Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSED SCHOOL STREET ON QUEENS WALK, SOUTH RUISLIP
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: 0692 DDI: 01895 250692 CMD No: 1633 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. Sophie Wilmot – Residents Services Directorate c.c. Ward Councillors for South Ruislip Date: 17 February 2026 Non-Key Decision request Form D OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSED SCHOOL STREET ON QUEENS WALK, SOUTH 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 Wednesday 25 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. Ryan Dell Democratic Services Title of Report: OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSED SCHOOL STREET ON QUEENS WALK, SOUTH 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 – 17 February 2026 Page 1 Part I – Public OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSED SCHOOL STREET ON QUEENS WALK, SOUTH RUISLIP Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Responsible Officer Daniel Kennedy, Corporate Director, Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Sophie Wilmot, Residents Services Papers with report Appendix A – Plan of Proposal Appendix B – Consultation Letter Appendix C – Detailed Consultation Results – Against Appendix D – Detailed Consultation Results – For HEADLINES Summary This report details the outcome of the formal consultation undertaken with residents and the school community on the proposed introduction of school street restrictions on Queens Walk, South Ruislip. The report details the feedback received and sets out recommendations for the Cabinet Member to consider. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents/ the Council of: Be / feel safe from harm This report supports our commitments to residents of: A Green and Sustainable Borough Financial Cost The total cost of the recommendations set out in the report is nil. Funds to implement any future mitigation will be considered at the appropriate juncture, where possible grant funded options will be considered such at the Transport for London Local Implementation Plan monies. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Ward South Ruislip RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Economic Growth: 1) Notes the significant number of respondents to the informal consultation; 2) Considers all the responses for and against the proposals, as summarised in the report; Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 2 Part I – Public 3) Considers the issues raised by the consultation and how this may impact the effective operation of a school street; 4) Due to the number of issues raised and the impact of these, decides to not progress with the school street restriction, at this time; and 5) Instructs officers to look at mitigation measures for the issues raised and report back. Reasons for recommendations The recommendations set out in this report allow for the Cabinet Member to understand the results of the consultation and the issues which have been raised by residents and school users. The consideration and mitigation of issues will allow for future improved safety and allow any potential future school street scheme to operate more effectively. It is likely that installing a school street scheme before the issues are mitigated could result in disbenefits to the area. Alternative options considered/ risk management The Cabinet Member may wish to install the scheme a s consulted upon or to take no further action. Democratic compliance/ previous authority None at this stage. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Introduction 1. The Council’s School Travel and Road Safety Team, have worked with Deanesfield Primary School and Queensmead School for a number of years on their school travel plans, aiming to improve safety for those travelling to the school s and to encourage more people to walk and cycle. Both schools have implemented measures which have gone some way to improve the situation. However, there is still road safety concerns and anti - social concerns being reported by the schools and local residents. 2. Due to this, consideration has been given to the potential introduction of a school street on the section of Queens Walk between Long Drive and Vict oria Road, which would remove a large proportion of cars during school drop off and pick up times to make the area safer and reduce cars parking unsafely and impacting local residents. A plan of the proposed extent of the school street in provided in Appendix A. 3. This report details the background on the consideration for a school street in this location and provides a detailed summary of the results of the recent consultation undertaken with local residents and the school community. Finally, consideration will be given to the issues raised and outline proposed next steps to provide a better environment for all in this area. Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 3 Part I – Public Background 4. Deanesfield Primary School and Queens mead School are located on Queens Walk between Long Drive and Victoria Road, with approximately 650 and 1500 pupils attending, respectively. There is also access on this section of Queens Walk, to the Queens Walk Resource Centre and a private nursery. This activity concentrated in a small area, does result in a large amount of movement by all modes, particularly in school drop off and pick up times. In addition, the resource centre sees a number of transport vehicles who bring disabled and vulnerable people to and provide the resource centre. 5. In order to improve road safety, a 20mph was introduced with traffic calming and a zebra crossing close to the entrance with Queensmead School. However, both schools and some residents, were keen to see further measures to improve the situation and were keen for the road to become a school street. 6. In 2022, consultation was undertaken for a potential school street restriction, but this resulted in a low response rate, and the results were marginally against the proposals. Due to this, at the time a decision was made not to take forward the scheme. 7. Based on growing demand and issues, a decision was taken by the current Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth, to undertake another informal consultation on potentially bringing forward a school street on Queens Walk. This was undertaken in October/November 2025 and was distributed to local residents and the school’s community. A copy of the consultation letter is provided in Appendix B. Informal consultation 8. The informal consultation ran from 26th September to 7th November, following an extension from the initial three-week period to allow further roads to feedback on the proposals. At the end of the consultation period, a total of 150 responses were received. A total of 103 responses were against the scheme ( 69%) and forty-seven supported the introduction of a school street (31%). 9. Table 1 below breaks down the responses by type / area: Table 1: responses by type Respondent Type FOR AGAINST Number % Number % Local Childminder 1 2% 0 0% Parent – Deanesfield 2 4% 7 7% Parent – Queensmead 2 4% 1 1% Parent – Queensmead & Deanesfield 3 6% 5 5% Pupil – Queensmead 1 2% 0 0% Resident - Beverley Road 1 2% 0 0% Resident - Down barns Road 1 2% 0 0% Resident - Long Drive 3 6% 9 9% Resident - Melthrone Drive 1 2% 1 1% Resident - Palace Road 3 6% 2 2% Resident - Queens Walk 12 26% 7 7% Resident - Royal Crescent 1 2% 17 17% Resident - Victoria Road 1 2% 2 2% Resident - West Mead 1 2% 0 0% Resident – West End Road 1 2% 0 0% Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 4 Part I – Public Staff - Deanesfield 4 9% 4 4% Unknown 9 19% 5 5% Resident – Jubilee Drive 0 0% 24 23% Resident – Diamond Road 0 0% 6 6% Parent – Private Nursery 0 0% 1 1% Parent – Queens Walk Resource Centre 0 0% 8 8% Resident – Bridgewater Road 0 0% 2 2% Resident - Exmouth Road 0 0% 1 1% Resident – Whitby Road 0 0% 1 1% TOTAL 47 100% 103 100% 10. A detailed breakdown on responses can be found in appendix C. Issues identified in the consultation 11. Table 2 details the most common issues which were identified from the consultation by those against the scheme. Table 2: Summary of issues raised Issue identified Travel to school needs to be undertaken in all weather conditions. In the event of an emergency, parents need to access children quickly without fear of a penalty. The scheme comes off as a money making exercise rather than one to improve safety. Parents need to be able to drop children and then go off straight to work. This will not deter car use, simply park or circulate on adjacent residential road. The proposed hours of operation are too long. This road is vital to allow circumventing of traffic in South Ruislip. Congestion will get considerable worse on the roads surrounding the schools. This is implementing restrictive measures that may penalise working families. Urge the council to consider alternative solutions that would genuinely enhance safety and traffic management around the school. A traffic warden should be present twice daily to get the incorrect parking under control. Believe these goals can be achieved through other measures — such as improved pedestrian crossings, better cycling infrastructure, and safer parking enforcement — without imposing restrictions that risk creating further congestion and significant inconvenience for residents and parents. Worried about the unintended consequences this proposal may bring to our local community. Disability Centre supports over fifty adults attending every weekday for approx. 350 days per year. These adults rely on the consistent daily access to the centre, making any potential disruption particularly significantly for their well-being and independence. 12. In terms of the responses for those in support of the scheme, a summary of the key supportive arguments is provided below: • Constant blocking residents’ driveways. • There are regular road rage incidents on Queens Walk. • This could help families take on healthier lifestyles. • There is so many near misses between pupils and vehicles. Recommendations Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 5 Part I – Public 13. Following a review of the consultation results, it is recommended that the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Economic Growth: a. Notes the significant number of respondents to the informal consultation; b. Considers all the responses for and against the proposals, as summarised in the report and appendix documents; c. Considers the issues raised by the consultation which could impact upon the success of a school street; d. Due to the number of issues raised considers not progressing with the school street restriction, at this time; and e. Instructs Officers to look at mitigation measures for the issues raised and report back. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations set out in this report. Should any mitigation measures be considered in the future, these will require the identification of appropriate funding sources and will be subject to separate approval processes. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users, and communities To allow the Cabinet Member an opportunity to consider in detail issues raised by residents. Consultation carried out or required This report outlines the consultation undertaken. No further consultation at this stage. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance concurs with the financial implications and comments above and reiterates that there will be no financial impact on Council resources if the recommendations by Officers are approved. Legal The Council’s powers to invoke the measures to make the relevant section of Queens Walk, South Ruislip a ‘school street’ are set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The consultation and order-making statutory procedures to be followed when invoking such measures 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. Where a decision is taken to make an order introducing traffic measures (which is not the recommendation of this report), Part 5 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 set out the signage and marking requirements, which must be observed. Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 6 Part I – Public 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 deciding on progress of the proposal for Queens Walk, South Ruislip to become a ‘school street’ must be satisfied that all consultation responses (all of which are pasted within this report), including those that do not accord with the officer's recommendation, were conscientiously taken into account. In this instance, there are a number of objections to consider, which have helped to inform the recommendation not to proceed with making Queens Walk, South Ruislip a ‘school street’. The Council must also be continuously mindful of its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Infrastructure/ Asset Management None at this stage. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL. APPENDICES Appendix A – Plan of Proposal Appendix B – Consultation Letter Appendix C – Detailed Consultation Results – Against Appendix D – Detailed Consultation Results – For Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 7 Part I – Public Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 8 Part I – Public APPENDIX A – PLAN OF PROPOSAL Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 9 Part I – Public APPENDIX B – CONSULTATION LETTER Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 10 Part I – Public Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 11 Part I – Public APPENDIX C – DETAILED CONSULATION RESULTS - AGAINST Number Respondent Type Key comments 1 parent Parents often need to travel in all weather conditions, and having restrictions in place makes this unnecessarily difficult. More importantly, in the event of an emergency, it is vital that we are able to access our children as quickly as possible without the added worry of receiving a penalty notice. This scheme comes across as a money-making exercise rather than a genuine attempt to improve safety or quality of life. It appears the council will be the ones benefiting financially from fines and penalties, not the families who are supposed to be supported by such measures. Believe the scheme needs to strike a better balance between safety, practicality, and the realities of family life. 2 parent I strongly object to the pedestrianisation of Queens Walk during school drop off. I work fulltime and rely on dropping my young daughters to school on 2 mornings a week and then driving straight to work. Should a Pedestrian only zone be introduced I would not be able to do this and would need to pay for extra childcare to facilitate me getting to my workplace on time. This would be financially detrimental as we are only just scraping by as a family. 3 resident - Victoria Road I do not agree with the above proposal and think it would create unnecessary chaos. 4 parent As a working parent, I am genuinely concerned about how these restrictions will affect my ability to drop my child off safely at school before heading straight to work. The school day already does not align with a full working day, and I often need to travel directly from school drop-off to my workplace. Walking to school, walking back home, and then driving to work is not a practical option due to the time pressures of a working schedule. The proposed restrictions will not deter me from using my car to drop my child, but they will force me (and many other parents in the same situation) to park and circulate on the surrounding residential roads. This will not reduce congestion or improve safety — it will simply displace the problem into nearby streets, creating new traffic hazards and potentially more inconvenience for residents. 5 resident - Bridgewater Road As a local resident, I cannot see why the hours of the proposed school street are so long. The roads are clear of school traffic until at least 8.20am in the morning and by 3.30 at the end of the day. Our medical centre is also in that area and would be completely inaccessible for the majority of the day by car which is unacceptable when you have sick children. Other traffic calming measures should be considered before banning cars. 6 resident - Princes Way Resident of Princes Way and am extremely concerned about the extra traffic that will be forced down my road, which is already extremely busy in the mornings. Do not understand why it needs to start from 7.30am when Queensmead students do not start school until 8.30am. It will cause more traffic down my road and make it harder to access Victoria Road, which will be the only way out and the traffic c in South Ruislip is bad enough in the morning. I am opposed to the proposal and would ask that is does not go ahead or timings are changed in the morning. 7 resident - Bridgewater Road This road is crucial for residents who use it as a road to avoid south Ruislip traffic and traffic on east end road and continue on Victoria Road. I live of Bridgwater Road and I can use this road to totally avoid traffic on South Ruislip and reach other side of Victoria Road. I understand the road safety issue for the high school and the primary school. But closing off a road is not a solution during rush hour traffic . Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 12 Part I – Public 8 resident - Long Drive I am concerned that closing Queens Walk from 7.30 to 9.30 am every morning, during rush hour, will cause even more traffic c in the surrounding area. With Queensmead starting at 8.30 and Deansfield at 8.40 I can see no reason why the road would have to be closed for two hours every morning. The traffic c along Victoria Road, Long Drive and Station Approach is already a huge problem at this time in the morning with so many people driving to West End Road and the A40, and this road closure will just exacerbate this issue. With so many parents having to drive their children to Deansfield as they are themselves rushing to go straight to work after the drop off , it is unlikely that preventing them from driving down Queens Walk will make them choose to walk to school instead. It is far more likely that they will just park as near to the school as they can. This will mean they park outside our house, as this is where the parking permit restrictions stop, which will cause even more congestion in Long Drive each mor ning. I am less concerned about the impact of the afternoon road closure as this happens before the rush-hour. 9 unknown I object to the new proposals. Based on it will disperse traffic into areas not currently affected. The actual proposals will have little effect on safety for pupils , pedestrians, and car users . What actually evidence has the council got to show this scheme might work. C amra will equal fines that few parents can afford to pay and contribute towards a break down in society. 10 resident - Long Drive During the traditional "school drop off " period, especially when the Long Drive traffic c is exceptionally heavy, traffic cannot easily flow in either direction as the 'Resident Only' parking restrictions do not come into force until 9amand every space is taken by a parent doing a drop off - and I fear the parking restrictions would likely be ignored by the primary school parents who park on Long Drive in the morning even if the restricted times were enforced from 8am etc. In reference to "reduced congestion and pollution" can I take this opportunity to also (after years of refraining to do so) ask that the same consideration is given by the 2 or 3 Hillingdon Council service buses which also park 5days a week, with engines idling on, which park directly outside our house. In the warmer months when house windows are generally open there is also noticeable noise pollution from the buses whilst they are waiting therebefore they move to pick up from the education centre on Queens Walk. 11 resident - Jubilee Drive This scheme will make our road worse than it is now at school times. The restrictions along queens walk at school times will only filter the traffic on too jubilee drive and diamond road making our roads worse than they already are. It is certainly a good idea, but it needs to include jubilee drive and diamond road in the scheme for it to have an impact. 12 resident - Jubilee Drive it merely shifts the problem to other associated roads. The scheme will not encourage people to use other means of transport to drop -off or pick-up their children from school. People are wedded to their cars due to the flexibility they provide, and they will not shift to using buses etc. Instead of parking poorly in Queens Walk people will only park poorly and keep their engines running in Jubilee Drive and Diamond Road instead. Neither road has the scope to accommodate more visitor vehicles. Both roads, especially Jubilee Drive, already becomes heavily clogged with vehicles either parking in it or using it as an access, or exit road, to Queens Walk at the drop -off and pick-uptimes. All traffic will now be filtered through the opposite end of Jubilee Drive, creating even more of a log jam at just one end of the road as opposed to allowing free movement from both ends. This will include all lorries and delivery trucks being filtered th rough one end only. Vehicles already attempt to drive too quickly up and down Jubilee Drive, with more cars seeking parking in the road and more children being filtered up it, to find parents, it will put children at even greater risk. If the scheme were implemented, the use of a deterrent is understandable, but cameras issuing PCN's sounds more like a scheme to make money for the Council. Residents in the area who have been using Queens Walk for very many years at the Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 13 Part I – Public times of the restrictions, will, through habit, continue to do so until they receive multiple PCN's; what plans are going to be put in place to create an amnesty period, using warning letters instead of PCN's until people change their behaviour? Will the cameras still catch people during the said times during school holidays or Inset days? 13 resident - Jubilee Drive If the scheme goes ahead, parents will not be able to park on Long drive due to parking restrictions already in force. Jubilee Drive and Diamond road are already a busy road at this time of day with extremely limited parking. If this scheme goes ahead, we residents of Jubilee Drive and Diamond Road are genuinely concerned about the increased traffic c and parking on our roads. Parents will use our roads to drop kids off as they do today, but they will not be allowed to exit Jubilee Drive onto Queens walk, so they will be forced to either go around a loop of Diamond and Jubilee, which is already very congested with resident’s cars, or carry out a 3-point-turn, which causes added congestion and poses greater danger to pedestrians. If Hillingdon Council are serious about a promoting a better lifestyle by encouraging kids to walk or cycle, can I please ask that you consider extending the “School Street” to include Jubilee Drive and Diamond Road. 14 resident - Jubilee Drive Implementation of this scheme will simply remove cars from Queens Walk and on to Jubilee Drive and Diamond Road, which already have high volumes of traffic at school in and out times. Parents wishing to drive their children to school will come down Princes Way and then drive/park in Jubilee Drive or Diamond Road to get as close as possible without using Queens Walk. 15 resident - Queens Walk The restrictions will simply move the issue to nearby streets, including further down Queens Walk as ALREADY during the morning and afternoon. Parents 16 parent - Queensmead & Deanesfield I appreciate that traffic at school times can be inconvenient for a short period of time, this usually lasts no more than an hour in the morning and around 40 minutes in the afternoon. would also ask the council to consider the impact on the main road. This route already suffers from heavy congestion and frequent accidents. this proposal does not appear to consider the realities for working parents. Many of us need to drop our children to school as efficiently as possible in order to reach our place of work on time. 17 resident - Queens Walk we are disappointed that this scheme has not been extended up until The Fairway as a minimum, which is just as busy for pedestrians and cycles during school hours. We live on the part of Queens Walk, which is situated between Long Drive and The Fairway, and it is total chaos during school drop off and pick up times now, so naturally are concerned how this scheme will affect us residents, when this scheme is implemented. No doubt more parents will be parking across driveways, as some do now, there will be more of a rush from parents and children trying to get to school/nursery on time who can't get closer to the schools when the scheme is in force and it will be gridlocked for us residents to get out, not to mention the safety element of mass cars and pedestrians in a small part of the road becoming extremely dangerous for all. Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 14 Part I – Public 18 resident - Queens Walk Closing this vital link into Victoria Road for two hours each morning is unjustified, misaligned with actual school start and end times, and will needlessly alienate the residents and commuters who depend on it. If the council proceeds without installing speed-calming infrastructure on these adjacent roads, it may be seen as negligent in failing to mitigate a foreseeable risk. Should an incident occur— even during the trial— liability could arise from the council’s omission, especially inflight of this formal warning. We ask that the council consider: – Adding “KEEP CLEAR” markings in front of our driveway— and potentially other driveways in the vicinity— to facilitate traffic flow. – Implementing time-limited parking restrictions during peak school hours to prevent obstruction and reduce bottlenecks. – Providing visible enforcement during peak times— through periodic patrols, mobile CCTV signage, or inclusion in school travel officer routines — to ensure compliance with restrictions. We urge the council to: – Align closure times with actual school schedules. – Install speed-calming measures and a 20 mile an hour speed limit as already exist son the stretch of Queens Walk that will be closed during the School Street period nonadjacent roads, as indicated in the removed annotated map, from Long Drive along Queens Walk to the Fairway on the left, down the Fairway to Long Drive and along Long Drive to the junction with Queens Walk. – Conduct a traffic impact assessment to model displacement and risk. 19 resident - Diamond Road I am concerned about the impact this will have on residents like me living on Diamond Rd who rely on access to Queen’s Walk to get onto the main road, Victoria Rd or via Long Drive. I have been informed that only those who live directly on the section of Queens Walk will be exempt from these restrictions, which is truly u nfair for residents who will be forced to drive further and expel more pollution just to access the main road. Would the exemption extend to the parents who use this business to drop off their children for wrap-around childcare? In the last year, the local residents have also experienced severe traffic in addition to the congestion already on Victoria Rd leading on to the A40. When there has been a road traffic accident (we have had a stabbing, a hit and run and gas work), traffic gets diverted along Queens Walk to relieve congestion. What is the contingency when that happens again, as it sends to be inevitable with gas/water works. Again, a build -up of traffic for local residents. Days of Operation: please be transparent which days / weeks this scheme will operate, stating on ‘school days’ is not helpful to drivers who do not have children in these two schools. Will that also be on the signage? Alternatives : one. instead of implementing the scheme, direct your traffic wardens to Queen's Walk during the school run. 2. Place an additional zebra crossing on Long drive by the intersection with Queen's Walk to improve safety. 20 resident - Diamond Road With regards to this proposal, I am anxious, that's my father, living at 18 Diamond Road, needs carers such as myself and my brother also drivers that bring him home from a day centre to be able to have access to his property via the quickest route. I also believe that only closing one road for the school, will not stop parents from driving their children to school, i imagine they will still take them and stop in the surrounding roads as far astheny can bring them. 21 resident - Exmouth Road 1. Displacement of traffic and limited benefit two. Excessive restriction periods three. Concerns about enforcement and signage four. A practical and safety-focused alternative In summary, while we recognise the council’s intention to reduce congestion and improve safety, we believe this proposal — as currently designed — is disproportionate, Neff active, and misdirected towards benefit thing the council. We do not support the proposed restrictions and urge the council to instead consider Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 15 Part I – Public installing pedestrian crossings along the main school routes. This cost is relatively low and would make a massive impact. 22 resident - Long Drive At present, during school hours Long Drive is heavily congested with vehicles parking to drop off children to the school and mini buses waiting on the road until they receive clearance to use Queens Walk. We already have to deal with vehicles parked on Yellow lines (to no consequence) and vehicle sparked over our driveway which on several occasions has been extremely dangerous as it is virtually impossible to see oncoming traffic when exiting our driveway and pedestrians when entering the driveway. As a par ent of two young children, I have also had to witness near misses when walking with my children near other driveways on the road due to badly parked vehicles during school drop off and pickup times. 23 parent - Deanesfield Those families that have more than two children of different age gaps it is hard for them to walk in bad weather conditions. When it is raining it is extremely hard. Most family live far and children cannot walk fast in that same time that we all have to be in school. Seems very unfair to not people the choice when they are only driving to school on time. 24 parent - Deanesfield Rather than implementing restrictive measures that may penalise working families, I urge the council to consider alternative solutions that would genuinely enhance safety and traffic c management around the school. These include: Installation of pedestrian zebra crossings in the vicinity of the school. Replacement of the school crossing patrol off car (lollipop lady). Active enforcement of parking restrictions, particularly on double yellow lines. Clear road markings to prevent stopping or parking on pedest rian crossings. Provision for nearby non-chargeable parking options to support families who must drive, ensuring accessibility without fi facial penalty. These practical interventions would contribute significantly to improving safety without imposing nest or creating additional inconvenience for families. 25 parent - Deanesfield Having a disability i struggle to park daily, which is causing me a lot of inconvenience and has made my children late multiple times. I reply on being able to park right outside the school due to my disability's. So I am personally not for the proposal. I do strong believe a traffic warden should be present twice daily to get the incorrect parking under control. There is way too many parents that parking anywhere without blue badges and in permit bays and on the corner of the road and this is what causes the inconvenience. This is no fair on the residents who live outside the school and rely on the bays and have their drive ways blocked and it’s not fair on anyone with a blue badge who requires close parking. Also a replacement lolly pop lady's/man is absolutely necessary as the roads are very busy with small children trying to cross which as a parent is a daily worry for their safety as a lot of children also cross without an adult, This would also help with the traffic flow. 26 parent - Queensmead & Deanesfield Restricting vehicle access to Queens Walk during peak school hours is also likely to displace traffic onto surrounding roads such as Long Drive, Victoria Road, and Jubilee Drive, which are already heavily congested at these times. Furthermore, there is lit tle or no available parking on these neighbouring roads, meaning that parents who are unable to access Queens Walk will have nowhere safe or legal to park. This could lead to further congestion, frustration, and unsafe manoeuvres near the schools, undermining the scheme’s objectives. I would urge the Council to undertake a detailed traffic impact assessment of the surrounding road network before implementing the trial. If the scheme proceeds, it should include clear monitoring of traffic volumes, air quality, and safety impacts both within and outside the restricted zone. Additionally, exemptions and flexibility should be considered for families with genuine need to access the area by car, such as those with multiple children attending the schools. I commend the Council’s efforts to improve safety and promote active travel, but believe these goals can be achieved through other measures — such as improved pedestrian crossings, better cycling infrastructure, and safer parking enforcement — Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 16 Part I – Public without imposing restrictions that risk creating further congestion and significant inconvenience for residents and parents. 27 resident - Queens Walk You have already created a high risk area within the part of Queens Walk that does not have parking permits. Further restrictions in the part of Queens Walk near the school will raise the level of risk in the adjacent part of Queens Walk from high to Dange rous. Should you go ahead with this without other measures such as permit parking in the rest of Queens Walk it is certain to lead to fatalities. The uncontrolled chaos caused in the non-permitted part of Queens Walk at school start and end times is a Danger to everyone. I hold the council responsible for this as you have done nothing Open your eyes and look at the whole of Queens Walk 28 resident - Long Drive 1) At present the councils traffic c wardens do nothing to enforce the present parking restriction and seem to avoid the area around 3 PM which encourages the illegal parking the council wishes to stop 2) The school street would only push the illegal parking into the adjoining roads, making an already bad situation worse. This is made worse by the councils own coach's parking illegally in Long Drive every afternoon many times with their engines running whilst waiting to pick up from the centre in Queens Wal k. 3) The parking restrictions in Long Drive seem to almost designed the encourage car use and bad parking / behaviour in the morning as the parking restriction do not start till 9 AM 4) If the parking restrictions where altered to be between 8 AM to 4 PM and the council enforced the parking restriction there would be no need to go to the expense of installing camera's etc. 5) There is also a Large car park attached to Deane park which parents could encouraged to use thus removing the cars from Queens Walk and the adjoining Roads. 29 staff - Deanesfield With regrets I do not favour your proposal. 30 staff - Deanesfield With regret, I do not favour your proposal of pedestrianising Queens Walk. 31 staff - Deanesfield I do not favour your proposal of pedestrianising Queens Walk. 32 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Unfair Restriction on Residents’ Access two. Unfair Burden on Local Residents three. Displacement of Traffic and Increased Congestion four. Excessive Enforcement Hours five. Failure to Enforce Existing Measures six. Lack of Evidence and Meaningful Consultation seven. Negative Impact on Community Relations 33 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Unfair Restriction on Residents’ Access two. Unfair Burden on Local Residents three. Displacement of Traffic and Increased Congestion four. Excessive Enforcement Hours five. Failure to Enforce Existing Measures six. Lack of Evidence and Meaningful Consultation seven. Negative Impact on Community Relations 34 staff - Deanesfield I am not in favour for the "School Street" restriction. 35 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Unfair Restriction on Residents’ Access two. Unfair Burden on Local Residents three. Displacement of Traffic and Increased Congestion four. Excessive Enforcement Hours five. Failure to Enforce Existing Measures six. Lack of Evidence and Meaningful Consultation seven. Negative Impact on Community Relations Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 17 Part I – Public 36 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Unfair Restriction on Residents’ Access two. Unfair Burden on Local Residents three. Displacement of Traffic and Increased Congestion four. Excessive Enforcement Hours five. Failure to Enforce Existing Measures six. Lack of Evidence and Meaningful Consultation seven. Negative Impact on Community Relations 37 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Impact on Residents: Closing Queens Walk during the proposed times will have a significantly negative impact on local residents. We are concerned that we may effectively become trapped in our homes, as parents will likely use Diamond Road, Jubilee Drive, and Princess Way as a one-way system for school drop-offs and pick- ups. This will increase congestion and pollution in our area. two. Problem Shifted, Not Solved: The proposal appears to simply shift the traffic problem into neighbouring residential streets, rather than resolving it. three. Communication: After speaking with other residents, it appears that not everyone received the consultation letter. Could you please clarify how the distribution was carried out? This issue affects all local residents, and without proper communication, the feedback gathered may not reflect the community’s overall view. four. Access to Our Property: We have lived on Jubilee Drive for over 30 years and have used Queens Walk as our main point of access for the vast majority of that time. Our property is located approximately forty metres from the junction with Queens Walk, and this closure would significantly increase our travel times, especially given the existing congestion on Victoria Road during peak hours. five. Deliveries and Visitors: Receiving deliveries during the restricted hours will be difficult. Similarly, visits from friends and family during these times will be affected. six. Worsening Traffic Due to School Policies: Recent out-of-borough school admissions have increased traffic levels, as more parents are now driving children to and from the school. This issue did not exist to the same extent in the past. seven. Jubilee Drive Becoming a Dead End: Our section of Jubilee Drive will effectively become ahead end. Parents already use our driveways to park and turn around, which causes disruption. We are concerned this situation will worsen significantly.8. Parking and Restricted Bays: Parents are already parking on Long Drive in resident -only bays. If vehicle access is restricted on Queens Walk, this problem will likely escalate. nine. Alternative Arrangements: Have alternative arrangements been made for parents who drive to collect their children? ten. Traffic Analysis: Could you confirm what traffic analysis or modelling has been undertaken to support this decision? 38 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Unfair Restriction on Residents’ Access two. Unfair Burden on Local Residents three. Displacement of Traffic and Increased Congestion four. Excessive Enforcement Hours five. Failure to Enforce Existing Measures six. Lack of Evidence and Meaningful Consultation seven. Negative Impact on Community Relations Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 18 Part I – Public 39 resident - Jubilee Drive The fear is the blocked up pavements due to the reluctance of the school opening the gates toilet children into the playground in the mornings. since covid Deanesfield Primary has continued to use the covid procedure to drop off and pick up children. We are no longer in the covid times and parents and family members who do the drop off and pick up do not abide by the procedures and rules. the [name redacted - school] refuses to work with the parents and childminders who have emailed and asked numerous times to allow us back into the playground and reduce the congestion surrounding the school Jubilee Drive by 2.45pm is always crowded with Queensmead parents parking up and picking up their children. Any issues caused down the junction of Queens walk, and Jubilee drive is by Queensmead parents parking and picking up their children. A majority of Deanesfield parents already use Deane Park car park and Long Drive to park and walk into the school. Closing down Queens walk is going to put a further strain on Jubilee drive and the surrounding roads. Once traffic is stopped residents will still be driving along there and it will still be unsafe to use the road to walk. Once traffic is stopped residents will still be driving along there and it will still be unsafe to use the road to walk would like to also note out that when Ofsted visited to give Deanesfield their outstanding mark the school gates were miraculously opening early in the morning to let the children in. The school states to not come to the school until 8.40am. 40 resident - Victoria Road The restrictions will result in increased displaced traffic and parking issues and pollution in surrounding areas. This will also encourage children to be less aware of road safety around their school. The restrictions will result in increased displaced traffic and parking issues and pollution in surrounding areas This will also be inconvenient to local residents and visitors; no doubt it will also result in more penalty notices with the feeling this is more about revenue generating rather than safety especially if it's based around term time. Not everyone has children and are familiar with school term times. Currently queuing to get into the school results in too much overcrowding in the streets. Navigating your way into the school is busy as it is with too many people on the streets. Putting these measures in will make the pavements school route more overcrowded than it currently is. 41 resident - Diamond Road can assure you that the bottom end of this road gets very congested in mornings and evenings with parents parking and dropping and picking up. If you live on that road and have no parking of your own there is often no parking if you come back at a prime ti me. Parents are often parking in the garage area which is accessible between 55 -57 Diamond Road. The queueing system at Deanesfield needs to be addressed. Lots of parents and children and scooters and bikes all waiting for the gate to open and come in. Why not let them wait in the playground for the key stage 1 and 2 children. The key stage 1 gate is so narrow and small that it gets so congested as you try to exit or enter. - why not have parking wardens present at the area in question every day to issue tickets and deter people from parking in that area. Some often blocking driveways etc. - please consider having a ‘lolly pop’ person to help children cross the road especially as the queens walk side with Long drive gets very congested with children in the afternoons and long drive will become even busier with the proposed changes. Also, what about a lollipop person at the zebra crossing too? - is it possible to promote the ‘free’ parking at nearby retail park? 42 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Unfair Restriction on Residents’ Access two. Unfair Burden on Local Residents three. Displacement of Traffic and Increased Congestion four. Excessive Enforcement Hours five. Failure to Enforce Existing Measures six. Lack of Evidence and Meaningful Consultation seven. Negative Impact on Community Relations Cabinet Member Report – 17 February 2026 Page 19 Part I – Public 43 resident - Jubilee Drive 1. Unfair Restriction on Residents’ Access two. Unfair Burden on Local Residents three. Displacement of Traffic and Increased Congestion four. Excessive Enforcement Hours five. Failure to Enforce Existing Measures six. Lack of Evidence and Meaningful Consultation seven. Negative Impact on Community Relations 44 resident - Royal Crescent 1. By closing the road at school times will mean that the car traffic will increase in the neighbouring streets therefore not really solving the problem. two. A lot of families walk to school. I would recommend improving road safety for children, additional zebra crossings should be placed along long walk so that families can cross safely. three. Those families that have children at the school but also have to travel to work by car due to distance will be disadvantaged as it will cause extra time to do drop off and pick-ups therefore meaning they will reach work later. Not all workplaces implement flexibility. 45 resident - Royal Crescent Long Drive: already has parking restrictions in place. Victoria Road: is a major thoroughfare with heavy traffic flow and very limited or no parking availability, making it unsuitable for displaced school traffic. That leaves Royal Crescent, Jubilee Drive, Palace Road, Diamond Road, and Princes Way - all of which are narrow, residential streets already struggling with congestion and restricted access during school drop-off and pick-up times. Redirecting more traffic into these roads will only exacerbate exi sting problems - increasing congestion, endangering pedestrians, an
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 25 February 2026
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 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSED SCHOOL
STREET ON QUEENS WALK, SOUTH RUISLIP
Reference No. 1633
Date of decision Wednesday 25 February 2026
Call-in expiry date Wednesday 04 March 2026
Relevant Select
Committee
Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee
Relevant Wards South Ruislip
Decision made
Cabinet Members making
the decision
Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Cabinet Member for Planning,
Housing & Economic Growth
Decision Agreed
The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Economic
Growth:
1. Noted the significant number of respondents to the
informal consultation;
2. Considered all the responses for and against the
proposals, as summarised in the report;
3. Considered the issues raised by the consultation
and how these might impact the effective operation
of a school street;
4. Decided not to progress with the school street
restriction at that time, due to the number and impact
of the issues raised; and
5. Instructed officers to explore mitigation measures
for the issues raised and report back.
Reason for decision The recommendations set out in this report enable the
Cabinet Member to understand the results of the
consultation and the issues raised by residents and school
users. Addressing and mitigating these issues will support
future improvements to safety and ensure that any potential
school street scheme can operate more effectively.
Executive Decision Notice – 25 February 2026
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
Implementing a school street before these matters are
resolved could lead to disbenefits for the area. The
recommendations also provide the Cabinet Member with the
opportunity to consider in detail the concerns raised by
residents.
Alternative options
considered and rejected
The Cabinet Member may wish to install the scheme as
consulted upon or to take no further action.
Classification Part I – Public
Link to associated report Here
Relevant Officer contact
& Directorate
Sophie Wilmot, Residents Services
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 Wednesday 04 March 2026
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)
Executive Decision Notice – 25 February 2026
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
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