I received a letter from the council telling me I could not put cones on the public highway. We now know this is not a public highway and it is council land. Would it be possible to use cones outside our property if this scheme goes ahead, as who is there to help me? You have refused disabled parking and ignored Highgrove visitors using all resident parking. This scheme is all about money and definitely not about the residents who pay large rents and council tax. Hale End Close The price of the permits is too much and not affordable. We do not have a problem with cars parking, but with residents having multiple work vans. Hale End Close The area outside 184-190 Eastcote Road, shown in blue, is a public highway. Why is it not included? Parking needs to be managed over seven days due to the gym and school. It is almost impossible to park at weekends, as people want free parking and will not pay to use the gym car park. Hale End Close £404.40 per year is too expensive! Could you introduce a sticker scheme where it states that it is a resident's vehicle? Therefore, it would be more cost- effective for the residents who are being penalised for the actions of gym users. The driveways are not included in this scheme and, after 20 years, I am not allowed to park in these spaces anymore. They put a bollard on the driveway, so I do not understand how this is a fair option when some residents are exempt. Hale End Close Over the last few years, parking has got bad. I do not drive, but I have a Blue Badge and my daughter takes me to hospital appointments quite often. It is very hard to find parking because so many vans and cars will not pay for parking at the pool. We have had lots of rows with them. Hale End Close Dear Sir, I do support the proposal for a Parking Management Scheme in Hale End Close, Campbell Close, Hume Way and 180-190 Eastcote Road. However, prior to implementation, I am willing to pay the annual fee for a permit. I do wonder how effective this scheme will be, as many of the parking spaces in Hale End Close are taken up by commercial vehicles from residents' homes, some of which are quite large and cause problems within the close. The map does show parking areas for residents; however, if these are not included in your proposed scheme, there is nothing to stop a non-resident parking in one of those spaces if the space is not in use at the time. I do not know if you have visited the site to inspect the parking situation, but if not, I think this would perhaps be a good idea.