Petition Hearing

Petition Hearing – 21 May 2025 Page 1 Part I – Public EDINBURGH DRIVE , ICKENHAM – PETITIONS REQUESTING TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AND A ONE-WAY SYSTEM Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Responsible Officer Karrie Whelan – Corporate Director Place Report Author & Directorate Steven Austin – Place Directorate Papers with report Appendix A – Location Plan HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member that two petitions have been received requesting both traffic calming measures and a one -way system. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents/ the Council of: Live in good quality, affordable homes in connected communities This report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities The request can be considered as part of the Council’s annual programme for road safety measures. Financial Cost Should speed and traffic surveys be commissioned, costs will be c.£85 per location, managed within existing Transportation Services revenue budgets. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Ward Ickenham and South Harefield RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member: 1) Meets with petitioners and listens to their request for traffic calming measures and a one-way system for Edinburgh Drive, Ickenham; 2) Notes the results of the previous speed and traffic surveys undertaken in January/ February 2024; and 3) Subject to the outcome of the above, decide s if officers should commission independent 24/7 speed and traffic surveys on Edinburgh Drive, at locations agreed with petitioners and Ward Councillors. Petition Hearing – 21 May 2025 Page 2 Part I – Public Reasons for recommendations The Petition Hearing will provide a valuable opportunity to hear directly fr om the petitioners regarding their concerns and suggestions. Alternative options considered/ risk management None at this stage. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Two valid petitions, signed mainly by residents of Edinburgh Drive, Ickenham have been submitted to the Council. As both petitions are broadly focussed on the same location and similar concerns, it seems appropriate to consider both requests at the same time. The Cabinet Member may be interested to hear that a third petition from Edinburgh Drive has also been submitted but unfortunately did not meet the Councils’ threshold to be considered as valid. 2. The first of the valid petitions has been signed under the following heading “Request for a one-way system and traffic calming measures, Edinburgh Drive We the undersigned petition the Hillingdon Council to install a one -way system and traffic calming measures in Edinburgh Drive” The lead petitioner also helpfully provided the following information: We, the residents of Edinburgh Drive, urge the Council to take immediate action to address the dangerous traffic conditions on our road. Edinburgh Drive is frequently used as a cut-through to Glebe Avenue or as an access point to the main road. Drivers, particularly those coming from Long Lane and the high school side, often speed through is residential area. The bend in the road creates a blind spot, leading to hazardous situations where the vehicles are forced onto the pavement to pass. This has resulted in aggressive behaviour from some drivers and poses a serio us risk to pedestrians and residents. It is deeply concerning that a neighbour tragically lost their life on the slip road off Glebe Avenue before any action was taken by the Council. We do not want to see another preventable tragedy occur. We respectfully request that the Council prioritised this issue and implements necessary changes without delay”. 3. The second petition has been signed under the following heading: 4. “Speed bumps” Petition Hearing – 21 May 2025 Page 3 Part I – Public 5. For completeness the third petition, was signed by one resident under the following heading: “We the undersigned petition Hillingdon Council to place speed bumps along Edinburgh Drive to slow down drivers that use the road to cut-through traffic on Long Lane during rush hour.” 6. In addition, the following information was submitted: “Although the council’s traffic report came back with insufficient evidence to support the argument for speed bumps due to the average speed of traffic being below the threshold, we believe that the “average speed” has no correlation with the risk of life that is caused when non-residents decide to use our road as cut through during the busiest time of the evening. Cars are exceeding the reside ntial limit just to beat 2 -3 minutes of traffic and causing a huge risk to residents of the area. The road is often busy as this time, with Douay Martyrs children walking to Ickenham Station, the local bus stop, or to parents’ cars parked along the road. We have elderly residents who walk to and from Ickenham shops and young children who enjoy using the front of their houses to play. These residents no longer feel safe outside the front of their homes, as a direct result of this fast-moving traffic.” 7. Officers have interrogated the most recently available official police recorded collision data for the last five years and there have been no recorded incident s on Edinburgh Drive . However, this data may not include any recent collisions or crashes that the emergency services do not attend and so do not form part of the Police database records. 8. Both petitions mention so-called ‘speed bumps and traffic calming measures ’; if by these, as seems likely, petitioners are thinking of the older type of round-topped narrow transverse road humps – often known colloquially in the past as ‘sleeping policemen’ - then the Cabinet Member will be aware that the vast majority of councils, Hillingdon include d, have not introduced these particular types of measure for many years. 9. Having said that, various forms of traffic calming features could be considered , where appropriate, if there is a case for them. However, petitioners may wish to consider that such features can sometimes have the unintended effect of increasing noise from passing traffic, notably skip lorries and similar commercial vehicles which may carry loose loads. 10. Horizontal traffic calming measures , such as c hicanes and similar measures , are seldom suitable for the average residential road; they can cause loss of parking , are visually intrusive and are less effective at actually reducing the speeds, of cars and vans in particular. The Cabinet Member may wish to advise the petitioners to consider these factors in their own deliberations and it should be noted that any form of physical measures can prove to be ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ in equal measures. 11. The Cabinet Member may be aware that independent speed and traffic surveys were undertaken in January/ February 2024 and a table of the results are attached below: Petition Hearing – 21 May 2025 Page 4 Part I – Public Total Vehicles 0 - 20 mph 20 - 25 mph 25 - 30 mph 30 - 35 mph 35 - 40 mph 40 - 100 mph 85th% mph North of The Paddock Northbound 2,842 1,180 1,201 326 30 5 0 25 Southbound 1,216 792 345 72 7 0 0 23 South of The Paddock Northbound 2,922 1,184 977 558 166 29 8 27 Southbound 1,109 600 352 107 41 8 1 25 12. This chart shows that the 85% of speeds in Edinburgh Drive were found to be between 23 and 27 mph. The 85th percentile is the speed at which or below 85% of vehicles are travelling within the road segment. As one of the petitions made reference to ‘average speeds’, it is perhaps worth noting that the 85 th percentile speed is as a rule somewhat higher t han a simple ‘average’ and is also used internationally as a reliable statistical tool to help assess speed patterns. 13. However, it is appreciated that traffic patterns may evolve over time, and so subject to the above the Cabinet Member may be minded to commission further independent 24/7 speed and traffic surveys on Edinburgh Drive at locations agreed with petitioners and Ward Councillors. This would then result in two sets of data representing traffic patterns in Edinburgh Drive. 14. As the Cabinet Member will be aware , independent traffic surveys are a reliable and well - established means to understand the real situation on the ground. These surveys generally use specialist equipment, including pneumatic tubes which are mounted temporarily on the road surface, fitted transversely across the whole width of the carriageway. These devices are installed for a period of at least a week or ten days and monitor traffic movements on a ’24/7’ basis. The d iscreet equipment is sufficiently sophisticated such that not only can it record traffic speeds at any given time, but also records the size and type of vehicles, from motorcycles to large multi-axel lorries. 15. Petitioners have suggested im plementing a one-way system and whilst the introduction of one-way working is feasible and can prove to be a useful traffic management tool in certain circumstances, there are nevertheless two important factors which also need to be borne in mind. 16. Firstly, whilst the introduction of a one-way working would undoubtedly remove the attractiveness of the route through Edinburgh Drive for some drivers, this could also impact directly on residents in adjacent roads such as The Paddock and Edinburgh Close and possibly over a wider area. 17. It is appreciated that some residents who signed the petition do not live on Edinburgh Drive and whilst it is helpful that the lead petitioner has sought the views of nearby roads, it would be imp ortant to establish, through consultation on detailed proposals , that there is widespread support for such a change from the wider community, which will , in turn , determine the success of any scheme. Petition Hearing – 21 May 2025 Page 5 Part I – Public 18. The second factor which should be borne in mind is that a possible unintended side effect of the introduction of a one-way working is usually the increase in average traffic speeds. With one -way working, drivers will often inevitably travel more quickly in the certain knowledge that they will not meet oncoming traffic. 19. In order to counteract this, some form of traffic calming measures, such as the ones suggested in both petitions, often prove necessary to try to coun teract such increases in traffic speeds. There is of course a further risk that even if traffic calming is added, a one- way working could increase ‘rat-running’ at certain times, in the knowledge that drivers will not meet any opposing traffic flow . Finally, on this point, as the Cabinet Member will be aware, traffic calming can have unwelcome nuisance impacts if, for example, large commercial vehicles (in particular skip lorries) use the road. 20. The above points are set out in order to ensure that som e possible consequences of the introduction of a one-way working are understood from the outset of any investigations and deliberations with petitioners. 21. It is also recommended that if they have not already done so, residents raise their concerns directly with the Metropolitan Police because they alone have the necessary powers to tackle speeding and inconsiderate driving in general (if this is the case in Edinburgh Drive) through enforcement. Physical traffic calming and traffic management can be effective tools, but as mentioned previously, it can also have unwelcome side effects including an increase in noise caused by traffic passing through. Financial Implications Subject to the outcome of discussion with petitioners, the Cabinet Member may request the commissioning of speed and traffic surveys. The current cost of these is c.£85 per location, with spend managed through the existing Transportation revenue budgets. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities To allow the Cabinet Member to consider the petitioners’ request. Consultation & engagement carried out (or required) None at this stage. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed the recommendations to this report and concurs with the financial implications as set out above. Petition Hearing – 21 May 2025 Page 6 Part I – Public Legal Legal Services confirm that t here are no specific legal implications to following the recommendations within this report in relation to the petitions received for traffic-calming measures and a one-way system on Edinburgh Drive, Ickenham. A meeting with the petitioners is in line with the Council’s constitution and is a perfectly legitimate as part of a listening exercise, especially where consideration of the policy, factual and engineering issues are still at a formative stage. Public law principles provide that there must be no predetermination of a decision in advance of any wider consultation. Therefore, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising , including those which do not accord with their own. Should there be a decision that the road measures are to be considered further, then the relevant statutory provisions for these measures will have to be identified and considered. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petitions APPENDICES Appendix A – Location plan

Petition Hearing report – 21 May 2025 Page 1 Part I – Public CORNWALL ROAD , RUISLIP – PETITION REQUESTING ‘TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES’ Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Responsible Officer Karrie Whelan – Corporate Director Place Report Author & Directorate Steven Austin – Place Directorate Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been received requesting ‘traffic calming measures’ for Cornwall Road, Ruislip. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Live in good quality, affordable homes in connected communities This report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities The request can be considered as part of the Council’s annual programme for road safety measures. Financial Cost Should speed and traffic surveys be commissioned, costs will be c.£85 per location, managed within existing Transportation Services revenue budgets. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee. Ward Ruislip Manor RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member: 1) Meets with petitioners and listens to their request for ‘ traffic calming measures ’ for Cornwall Road, Ruislip; 2) Subject to the outcome of the above, decide s if officers should commission independent 24/7 speed and traffic surveys on Cornwall Road, at locations agreed with petitioners and Ward Councillors; and 3) Advises petitioners that the installation of so-called ‘speed cameras’ is not within the Council’s gift but are assessed and managed by an organisation known as The London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP) Petition Hearing report – 21 May 2025 Page 2 Part I – Public Reasons for recommendations The Petition Hearing will provide a valuable opportunity to hear directly fr om the petitioners regarding their concerns and suggestions. Alternative options considered/ risk management None at this stage. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. A petition with 30 signatures has been submitted to the Counci l mainly by residents of Cornwall Road, Ruislip signed under the following heading: “The purpose of this petition is to highlight the unacceptable driving speed of vehicles which pass through Cornwall Road, Ruislip Manor. A summary of issues identified in recent months are detailed below ’. The lead petitioner has helpfully provided the following additional information: “High Speed Traffic – On a daily basis there are a significant number of vehicles which travel through Cornwall Road at a frightening speed w hich is significantly over the speed limit. These vehicles come around the bend of the road at dangerous speed and oncoming traffic has to sharply break. Not only is this extremely dangerous for other drivers and road users, such as pedestrians crossing the road and children. It also poses a risk to residents who park their cars on the road and are exiting their vehicles. I personally have been crossing the road on a previous occasion carrying a number of shopping bags and a car came along at a frightening speed, leaving me to run across the road. Noise Pollution – With vehicles travelling at speeds above the limit, it creates noise from both the vehicles and from other drivers who will hoot their horn at all hours due to the proximity of there almost being an accident. This is compromising the safety of other drivers who follow the law. Blind Bends – Cornwall Road is a road with bends and residential street parking which means there is limited sight of the road ahead as oncoming vehicles cannot always be seen. This make it furthermore dangerous as vehicles try to overtake one another. I have witnessed instances where vehicles will drive on the wrong side of the traffic island to overtake another vehicle, or more sinisterly to avoi d crashing into a car which is reversing into its driveway. Opportunity for Council to raise revenue – With the economic climate and the council looking for ways to increase revenue , the installation of speed cameras on Cornwall Road would enable Hillingdon Council to generate revenue through diversification of revenue streams. Proposal for installation of speed bumps – We are asking the council to install speed bumps of traffic ca lming bollards in regular frequency th roughout Cornwall Road. Speed Petition Hearing report – 21 May 2025 Page 3 Part I – Public bumps would help to reduce the speed of vehicles on the rod and the risk of accidents to both road users and pedestrians. 2. Cornwall Road is a mainly residential road comprising of predominantly terrace type properties many of which appear to benefit from off -street parking provision. The average width of the carriageway is approximately nine metres and is bounded on both sides by a grass verge supporting mature trees and a footway behind measuring approximately 1.7 metres. 3. Officers have interrogated the most recently available police recorded collision data for the last years and there have been five recorded incidents on Cornwall Road all recorded as ‘slight’ in classification. However, this data may not include any recent collisions or crashes that the emergency services do not attend. 4. Although the petition mentions so called ‘speed bumps’, if, by these, petitioners are thinking of the older type of round-topped narrow transverse road humps – often known colloquially in the past as ‘sleeping poli cemen’ – then the Cabinet Member will be aware that the vast majority of councils, Hillingdon include d, have not introduced these particular types of measure for many years. 5. Having said that, various forms of traffic calming features could be considered , where appropriate, if there is a case for them. However, petitioners may wish to consider that such features can sometimes have the unintended effect of increasing noise from passing traffic, notably skip lorries and similar commercial vehicles which may carry loose loads. 6. Horizontal traffic calming measures , such as c hicanes and similar measures , are seldom suitable for the average residential road; they can cause loss of parking , are visually intrusive and are less effective at actually reducing the speeds, of cars and vans in particular. The Cabinet Member may wish to advise the petitioners to consider these factors in their own deliberations and it should be noted that any form of physical measures can prove to be ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ in equal measures. 7. Petitioners have helpfully suggested possible ‘traffic calming bollards’ and if this refers to refuge islands, then these are a relatively inexpensive method of traffic calming. However, again, such measures mentioned will reduce on -street parking provision and could restrict access and egress to off -street parking and could constrict access for fire brigade equipment. 8. In some cases where speeding has been identified as am issue of local concern, the Council has installed electronic warning devices called ‘ Vehicle Activated Signs’ or ‘VAS’ for short, and these can be a helpful reminder to drivers of the speed limit. The Cabinet Member may be minded to consider such devices if the case can be prov en, but at the same time may wish to point out to petitioners that these devices do not have any enforcement function. 9. The petition has suggested the possibility of ‘speed cameras’ and in conjunction with this, petitioners’ perception of some form of associated revenue stream for the Council. It is important to note that , contrary to a common prevailing public belief, so -called ‘speed cameras’ (more formally ‘safety cameras’) within Greater London are not owned, maintained or operated by the Council , but instead are fully the responsibility of the Police, Transport for London, His Majesty’s Courts and ‘London Councils ’, the body responsible for representing all the interests of London’s boroughs. The siting of such equipment is a matter for the partnership of these bodies and is generally selected in cases where there is a very Petition Hearing report – 21 May 2025 Page 4 Part I – Public high prior record of road traffic collisions involving serious injury. None of the revenue streams involved come to the Council. 10. Subject to the above, the Cabinet Member may be minded to commission independent 24/7 speed and traffic surveys on Crane Gardens at locations agreed with petitioners and Ward Councillors. 11. As the Cabinet Member will be aware , independent traffic surveys are a reliable and well - established means to understand the real situation on the ground. These surveys generally use specialist equipment, including pneumatic tubes which are mounted temporarily on the road surface, fitted transversely across the whole width of the carriageway. These devices are installed for a period of at least a week or ten days and monitor traffic movements on a ’24/7’ basis. The d iscreet equipment is sufficiently sophisticated such that not only can it record traffic speeds at any given time, but also records the size and type of vehicles, from motorcycles to large multi-axel lorries. 12. It is also recommended that if they have not already done so, residents raise their concerns directly with the Metropolitan Police because they alone have the necessary powers to tackle speeding and inconsiderate driving in general (if this is the case in Cornwall Road) through enforcement. Physical traffic calming can be an effective tool , but as mentioned previously, it can also have unwelcome side effects including an increase in noise caused by traffic passing through. Financial Implications Subject to the outcome of discussion with petitioners, the Cabinet Member may request the commissioning of speed and traffic surveys. The current cost of these is c.£85 per location, with spend managed through the existing Transportation revenue budgets. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities To allow the Cabinet Member to consider the petitioners’ request. Consultation & Engagement carried out (or required) None at this stage. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance has reviewed the recommendations to this report and concurs with the financial implications as set out above. Legal Legal Services confirm that t here are no specific legal implications to following the recommendations within this report in relation to the petition received for traffic-calming measures on Cornwall Road, Ruislip. Petition Hearing report – 21 May 2025 Page 5 Part I – Public A meeting with the petitioners is in line with the Council’s constitution and is a perfectly legitimate as part of a listening exercise, especially where consideration of the policy, factual and engineering issues are still at a formative stage. Public law principles provide that there must be no predetermination of a decision in advance of any wider consultation. Therefore, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising , including those which do not accord with their own. Should there be a decision that the road measures are to be considered further, then the relevant statutory provisions for these measures will have to be identified and considered. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition APPENDICES Appendix A – Location plan.