Petition Hearing

Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 1 Part I – Public HALE END CLOSE, HUME WAY AND EASTCOTE ROAD, RUISLIP – PETITION REQUESTING ‘THE INTRODUCTION OF A RESIDENTS’ PARKING SCHEME’ Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Responsible Officer Dan Kennedy – Corporate Director of Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Steven Austin – Residents Services Directorate. Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been received requesting a residents’ permit parking scheme for Hale End Close, Hume Way and Eastcote 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 a sustainable borough that is carbon neutral Financial Cost There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations in this report. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Ward(s) Ruislip RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth: 1) Meets with petitioners and listens to their request for a Residents’ Parmit Parking Scheme; and 2) Subject to the outcome of the above, decides if officers should add this request to the extensive Parking Scheme Programme for a possible informal consultation. Reasons for recommendation(s) The Petition Hearing will provide a valuable opportunity to hear directly from the petitioners regarding their concerns and suggestions. Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 2 Part I – Public Alternative options considered / risk management None at this stage. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. An e-petition with 21 valid signatures has been submitted to the Council, mainly by residents, who live on Hale End Close, Ruislip signed under the following heading: “We respectfully as a community request that the London Borough of Hillingdon : Introduce a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme covering Hale End Close, Hume Way and Eastcote Road; Install appropriate residents-only parking signage; Implement a controlled parking arrangement that prioritises residents and their visitors; Ensure appropriate enforcement to prevent continued misuse of non-residents. The intended outcome is to restore fair and reasonable access to perking for residents and prevent ongoing displacement caused by external parking demand.” 2. The lead petitioner has helpfully provided the following additional information: “Please find enclosed a resident petition requesting the introduction of a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme covering Hale End Close, Eastcote Road and Hume Way. This petition has been initiated due to the ongoing and significant parking pressures experienced by residents in these roads. For a prolonged period, parking spaces have been consistently occupied by non-residents, including visitors to nearby facilities school related traffic and contractors. This has resulted in residents being unable to access parking near their own homes on a daily basis. The situation is particularly concerning given that many residents within these locations are vulnerable, elderly , or managing health conditions. It is unreasonable for residents to experience stress, prolonged parking searches, or risk penalty notices simply because they cannot secure a space outside or near their property. We are therefore formally requesting:  The introduction of a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme covering Hale End Close, Eastcote Road and Hume Way;  The installation of clear Residents-Only Parking signage;  Appropriate enforcement to prevent continued misuse by non-residents. Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 3 Part I – Public Furthermore, residents should not be expected to pay disproportionate or excessive permit fees to access parking outside their homes. Given the circumstances and the vulnerability of many residents in the area, we strongly request that any permit scheme be introduced be implemented at no cost or at a minimal, reasonable charge, so that residents are not financially penalised for seeking fair access to parking. This request is not intended to disadvantage visitors or local facilities, but to restore balance and ensure that residents – who live, pay council tax, and contribute to the borough – are prioritised in their own streets. We respectfully ask the Council to give this matter serious consideration and to support residents in securing a fair and sustainable parking solution.” 3. Hale End Close, Hume Way and Eastcote Road are mainly residential roads close to Highgrove Pool and Fitness Centre as well as Bishop Ramsey School. Hale End Close and Hume Way benefit from some private off-street parking provision which is not on the public highway and therefore could not be included in any possible Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme. 4. Most of the properties on Eastcote Road appear to have ample off -street parking provision and as this road is a borough secondary distributor road, forms part of H13 bus route and is a main road linking Northwood Hills and Eastcote to Ruislip Manor, Ruislip and beyond. Given the nature of the road, and the fact that no residents of Eastcote Road have signed the petition, it is unlik ely that any on -street parking places could be recommended on this busy thoroughfare. 5. In the accompanying statement, the lead petitioner has asked that “any permit scheme introduced be at no cost or at a minimal, reasonable charge”. It is worth noting that the costs of permits as of 6th April are: 1st permit - £92.40 2nd permit - £132.90 3rd permit - £179.10 4th permit - £219.50 5th and subsequent permits - £259.00 6. These charges are set by full Council and apply across Hillingdon, so it is worth highlighting these now as they may help inform any discussions and decisions. Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations in this report. 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) Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 4 Part I – Public 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 introduction of a resident’s parking permit scheme for Hale End Close, Hume Way and Eastcote Road, Ruislip . The Road Traffic Regulation Act 19 84 provides the Council with the powers to make traffic regulation orders, such as for a parking management or parking permit scheme. 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 completion of any wider planned 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 parking permit scheme proposal is to be considered further, then the relevant statutory provisions and processes for this will have to be considered and followed. To this end, more specific legal comments will be provided in subsequent reports as the proposal progresses. Comments from other relevant service areas None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition APPENDIX Appendix A – Location plan

Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 1 Part I – Public CLIFTON GARDENS, HILLINGDON – PETITION REQUESTING ‘TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES’ Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Responsible Officer Dan Kennedy – Corporate Director of Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Steven Austin – Residents Services Directorate. Papers with report Appendix A HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member that a petition has been received requesting traffic calming measures for Clifton Gardens, Hillingdon. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Be / feel safe from harm Financial Cost Should speed and traffic surveys be commissioned, costs will be c.£85 per location, managed within existing Transportation Services revenue budgets, subject to the Council’ s required spend control approvals. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Ward(s) Hillingdon East RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth: 1) Meets with petitioners and listens to their request for traffic calming measures for Clifton Gardens, Hillingdon; 2) Subject to the outcome of the above, decides if officers should commission independent 24/7 speed and traffic surveys on Clifton Gardens , at locations agreed with petitioners and Ward Councillors; and 3) Asks the Council’s Road Safety and School Travel Team (STaRS) to continue to try to engage with the schools to promote their School Travel Plan, with the support of the Ward Councillors. Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 2 Part I – Public Reasons for recommendation(s) The Petition Hearing will provide a valuable opportunity to hear directly from 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 valid petition, with 55 signatures has been submitted to the Council signed under the following heading: “Traffic Calming Measures in Clifton Gardens” Petitioners have indicated their desired outcome to be; “Desired outcome is to reduce the speed of the traffic that comes up and down the road, day and night going to and from the school.”. 2. Clifton Gardens is a mainly residential road mainly compromising of semi -detached properties. Although all of the proper ties appear to benefit from off -street parking, form officers’ observations, the demand for the on -street parking provision is high. In 1994, the enforcement of footway parking was suspended by the then, Parking Sub -Committee following a petition submitted by residents. 3. At the end of Clifton Gardens there is an entrance to Swakeleys School for Girls, Oakwood Sixth Form College and access to Oakwood School. 4. Officers have interrogated the most recently available official police recorded collision data for the last five years and there has been one recorded collision on Clifton Gardens, classified as ‘slight’. 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 d atabase records. 5. The petition mentions ‘traffic calming measures’, and various forms of traffic calming features could be considered, where appropriate, and only if there is a case for them. However, petitioners may wish to consider that such features ca n sometimes have the unintended effect of increasing noise from passing traffic, notably skip lorries and similar commercial vehicles which may carry loose loads although as there is likely to be little through traffic on Clifton Gardens, this may not be s uch an issue but should be highlighted to petitioners. 6. Horizontal traffic calming measures, such as chicanes 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 Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 3 Part I – Public own deliberations, and it should be noted that any form of physical measures can prove to be ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ in equal measures. 7. Subject to the above the Cabinet Member may be minded to commission independent 24/7 speed and traffic surveys on Botwell Lane at locations agreed with petitioners and Ward Councillors. 8. 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 car riageway. 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 discreet 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-axle lorries. 9. 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 neces sary powers to tackle speeding and inconsiderate driving in general (if this is the case in Clifton Gardens) 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. 10. As the Cabinet Member will be aware, the STaRS team actively works with several schools across Hillingdon to develop their school travel plans (STPs). This dialogue can not only result in the development of physical measures but can also help the school engage with children, parents and carers to consider how they travel to and from school and to start to embed positive change to more sustainable modes of transport. 11. In addition, the STARS team offers free education, training and publicity to all schools in Hillingdon to improve safety and sustainability through travel plans, campaigns, projects and initiatives.  Support for ‘Walk to School week/ month’  ‘Bikeability’ training  Funding for scooter and cycle storage facilities,  Support for ‘Junior and Youth Travel Ambassadors’,  Delivering active and safe travel assemblies and classroom talks  Practical pedestrian training  ‘Moving On’ to secondary school presentations  ‘Theatre in Education’ productions 12. The STaRS have been in contact with Swakeleys School previously and there have been some positive indications that the school want to progress work on their STP. For example, some useful engagement took place when some road safety engineering measures were developed for Clifton Gardens in 2024. However, it seems the school are not fully engaging with the STaRS Team although it seems that that they are still working on road safety initiatives within the school. It may be that the Ward Councillors could helpfully intervene to encourage the school to work more closely with the STaRS Team to promote the work the school may already be doing and receive the expert support the team can provide. Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 4 Part I – Public 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, which subject to the Council’s spend control measures, could be funded th rough 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 there are no specific legal implications to following the recommendations within this report in relation to the petition received for traffic-calming measures at Clifton Gardens, Hillingdon. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides the Council with powers to regulate or restrict traffic on roads within Hillingdon, which may include introducing certain traffic-calming measures after following due consultation and order -making processes. Further powers to introduce traffic-calming measures are included in the Highways Act 1980. Moreover, the Council has various statutory duties in relation to road safety, such as under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, which are relevant when deciding on road traffic measures. To this end, the report refers to the work of the STaRS Team and recommends their continued engagement with Swakeleys School. 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 completion of any wider planned 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 traffic-calming measures at Clifton Gardens, Hillingdon are to be considered further, then the relevant statutory provisions and processes for these will have to be considered and followed. To this end, more specific legal comments will be provided in subsequent reports as the proposal progresses. Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 5 Part I – Public BACKGROUND PAPERS Petition TITLE OF ANY APPENDICES Appendix A – Location plan

Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 1 Part I – Public NEWNHAM AVENUE, RUISLIP – PETITION REQUESTING THE INTRODUCTION OF AN OFFICIAL, TIME LIMITED ONE-WAY SYSTEM OR SCHOOL STREET Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Planning, Housing & Growth Responsible Officer Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Sophie Wilmot, Residents Services Papers with report Appendix A – Location Report Appendix B – Postcode plots HEADLINES Summary To inform the Cabinet Member of an e-petition received requesting a time limited one -way system or school street on Newnham Avenue, Ruislip. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: An efficient, well-run, digital-enabled council working with partners to deliver services to improve the lives of all our residents This report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities Financial Cost There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations in this report. Select Committee Residents Services Ward Eastcote RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth: 1. meets with petitioners and listens to their requests for a timed one-way restriction on Newnham Avenue, Ruislip; 2. notes the national guidance for the implementation of one-way restrictions, as detailed within the body of the report; 3. notes the postcode information for those who signed the petition, as detailed within the body of the report; Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 2 Part I – Public 4. considers work previously undertaken by the Council’s School Travel and Road Safety Team and work on a potential school street restriction; and 5. b ased on the above, considers if further investigation may be warranted. Reasons for recommendations The Petition Hearing will provide a valuable opportunity to hear directly from the petitioners of their concerns and suggestions. Alternative options considered / risk management None at this stage. Democratic compliance / previous authority None at this stage. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. A n e- petition with 2 39 signatures has been submitted to the Council signed under the following heading: ‘We the undersigned petition Hillingdon Council to 1. Introduce a time -limited one- way system or School Street restriction on Newnham Avenue during school run hours (for example, 8:00- 9:00 and 14:45-15:30, term-time only), alongside a 20mph speed limit. 2. Consult with residents and the Infant & Nursery and Junior schools to agree appropriate timings and any necessary exemptions. 3. Install clear signage and put in place appropriate enforcement. 4. Review the scheme after an initial trial period to assess safety, traffic flow and community feedback. This is a sensible, proportionate measure that would significantly improve safety for children, parents, and residents and help prevent serious accidents on this road. At the start and end of the school day, Newnham Avenue becomes heavily congested. The road is narrow, parking is permitted on both sides, and two- way traffic regularly cannot move safely through the space available. This often leads to vehicles mounting th e pavement, cars becoming stuck nose-to-nose, and situations where children and parents are placed at unnecessary risk. Although enforcement officers have visited, this does not address the underlying problem: the road is not wide enough to support two- way traffic at peak times. Other London boroughs (including Wandsworth and Islington) operate successful, time- limited restrictions around schools, which have improved safety, reduced congestion, and created calmer streets.” 2. Newnham Avenue, Ruislip is a residential road with Newnham Infant and Junior School at one end. The schools have a combined capacity of approximately 650 pupils aged from 3 to 11 year olds. A plan of the area is attached as Appendix A. Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 3 Part I – Public 3. Both Newnham Infant School and Newnham Junior School hold Gold Accreditation under TfL’s Travel for Life programme, demonstrating their strong commitment to promoting sustainable and safe travel. Both schools actively participate in cycle training and pedestrian training, with the infant school also having completed scooter training and currently taking part in the Living Streets Walk Once a Week Challenge. In addition, Newnham Junior School is being put forward for a new Living Streets trial aimed at encouraging active travel among KS2 pupils. 4. The e-petition was signed by 239 respondents mostly within a short distance of Newham Avenue and this is shown in the postcode plots in Appendix B . It should be noted that of the signatures only f ive were from residents of Newnham Avenue, itself as well as a signature from Newnham Infant and Junior School. 5. The petition is requesting the Council brings forward a timed one way restriction on Newnham Avenue, however national highways guidance does not permit timed one way restrictions on the public highway, therefore this could not be delivered by the Council. Should a one way be considered for Newnham Avenue, the restriction would need to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Additionally, one way working can reduce conflicts between opposing traffic and reduce congestion but in return they ca n encourage people to increase their speed due to not having to worry about traffic coming in the opposite direction. 6. A timed restriction which could be considered is that of a ‘School Street’, as also outlined in the petition. This is where a road is closed to all but residential and disabled access for typically an hour at school drop off and an hour at school pick up. This means cars directly outside a school would reduce, reducing conflicts and making the environment cleaner and safer for those travelling to and from the schools. This kind of restriction would maintain two way operation for all vehicles. However, this time restriction can displace issues to other local streets and cause issue for access for residential visitors / deliveries so should be considered carefully. 7. Officers have interrogated the Police Road Traffic Collision data for Newnham Avenue and have established that there have fortunately been no reported road traffic collisions at all, as recorded by the Police, for the most recent five years for which data is available. It is appreciated that incidents involving the Police may not tell the whole story, but at the same time independent road traffic collision data from the Police is a very important tool to help the Council prioritise interventions across the Borough. 8. Based on the above the Cabinet Member is asked to note that the request for a timed one way on Newnham Avenue cannot be met due to national guidelines. Consideration could be given to a one -way system which operates at all times or a timed school street restriction. The Cabinet Member should be minded that a low number of respondents to the petition were from Newnham Avenue residents. Following, consideration of the above, is the Cabinet Member minded instructing Officers to investigate measures further for Newnham Avenue and report back. Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations in this report. Should the outcome of the further investigation result in any measures being proposed a suitable funding source would need to be identified before any implementation could be undertaken. Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 4 Part I – Public 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 there are no specific legal implications to following the recommendations within this report in relation to the petition received for a time-limited one-way system or ‘School Street’ on Newnham Avenue, Ruislip. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides the Council with powers to regulate or restrict traffic on roads within Hillingdon , which may include introducing the proposed time -limited one-way system or ‘School Street’ after following due consultation and order-making processes. Moreover, the Council has various statutory duties in relation to road safety, such as under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, which are relevant when deciding on road traffic measures. 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 completion of any wider planned consultation. Therefore, decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising, including those which do not accord with their own. Also, should there be a decision that the time -limited one- way system or ‘School Street’ on Newnham Avenue, Ruislip is to be progressed further, then the relevant statutory provisions and processes for these will have to be considered and followed. To this end, more specific legal comments will be provided in subsequent reports as the proposal progresses. BACKGROUND PAPERS None. APPENDICES Appendix A – Location Report Appendix B – Postcode plots Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 5 Part I – Public APPENDIX A – LOCATION REPORT Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 6 Part I – Public APPENDIX B – POSTCODE PLOTS Petition Hearing – 15 April 2026 Page 7 Part I – Public