Audit, Finance & Performance

Lloyd White Head of Democratic Services London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk Petition Hearing - Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation Date: WEDNESDAY, 14 JULY 2010 Time: 7.00 PM Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 3 CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET UXBRIDGE UB8 1UW Meeting Details: Members of the Public and Press are welcome to attend this meeting Cabinet Member hearing the petitions: Keith Burrows, Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation How the hearing works: The petition organiser (or his/her nominee) can address the Cabinet Member for a short time and in turn the Cabinet Member may also ask questions. Local ward councillors are invited to these hearings and may also be in attendance to support or listen to your views. After hearing all the views expressed, the Cabinet Member will make a formal decision. This decision will be published and sent to the petition organisers shortly after the meeting confirming the action to be taken by the Council. Published: Tuesday, 6 July 2010 This agenda and associated reports can be made available in other languages, in braille, large print or on audio tape on request. Please contact us for further information. Contact: Charles Francis Tel: 01895 556454 Fax: 01895 277373 Email: cfrancis@hillingdon.gov.uk This Agenda is available online at: http://modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=252&MId=622&Ver=4 Public Document Pack Useful information Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away. Limited parking is available at the Civic Centre. For details on availability and how to book a parking space, please contact Democratic Services Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will be directed to the Committee Room. An Induction Loop System is available for use in the various meeting rooms. Please contact us for further information. Please switch off any mobile telephones and BlackBerries™ before the meeting. Any recording of the meeting is not allowed, either using electronic, mobile or visual devices. If there is a FIRE in the building the alarm will sound continuously. If there is a BOMB ALERT the alarm sounds intermittently. Please make your way to the nearest FIRE EXIT. Agenda 1 To confirm that the business of the meeting will take place in public. 2 To consider the report of the officers on the following petitions received. PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS MAY ATTEND Start Time Title of Report Ward Page 3 7pm St Giles Avenue, Ickenham - Petition Requesting Footway Parking Ickenham 1 - 6 4 7pm Morford Close, Eastcote - Petition Requesting a Residents Parking Scheme Cavendish 7 - 12 5 730pm Victoria Road / Sidmouth Drive, Ruislip - Petition Requesting Measures to Improve Road Safety Manor 13 - 18 6 8pm Brickfield Lane, Heathrow - Petition Requesting a Residents Parking Scheme Heathrow Villages 19 - 24 7 8pm The Parade, Cowley - Petition Requesting a Stop and Shop Parking Scheme Uxbridge South 25 - 30 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: ST. GILES AVENUE, ICKENHAM – PETITION REQUESTING FOOTWAY PARKING Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Report Author Steve Austin Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been submitted from residents of St. Giles Avenue, Ickenham asking for approval to park on the footway. Contribution to our plans and strategies The request can be considered in association with the Council’s criteria for Footway Parking Exemption Schemes. Financial Cost There are none associated with the recommendations to this report. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents and Environmental Services Ward(s) affected Ickenham RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member 1. Considers the petitioner’s request for footway p arking in St. Giles Avenue, Ickenham 2. Asks officers to add St. Giles Avenue to the pro gramme for Footway Parking Exemption Schemes so that subsequently, design and consultation with residents can be carried out. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation The layout of St. Giles Avenue will allow footway parking to take place in accordance with the Council’s criteria. Agenda Item 3 Page 1 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered None as the petitioners made a specific request to park on the footway. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 41 signatures has been received from residents of St. Giles Avenue under the following heading: “We the below signed are fed up of having wing mirro rs broken and coming out to the lorries, dustbin/recycling men to move cars as they can not get through and would appreciate if it was possible to have one or bot h sides of the pavements mountable without having a parking ticket along with d amage to our cars”. The petition contains signatures from nearly three-quarters of the households of St. Giles Avenue and these are evenly spread throughout the r oad. 2. St. Giles Avenue is close to Ickenham Underground Stat ion and is indicated on Appendix A. It is a residential road with footways approximately 2.2 to 2.5 metres wide. There is a tarmac verge along the kerb with the remainder of the footway surfaced with paving slabs. The only exception is between Nos. 26 to 40 which has a grass verge. The carriageway is approximately 6 metres wide and if cars are parked on both sides, it would impede access for large vehicles and the petitioners have pointed out refuse collection has been obstructed in the past. This would also apply to emergency vehicles. 3. The Cabinet Member will be aware the Council can e xempt roads from the Footway Parking Regulations and have approved criteria where it can occur. Parking would not be allowed on grass verges or paving slabs as St. Giles Avenue has a tarmac verge it would be permissible to allow two wheels to park on this. It would then leave sufficient width for pedestrians on the paving slabs. The footways in St. Giles Avenue are predominantly a mix of paving slabs and tarmac verges although in small sections these are wholly surfaced with tarmac. In these sections, motorists would be required to leave a minimum of 1.5 metres footway for the benefit and safety of pedestrians. A further criteria the Council has established is that the parking should not take place within 15 metres of a junction. 4. If the Cabinet Member were to decide St. Giles Ave nue could be exempted from the Footway Parking Regulations, the next stage is to design a formal scheme and consult residents. The Cabinet Member will also know there is a large programme for these schemes and it is suggested the request for St. Giles Avenue be added to the programme. Financial Implications Investigation, design and consultation are undertaken within normal staff resources. The cost of introducing parking schemes will depend on the final details and this would not be known until Page 2 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 consultation has been completed. The eventual cost of the work will need to be funded from the accumulated surplus of the Parking Revenue Account. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To add the request to the Council’s programme for Footway Parking Exemption Schemes, so that subsequent design and consultation can be carried out. All residents of St. Giles Avenue will eventually be consulted on a formal Footway Parking Exemption Scheme. Consultation Carried Out or Required Legal The Council’s power to make orders permitting and regulating parking on the street (including pavements) are set out in Part 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The consultation and order making statutory procedures to be followed where orders are required are set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489). Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 means that the Council must balance the views of any consultees with the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic. The safety risks identified in this report are a relevant consideration in deciding whether to make an order. In considering the consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public were conscientiously taken into account. The Cabinet member may, pending the completion of the statutory consultation for the proposed scheme, issue an executive direction not to enforce against parking infringements on St Giles Avenue. However, an executive direction given by the Cabinet member would not override the statutory powers that the police have in relation to parking on foot paths and therefore it would be advisable for officers to inform the police of the Council’s proposal not to enforce parking infringements at St Giles Avenue pending the making of a formal parking order. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received 26 th October 2009 Page 3 Page 4 This page is intentionally left blank E E E A 45 100 2918 19 1 2 1 16 13 Allotment Gardens 123 5 Drain AUSTIN'S LANE 53 1 7 El Sub S ta 33 14 6 GLEBE CLOSE 10 29 11 30 49 4 2 49 59 57 KEMPTO N C LO SE 10 2 1 77 8 21 4 11 39 41 15 121 ST GILESAV ENU E Allotment Gardens 1 55 20 CROS IER R OAD 17 6 18 ST GILE S A VE NUE 1 2 109 2 61 75 31 16 27 6 15 13 4 53 48 52 11 6 2a 37.5m 1 43 37 36.3m 25 12 2 8 4 14 44 35.1m 5a 172 51 GLE BE AV ENUE 59b 22 35 89 12 51 14 10 7 137 6a 36 45 9 23 15 2 91 16 4a 3 GLEBE AVEN UE 1a ¹ © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2010 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. Produced by Environment and Consumer Protection, Map Research, April 2010. 1:1,250 St Giles Avenue, Ickenham APPENDIX A Page 5 Page 6 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: MORFORD CLOSE, EASTCOTE– PETITION REQUESTING A “RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME” Cabinet Member Cllr Keith Burrows Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Report Author Hayley Thomas, Environment and Consumer Protection Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been submitted from residents of Morford Close, Eastcote requesting a “Residents Parking Scheme” be installed in their road. Contribution to our plans and strategies The request can be considered as part of the Council’s strategy for on-street parking. Financial Cost The estimated cost to extend the Eastcote Parking Management Scheme to Morford Close is £1500. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents and Environmental Services Ward(s) affected Cavendish RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member 1. Meets and discusses with the petitioners their c oncerns with parking in Morford Close. 2. Subject to No.1 above asks officers to add the r equest to the Council’s overall parking programme so detailed design and statutory consultation can be carried out on a residents parking scheme at the earliest opportunity. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation The petition was signed by a majority of the households in Morford Close requesting the introduction of residents parking. Agenda Item 4 Page 7 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered None at this stage, as the petitioners have requested a Residents Parking Scheme. However, further options could arise from the discussion with petitioners. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 9 signatures has been received fro m residents of Morford Close, Eastcote, asking for a residents parking scheme. This represents 90% of the households in Morford Close and the remaining property we understand is vacant. The Council’s usual procedure is to only hear petitions with 20 signatures or more. However, a request has been received from a local Ward Councillor for this petition to be heard by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation. 2. Morford Close as the name implies is a small cul-de-sa c with a junction to Morford Way. Its location is indicated on Appendix A, and is a short distance from Eastcote Underground Station, which makes it an attractive place to park for people using the station. Although the majority of roads surrounding Eastcote Underground Station are now part of a Parking Management Scheme, previous consultations have indicated there was no overall support from residents of Morford Close to be included in the scheme. However, it would appear this is now overwhelming support for a residents parking scheme. 3. Following discussions with the petitioners, the Cabine t Member could decide that a scheme for Morford Close can be added to the programme so that consultation can be carried out as soon as resources permit. Financial Implications The estimated cost to include Morford Close in the Eastcote Parking Management Scheme is £1500, which can be funded from a previous allocation from the Parking Revenue Accounts surplus. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To introduce parking controls as requested by the residents. Consultation Carried Out or Required The Council is required to carry out statutory consultation before a Residents Parking Scheme can be introduced. Page 8 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal The proposals for the introduction of a Residents Parking Scheme in Morford Close, Eastcote can be achieved by exercising powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Highways Act 1980. On the basis of the information contained in this report, it does not appear that there are special legal implications for this particular matter. The client will be required to be mindful of the statutory procedures imposed upon the traffic authority for the making of Traffic Management Orders which spring from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Officers are familiar with these procedures. In cases of doubt, Legal Services will be instructed. The decision maker must balance the relevant considerations to best give effect to the discharge of the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular traffic and other traffic. In considering any consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public were conscientiously taken into account in finalising the officer’s recommendation. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition dated 3 rd February 2010 Page 9 Page 10 This page is intentionally left blank Page 11 Page 12 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: VICTORIA ROAD / SIDMOUTH DRIVE, RUISLIP – PETITION REQUESTING MEASURES TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Report Author Steve Austin Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To advise the Cabinet Member that a petition has been received from residents of Victoria Road requesting improvements to the safety of junctions with specific emphasis on Sidmouth Drive. Contribution to our plans and strategies A safer borough Financial Cost There is none associated with the recommendations to this report Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents and Environmental Services Ward(s) affected Manor RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member 1. Discusses with petitioners their concern with ro ad safety on Victoria Road to identify suitable improvement options that could b e considered for introduction. 2. Following 1 above, asks officers to investigate the feasibility to introduce the identified measures and report back with the estimated costs. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss in detail with petitioners their concern with road safety to develop suitable options for further investigation to determine the feasibility to introduce measures including the associated costs. Agenda Item 5 Page 13 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered These can be identified from the discussion with petitioners. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition has been presented to the Council under the following heading: “The speed of traffic along Victoria Road is often excessive and the number of serious accidents is increasing. We hereby call on Hillingdon Council to carry out a thorough and detailed review and consultation to improve the safety at junctions along Victoria Road particularly Sidmouth Drive”. The petition contained 62 signatures and was also accompanied by 25 standard responses with the following heading. “I/We the undersigned call on the Council to take urgent action to make the junction of Sidmouth Drive and Victoria road safer and so stop the regular accidents”. The signatures came from households in the section of V ictoria Road between the roundabout junction with Torrington Road/Filey Waye and Yeading Brook. This road link is shown on Appendix A. 2. The petition and standard responses are predominatel y from addresses in the section of Victoria Road between the roundabout junction of Torrington Road/Filey Waye and Yeading Brook. It would appear the petitioners are concerned with junctions in this section of Victoria Road with specific emphasis on that with Sidmouth Drive. In the three year period to November 2009, there have been six accidents in this section of Victoria Road which involved personal injury two were serious. Two occurred at the junction with Sidmouth Drive and one each at the junctions with Filey Waye, Tiverton Road and Whitby Road. The sixth accident occurred in the link between Sidmouth Drive and Whitby Road. There does not appear to be a trend with these accidents and as residents have particularly pointed out their concerns with the junction of Sidmouth Drive, the two accidents that occurred, only one involved a turning movement. 3. The Cabinet Member will be aware that concerns of this nature are investigated as part of the Council’s Road Safety programme. It is suggested therefore that the Cabinet Member discusses with the petitioners their specific concern with road safety and if suitable improvement options can be identified, it is further suggested that officers are asked to determine the feasibility and estimated cost of suitable measures which can be reported back to the Cabinet Member for consideration as part of the Council’s Road Safety programme. Page 14 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Financial Implications There are none associated with the recommendations to th is report as feasibility studies can be undertake with in house resources. However, if the Cabin et Member subsequently considers the introduction of a scheme, it would require an all ocation from the Council’s Road Safety programme. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To allow investigation of the road safety situation in this section of Victoria Road with a view to considering the introduction of improvement measures. Consultation Carried Out or Required Before proceeding with changes to residential road netw orks, it is common practice for the Council to consult residents before making a final decision on whether to introduce a scheme. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal A meeting with the petitioners is perfectly legitimate as part of a listening exercise, especially where consideration of the policy, factual and engineering issues are still at a formative stage. Fairness and natural justice requires that there must be no predetermination of a decision in advance of any wider non-statutory consultation. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received 4 th February 2010 Page 15 Page 16 This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 Page 18 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: BRICKFIELD LANE, HEATHROW– PETITION REQUESTING RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME Cabinet Member Cllr Keith Burrows Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Officer Contact Danielle Watson Papers with report Appendix A – Location Plan HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been received from residents of Brickfield Lane asking to join other roads in the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. Contribution to our plans and strategies The residents’ request will be considered as part of the Council’s strategy for on-street parking. Financial Cost There are none associated with the recommendation to this report. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents’ and Environmental Services. Ward affected Heathrow Villages. RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member; 1. Meets and discusses with petitioners their conce rns with parking in Brickfield Lane. 2. Subject to the outcome of 1 above, asks officers to include Brickfield Lane in the subsequent review of the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss with petitioners their concerns and if appropriate to include Brickfield Lane in the subsequent review of Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. Agenda Item 6 Page 19 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered None as petitioners have made a request to be included within the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 31 signatures has been received from residents in Brickfield Lane in effect the residents appear to be requesting the introduction of a residents parking scheme which represents 53% of the households in this road, signed under the following heading “I agree to the application of residential parking in Brickfield Lane, Harlington”. Brickfield Lane is a no through road located east of High Street, Harlington with 40 properties. Attached as Appendix A is a plan indicating the location of Brickfield Lane. 2. In October 2008 an informal consultation took place in the roads surrounding High Street, Harlington to determine if there would be support for area wide parking controls. Questionnaires were delivered to residents of Brickfield Lane and 10 returned which is a response rate of 25%. Of these responses 8 indicated they wanted no change to the current parking arrangements and 2 indicated support to be part of a residents parking scheme. Consequently it was recommended that based on the residents views that no further action would be taken to introduce a parking scheme in Brickfield Lane at that time. 3. It has become apparent where extensions have been introduced to other parking schemes that adjoining roads which perhaps do not suffer unduly from non-residential parking decide not to be included. However following the inclusion of nearby roads, residents experience parking transfer and approach the council to be part of the scheme. It is therefore recommended that the Cabinet Member discusses with petitioners their concerns and if it is considered appropriate to include Brickfield Lane within a future review. Financial implications There are none associated with the recommendations in this report. However if subsequently the Council were to consider the introduction of a Parking Management Scheme in Brickfield Lane as requested, an allocation would be required from a surplus of the Parking Revenue Account to fund the consultation and subsequent implementation. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To allow the Cabinet Member to consider the petitioners request and available options the Council have to address these concerns. Page 20 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Consultation Carried Out or Required Informal consultation has been carried out in this area with residents asking if they wanted to be part of a Residents Permit Parking Scheme. However there will be further consultation as part of a subsequent review for the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal There no are no special legal implications for the proposal, which amounts to an informal consultation. A meeting with the petitioners is perfectly legitimate as part of a listening exercise, especially where consideration of the policy, factual and engineering issues are still at a formative stage. Fairness and natural justice requires that there must be no predetermination of a decision in advance of any wider non-statutory consultation. Should there be a decision that further measures are to be considered then the relevant statutory provisions will have to be identified and considered. In considering any informal consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public are conscientiously taken into account. `BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received April 21 st 2010. Page 21 Page 22 This page is intentionally left blank Page 23 Page 24 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: THE PARADE, COWLEY– PETITION REQUESTING A ‘’STOP AND SHOP’’ PARKING SCHEME Cabinet Member Cllr Keith Burrows Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Officer Contact Danielle Watson Papers with report Appendix A – Location Plan HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition organised by a shopkeeper on The Parade has been submitted requesting the introduction of a ‘Pay and Display’ parking scheme. Contribution to our plans and strategies The request can be considered as part of the Council’s strategy for on-street parking. Financial Cost There are none associated with the recommendation to this report. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents’ and Environmental Services. Ward affected Uxbridge South RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member; 1. Meets and discusses with petitioners their conce rns with parking in The Parade, Cowley. 2. Subject to 1 above asks officers to carryout inf ormal consultation with business occupiers and residents of The Parade to establish if there is sufficient support for the consideration of a ‘Stop and Shop’ scheme and report back. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss with petitioners their concerns and if appropriate to include The Parade, Cowley to the overall Parking Programme. Agenda Item 7 Page 25 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered The petitioners have made a specific request for one of the Councils ‘Stop and Shop’ parking schemes, but options can be discussed with petitioners. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 92 signatures organised by a business occupier of The Parade, Cowley has been submitted to the Council under the following terms: ‘’We the undersigned (retailers and local customers) would like to petition the local authority to implement a pay and display parking schem e outside the Cowley High Street Parade next to Clammas Way and Worcester Road. ’’ The Council’s policy for the introduction of controlled parking schemes is that they must be supported by the majority of responses to the consultation. From the petition submitted, it would not appear there are many signatures from residents or commercial occupiers in The Parade. Should the Cabinet Member wish to give consideration to the introduction of a ‘Stop and Shop’ scheme in The Parade, it is recommended the Council undertakes its own informal consultation to determine if there is sufficient support from those most affected. Subject to the Cabinet Members decision the results of a consultation can be reported back to the Cabinet Member for consideration. 2. The Parade is situated on High Street, Cowley betw een Clammas Way and Worcester Road. The location is shown on Appendix A. Roads to the east of High Street, Cowley now largely form part of the Cowley Residents Permit Parking Scheme. Petitioners are concerned at long-term parking which they associate with Brunel University has transferred to The Parade which at present remains unrestricted. 3. The Cabinet Member will be aware that the C owley scheme has expanded over the past few years. The latest extension to the residents scheme in August 2009 which includes Dellfield Crescent and Clammas Way has already resulted in Dellfield Parade successfully petitioning for a ‘Stop and Shop’ which was implemented in March of this year. 4. It would appear from this petition, there is now concern with uncontrolled parking along The Parade and that business occupiers and their customers would like a ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme similar to that on Dellfield Parade be installed. Generally when requests are received for roads to become part of a resident permit scheme, they are included in a subsequent review. However as the petition is requesting the introduction of a ‘Stop and Shop’ scheme it is suggested that this could be considered in isolation and added to the Councils overall programme so that consultation and investigation can be carried out as soon as resources permit. Page 26 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Financial implications There are none associated with this report and if the Cabinet Member approves inclusion of a ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme for The Parade, the consultation and investigations can be carried out with in-house resources. However if subsequently the Cabinet Member approves the installation of ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme, a bid would require to be made for funding from Parking Revenue Account surplus. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To include a proposed ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme for The Parade on the Councils Parking Programme so that subsequent consultation and investigation can be undertaken. Consultation Carried Out or Required An integral part of the Councils procedures for the introduction of controlled parking schemes is wide spread consultation carried out prior to the Council making a final decision. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal The Council’s power to make orders imposing a Stop and Shop parking scheme are set out in Part 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 govern road traffic signs and road markings and there are no special circumstances drawn to our attention that would prevent the scheme proceeding provided that the appropriate statutory procedures are followed. The consultation and order making statutory procedures to be followed in this case are set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489) . Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 means that the Council must balance the concerns of the objectors with the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic. In considering the consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public were conscientiously taken into account. If a local authority decides to embark upon a non-statutory process of consultation the applicable principles are no different from those which apply to statutory consultation: see R (Partingdale Lane Residents Association) v Barnet London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 947 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 29. Any earlier informal consultation should not prejudice the consideration of the statutory consultation responses. Page 27 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received 14 th April 2010 Page 28 ´ This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright andmay lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LB Hillingdon 10019283 2010 Date May 2010 Appendix A 1:1,250Scale Boundary of The Parade Page 29 Page 30 This page is intentionally left blank

Lloyd White Head of Democratic Services London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk Petition Hearing - Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation Date: WEDNESDAY, 14 JULY 2010 Time: 7.00 PM Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 3 CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET UXBRIDGE UB8 1UW Meeting Details: Members of the Public and Press are welcome to attend this meeting Cabinet Member hearing the petitions: Keith Burrows, Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation How the hearing works: The petition organiser (or his/her nominee) can address the Cabinet Member for a short time and in turn the Cabinet Member may also ask questions. Local ward councillors are invited to these hearings and may also be in attendance to support or listen to your views. After hearing all the views expressed, the Cabinet Member will make a formal decision. This decision will be published and sent to the petition organisers shortly after the meeting confirming the action to be taken by the Council. Published: Tuesday, 6 July 2010 This agenda and associated reports can be made available in other languages, in braille, large print or on audio tape on request. Please contact us for further information. Contact: Charles Francis Tel: 01895 556454 Fax: 01895 277373 Email: cfrancis@hillingdon.gov.uk This Agenda is available online at: http://modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=252&MId=622&Ver=4 Public Document Pack Useful information Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away. Limited parking is available at the Civic Centre. For details on availability and how to book a parking space, please contact Democratic Services Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will be directed to the Committee Room. An Induction Loop System is available for use in the various meeting rooms. Please contact us for further information. Please switch off any mobile telephones and BlackBerries™ before the meeting. Any recording of the meeting is not allowed, either using electronic, mobile or visual devices. If there is a FIRE in the building the alarm will sound continuously. If there is a BOMB ALERT the alarm sounds intermittently. Please make your way to the nearest FIRE EXIT. Agenda 1 To confirm that the business of the meeting will take place in public. 2 To consider the report of the officers on the following petitions received. PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS MAY ATTEND Start Time Title of Report Ward Page 3 7pm St Giles Avenue, Ickenham - Petition Requesting Footway Parking Ickenham 1 - 6 4 7pm Morford Close, Eastcote - Petition Requesting a Residents Parking Scheme Cavendish 7 - 12 5 730pm Victoria Road / Sidmouth Drive, Ruislip - Petition Requesting Measures to Improve Road Safety Manor 13 - 18 6 8pm Brickfield Lane, Heathrow - Petition Requesting a Residents Parking Scheme Heathrow Villages 19 - 24 7 8pm The Parade, Cowley - Petition Requesting a Stop and Shop Parking Scheme Uxbridge South 25 - 30 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: ST. GILES AVENUE, ICKENHAM – PETITION REQUESTING FOOTWAY PARKING Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Report Author Steve Austin Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been submitted from residents of St. Giles Avenue, Ickenham asking for approval to park on the footway. Contribution to our plans and strategies The request can be considered in association with the Council’s criteria for Footway Parking Exemption Schemes. Financial Cost There are none associated with the recommendations to this report. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents and Environmental Services Ward(s) affected Ickenham RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member 1. Considers the petitioner’s request for footway p arking in St. Giles Avenue, Ickenham 2. Asks officers to add St. Giles Avenue to the pro gramme for Footway Parking Exemption Schemes so that subsequently, design and consultation with residents can be carried out. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation The layout of St. Giles Avenue will allow footway parking to take place in accordance with the Council’s criteria. Agenda Item 3 Page 1 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered None as the petitioners made a specific request to park on the footway. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 41 signatures has been received from residents of St. Giles Avenue under the following heading: “We the below signed are fed up of having wing mirro rs broken and coming out to the lorries, dustbin/recycling men to move cars as they can not get through and would appreciate if it was possible to have one or bot h sides of the pavements mountable without having a parking ticket along with d amage to our cars”. The petition contains signatures from nearly three-quarters of the households of St. Giles Avenue and these are evenly spread throughout the r oad. 2. St. Giles Avenue is close to Ickenham Underground Stat ion and is indicated on Appendix A. It is a residential road with footways approximately 2.2 to 2.5 metres wide. There is a tarmac verge along the kerb with the remainder of the footway surfaced with paving slabs. The only exception is between Nos. 26 to 40 which has a grass verge. The carriageway is approximately 6 metres wide and if cars are parked on both sides, it would impede access for large vehicles and the petitioners have pointed out refuse collection has been obstructed in the past. This would also apply to emergency vehicles. 3. The Cabinet Member will be aware the Council can e xempt roads from the Footway Parking Regulations and have approved criteria where it can occur. Parking would not be allowed on grass verges or paving slabs as St. Giles Avenue has a tarmac verge it would be permissible to allow two wheels to park on this. It would then leave sufficient width for pedestrians on the paving slabs. The footways in St. Giles Avenue are predominantly a mix of paving slabs and tarmac verges although in small sections these are wholly surfaced with tarmac. In these sections, motorists would be required to leave a minimum of 1.5 metres footway for the benefit and safety of pedestrians. A further criteria the Council has established is that the parking should not take place within 15 metres of a junction. 4. If the Cabinet Member were to decide St. Giles Ave nue could be exempted from the Footway Parking Regulations, the next stage is to design a formal scheme and consult residents. The Cabinet Member will also know there is a large programme for these schemes and it is suggested the request for St. Giles Avenue be added to the programme. Financial Implications Investigation, design and consultation are undertaken within normal staff resources. The cost of introducing parking schemes will depend on the final details and this would not be known until Page 2 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 consultation has been completed. The eventual cost of the work will need to be funded from the accumulated surplus of the Parking Revenue Account. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To add the request to the Council’s programme for Footway Parking Exemption Schemes, so that subsequent design and consultation can be carried out. All residents of St. Giles Avenue will eventually be consulted on a formal Footway Parking Exemption Scheme. Consultation Carried Out or Required Legal The Council’s power to make orders permitting and regulating parking on the street (including pavements) are set out in Part 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The consultation and order making statutory procedures to be followed where orders are required are set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489). Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 means that the Council must balance the views of any consultees with the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic. The safety risks identified in this report are a relevant consideration in deciding whether to make an order. In considering the consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public were conscientiously taken into account. The Cabinet member may, pending the completion of the statutory consultation for the proposed scheme, issue an executive direction not to enforce against parking infringements on St Giles Avenue. However, an executive direction given by the Cabinet member would not override the statutory powers that the police have in relation to parking on foot paths and therefore it would be advisable for officers to inform the police of the Council’s proposal not to enforce parking infringements at St Giles Avenue pending the making of a formal parking order. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received 26 th October 2009 Page 3 Page 4 This page is intentionally left blank E E E A 45 100 2918 19 1 2 1 16 13 Allotment Gardens 123 5 Drain AUSTIN'S LANE 53 1 7 El Sub S ta 33 14 6 GLEBE CLOSE 10 29 11 30 49 4 2 49 59 57 KEMPTO N C LO SE 10 2 1 77 8 21 4 11 39 41 15 121 ST GILESAV ENU E Allotment Gardens 1 55 20 CROS IER R OAD 17 6 18 ST GILE S A VE NUE 1 2 109 2 61 75 31 16 27 6 15 13 4 53 48 52 11 6 2a 37.5m 1 43 37 36.3m 25 12 2 8 4 14 44 35.1m 5a 172 51 GLE BE AV ENUE 59b 22 35 89 12 51 14 10 7 137 6a 36 45 9 23 15 2 91 16 4a 3 GLEBE AVEN UE 1a ¹ © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2010 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. Produced by Environment and Consumer Protection, Map Research, April 2010. 1:1,250 St Giles Avenue, Ickenham APPENDIX A Page 5 Page 6 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: MORFORD CLOSE, EASTCOTE– PETITION REQUESTING A “RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME” Cabinet Member Cllr Keith Burrows Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Report Author Hayley Thomas, Environment and Consumer Protection Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been submitted from residents of Morford Close, Eastcote requesting a “Residents Parking Scheme” be installed in their road. Contribution to our plans and strategies The request can be considered as part of the Council’s strategy for on-street parking. Financial Cost The estimated cost to extend the Eastcote Parking Management Scheme to Morford Close is £1500. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents and Environmental Services Ward(s) affected Cavendish RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member 1. Meets and discusses with the petitioners their c oncerns with parking in Morford Close. 2. Subject to No.1 above asks officers to add the r equest to the Council’s overall parking programme so detailed design and statutory consultation can be carried out on a residents parking scheme at the earliest opportunity. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation The petition was signed by a majority of the households in Morford Close requesting the introduction of residents parking. Agenda Item 4 Page 7 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered None at this stage, as the petitioners have requested a Residents Parking Scheme. However, further options could arise from the discussion with petitioners. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 9 signatures has been received fro m residents of Morford Close, Eastcote, asking for a residents parking scheme. This represents 90% of the households in Morford Close and the remaining property we understand is vacant. The Council’s usual procedure is to only hear petitions with 20 signatures or more. However, a request has been received from a local Ward Councillor for this petition to be heard by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation. 2. Morford Close as the name implies is a small cul-de-sa c with a junction to Morford Way. Its location is indicated on Appendix A, and is a short distance from Eastcote Underground Station, which makes it an attractive place to park for people using the station. Although the majority of roads surrounding Eastcote Underground Station are now part of a Parking Management Scheme, previous consultations have indicated there was no overall support from residents of Morford Close to be included in the scheme. However, it would appear this is now overwhelming support for a residents parking scheme. 3. Following discussions with the petitioners, the Cabine t Member could decide that a scheme for Morford Close can be added to the programme so that consultation can be carried out as soon as resources permit. Financial Implications The estimated cost to include Morford Close in the Eastcote Parking Management Scheme is £1500, which can be funded from a previous allocation from the Parking Revenue Accounts surplus. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To introduce parking controls as requested by the residents. Consultation Carried Out or Required The Council is required to carry out statutory consultation before a Residents Parking Scheme can be introduced. Page 8 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal The proposals for the introduction of a Residents Parking Scheme in Morford Close, Eastcote can be achieved by exercising powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Highways Act 1980. On the basis of the information contained in this report, it does not appear that there are special legal implications for this particular matter. The client will be required to be mindful of the statutory procedures imposed upon the traffic authority for the making of Traffic Management Orders which spring from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Officers are familiar with these procedures. In cases of doubt, Legal Services will be instructed. The decision maker must balance the relevant considerations to best give effect to the discharge of the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular traffic and other traffic. In considering any consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public were conscientiously taken into account in finalising the officer’s recommendation. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition dated 3 rd February 2010 Page 9 Page 10 This page is intentionally left blank Page 11 Page 12 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: VICTORIA ROAD / SIDMOUTH DRIVE, RUISLIP – PETITION REQUESTING MEASURES TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Report Author Steve Austin Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To advise the Cabinet Member that a petition has been received from residents of Victoria Road requesting improvements to the safety of junctions with specific emphasis on Sidmouth Drive. Contribution to our plans and strategies A safer borough Financial Cost There is none associated with the recommendations to this report Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents and Environmental Services Ward(s) affected Manor RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member 1. Discusses with petitioners their concern with ro ad safety on Victoria Road to identify suitable improvement options that could b e considered for introduction. 2. Following 1 above, asks officers to investigate the feasibility to introduce the identified measures and report back with the estimated costs. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss in detail with petitioners their concern with road safety to develop suitable options for further investigation to determine the feasibility to introduce measures including the associated costs. Agenda Item 5 Page 13 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered These can be identified from the discussion with petitioners. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition has been presented to the Council under the following heading: “The speed of traffic along Victoria Road is often excessive and the number of serious accidents is increasing. We hereby call on Hillingdon Council to carry out a thorough and detailed review and consultation to improve the safety at junctions along Victoria Road particularly Sidmouth Drive”. The petition contained 62 signatures and was also accompanied by 25 standard responses with the following heading. “I/We the undersigned call on the Council to take urgent action to make the junction of Sidmouth Drive and Victoria road safer and so stop the regular accidents”. The signatures came from households in the section of V ictoria Road between the roundabout junction with Torrington Road/Filey Waye and Yeading Brook. This road link is shown on Appendix A. 2. The petition and standard responses are predominatel y from addresses in the section of Victoria Road between the roundabout junction of Torrington Road/Filey Waye and Yeading Brook. It would appear the petitioners are concerned with junctions in this section of Victoria Road with specific emphasis on that with Sidmouth Drive. In the three year period to November 2009, there have been six accidents in this section of Victoria Road which involved personal injury two were serious. Two occurred at the junction with Sidmouth Drive and one each at the junctions with Filey Waye, Tiverton Road and Whitby Road. The sixth accident occurred in the link between Sidmouth Drive and Whitby Road. There does not appear to be a trend with these accidents and as residents have particularly pointed out their concerns with the junction of Sidmouth Drive, the two accidents that occurred, only one involved a turning movement. 3. The Cabinet Member will be aware that concerns of this nature are investigated as part of the Council’s Road Safety programme. It is suggested therefore that the Cabinet Member discusses with the petitioners their specific concern with road safety and if suitable improvement options can be identified, it is further suggested that officers are asked to determine the feasibility and estimated cost of suitable measures which can be reported back to the Cabinet Member for consideration as part of the Council’s Road Safety programme. Page 14 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Financial Implications There are none associated with the recommendations to th is report as feasibility studies can be undertake with in house resources. However, if the Cabin et Member subsequently considers the introduction of a scheme, it would require an all ocation from the Council’s Road Safety programme. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To allow investigation of the road safety situation in this section of Victoria Road with a view to considering the introduction of improvement measures. Consultation Carried Out or Required Before proceeding with changes to residential road netw orks, it is common practice for the Council to consult residents before making a final decision on whether to introduce a scheme. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal A meeting with the petitioners is perfectly legitimate as part of a listening exercise, especially where consideration of the policy, factual and engineering issues are still at a formative stage. Fairness and natural justice requires that there must be no predetermination of a decision in advance of any wider non-statutory consultation. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received 4 th February 2010 Page 15 Page 16 This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 Page 18 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: BRICKFIELD LANE, HEATHROW– PETITION REQUESTING RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME Cabinet Member Cllr Keith Burrows Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Officer Contact Danielle Watson Papers with report Appendix A – Location Plan HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been received from residents of Brickfield Lane asking to join other roads in the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. Contribution to our plans and strategies The residents’ request will be considered as part of the Council’s strategy for on-street parking. Financial Cost There are none associated with the recommendation to this report. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents’ and Environmental Services. Ward affected Heathrow Villages. RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member; 1. Meets and discusses with petitioners their conce rns with parking in Brickfield Lane. 2. Subject to the outcome of 1 above, asks officers to include Brickfield Lane in the subsequent review of the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss with petitioners their concerns and if appropriate to include Brickfield Lane in the subsequent review of Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. Agenda Item 6 Page 19 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered None as petitioners have made a request to be included within the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 31 signatures has been received from residents in Brickfield Lane in effect the residents appear to be requesting the introduction of a residents parking scheme which represents 53% of the households in this road, signed under the following heading “I agree to the application of residential parking in Brickfield Lane, Harlington”. Brickfield Lane is a no through road located east of High Street, Harlington with 40 properties. Attached as Appendix A is a plan indicating the location of Brickfield Lane. 2. In October 2008 an informal consultation took place in the roads surrounding High Street, Harlington to determine if there would be support for area wide parking controls. Questionnaires were delivered to residents of Brickfield Lane and 10 returned which is a response rate of 25%. Of these responses 8 indicated they wanted no change to the current parking arrangements and 2 indicated support to be part of a residents parking scheme. Consequently it was recommended that based on the residents views that no further action would be taken to introduce a parking scheme in Brickfield Lane at that time. 3. It has become apparent where extensions have been introduced to other parking schemes that adjoining roads which perhaps do not suffer unduly from non-residential parking decide not to be included. However following the inclusion of nearby roads, residents experience parking transfer and approach the council to be part of the scheme. It is therefore recommended that the Cabinet Member discusses with petitioners their concerns and if it is considered appropriate to include Brickfield Lane within a future review. Financial implications There are none associated with the recommendations in this report. However if subsequently the Council were to consider the introduction of a Parking Management Scheme in Brickfield Lane as requested, an allocation would be required from a surplus of the Parking Revenue Account to fund the consultation and subsequent implementation. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To allow the Cabinet Member to consider the petitioners request and available options the Council have to address these concerns. Page 20 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Consultation Carried Out or Required Informal consultation has been carried out in this area with residents asking if they wanted to be part of a Residents Permit Parking Scheme. However there will be further consultation as part of a subsequent review for the Heathrow Parking Management Scheme Zone H1. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal There no are no special legal implications for the proposal, which amounts to an informal consultation. A meeting with the petitioners is perfectly legitimate as part of a listening exercise, especially where consideration of the policy, factual and engineering issues are still at a formative stage. Fairness and natural justice requires that there must be no predetermination of a decision in advance of any wider non-statutory consultation. Should there be a decision that further measures are to be considered then the relevant statutory provisions will have to be identified and considered. In considering any informal consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public are conscientiously taken into account. `BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received April 21 st 2010. Page 21 Page 22 This page is intentionally left blank Page 23 Page 24 This page is intentionally left blank PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 TITLE: THE PARADE, COWLEY– PETITION REQUESTING A ‘’STOP AND SHOP’’ PARKING SCHEME Cabinet Member Cllr Keith Burrows Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation Officer Contact Danielle Watson Papers with report Appendix A – Location Plan HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition organised by a shopkeeper on The Parade has been submitted requesting the introduction of a ‘Pay and Display’ parking scheme. Contribution to our plans and strategies The request can be considered as part of the Council’s strategy for on-street parking. Financial Cost There are none associated with the recommendation to this report. Relevant Policy Overview Committee Residents’ and Environmental Services. Ward affected Uxbridge South RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet Member; 1. Meets and discusses with petitioners their conce rns with parking in The Parade, Cowley. 2. Subject to 1 above asks officers to carryout inf ormal consultation with business occupiers and residents of The Parade to establish if there is sufficient support for the consideration of a ‘Stop and Shop’ scheme and report back. INFORMATION Reasons for recommendation To allow the Cabinet Member to discuss with petitioners their concerns and if appropriate to include The Parade, Cowley to the overall Parking Programme. Agenda Item 7 Page 25 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Alternative options considered The petitioners have made a specific request for one of the Councils ‘Stop and Shop’ parking schemes, but options can be discussed with petitioners. Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s) None at this stage Supporting Information 1. A petition with 92 signatures organised by a business occupier of The Parade, Cowley has been submitted to the Council under the following terms: ‘’We the undersigned (retailers and local customers) would like to petition the local authority to implement a pay and display parking schem e outside the Cowley High Street Parade next to Clammas Way and Worcester Road. ’’ The Council’s policy for the introduction of controlled parking schemes is that they must be supported by the majority of responses to the consultation. From the petition submitted, it would not appear there are many signatures from residents or commercial occupiers in The Parade. Should the Cabinet Member wish to give consideration to the introduction of a ‘Stop and Shop’ scheme in The Parade, it is recommended the Council undertakes its own informal consultation to determine if there is sufficient support from those most affected. Subject to the Cabinet Members decision the results of a consultation can be reported back to the Cabinet Member for consideration. 2. The Parade is situated on High Street, Cowley betw een Clammas Way and Worcester Road. The location is shown on Appendix A. Roads to the east of High Street, Cowley now largely form part of the Cowley Residents Permit Parking Scheme. Petitioners are concerned at long-term parking which they associate with Brunel University has transferred to The Parade which at present remains unrestricted. 3. The Cabinet Member will be aware that the C owley scheme has expanded over the past few years. The latest extension to the residents scheme in August 2009 which includes Dellfield Crescent and Clammas Way has already resulted in Dellfield Parade successfully petitioning for a ‘Stop and Shop’ which was implemented in March of this year. 4. It would appear from this petition, there is now concern with uncontrolled parking along The Parade and that business occupiers and their customers would like a ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme similar to that on Dellfield Parade be installed. Generally when requests are received for roads to become part of a resident permit scheme, they are included in a subsequent review. However as the petition is requesting the introduction of a ‘Stop and Shop’ scheme it is suggested that this could be considered in isolation and added to the Councils overall programme so that consultation and investigation can be carried out as soon as resources permit. Page 26 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 Financial implications There are none associated with this report and if the Cabinet Member approves inclusion of a ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme for The Parade, the consultation and investigations can be carried out with in-house resources. However if subsequently the Cabinet Member approves the installation of ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme, a bid would require to be made for funding from Parking Revenue Account surplus. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES What will be the effect of the recommendation? To include a proposed ‘Stop and Shop’ parking scheme for The Parade on the Councils Parking Programme so that subsequent consultation and investigation can be undertaken. Consultation Carried Out or Required An integral part of the Councils procedures for the introduction of controlled parking schemes is wide spread consultation carried out prior to the Council making a final decision. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Legal The Council’s power to make orders imposing a Stop and Shop parking scheme are set out in Part 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 govern road traffic signs and road markings and there are no special circumstances drawn to our attention that would prevent the scheme proceeding provided that the appropriate statutory procedures are followed. The consultation and order making statutory procedures to be followed in this case are set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2489) . Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 means that the Council must balance the concerns of the objectors with the statutory duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic. In considering the consultation responses, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising including those which do not accord with the officer recommendation. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public were conscientiously taken into account. If a local authority decides to embark upon a non-statutory process of consultation the applicable principles are no different from those which apply to statutory consultation: see R (Partingdale Lane Residents Association) v Barnet London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 947 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 29. Any earlier informal consultation should not prejudice the consideration of the statutory consultation responses. Page 27 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Cabinet Member meeting with Petitioners – 14 July 2010 BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition received 14 th April 2010 Page 28 ´ This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright andmay lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LB Hillingdon 10019283 2010 Date May 2010 Appendix A 1:1,250Scale Boundary of The Parade Page 29 Page 30 This page is intentionally left blank