Have your say on Hillingdon’s parking plans: respond to the consultation by Wednesday 11 November

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The main reason the Council’s report gives for taking the resident rate off the machines is misuse of the free 30 minutes. But the Council has already acted on that: it has recently limited free sessions to one a day per Hillingdon First cardholder, and says it does not yet have any information on the effect. Before using misuse as a reason for a further change, I ask the Council to publish evidence of how much misuse there was, and to show whether the recent limit has already dealt with it.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council has confirmed that, for these proposals, ‘cashless’ means any payment other than at a ticket machine. So even a resident paying by bank card at a machine would lose the resident rate and the free half hour. That penalises people who pay properly, just not by phone, and I object to it.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Many trips are a few minutes: collecting a prescription, posting a parcel, dropping something off. Under these proposals anyone who does not use a phone would lose the free half hour for a quick stop and pay the full non-resident charge. I object to that.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Paying by phone call means listening to recorded options and keying in a location code, a card number and a registration on a small keypad, often standing in a car park. Calls drop and connections fail, and it can take longer to pay than to do the shopping. That is not a realistic alternative for many older or disabled people, and I ask the Council to keep a way to pay at the resident rate without a phone.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Many people feel vulnerable taking an expensive smartphone out in a public place. Police advice on phone theft is to stay aware of your surroundings and keep your phone out of sight where you can, but paying by phone means standing in an open car park with it in your hand, distracted, sometimes alone and after dark. If the resident rate is only available by phone, car parks could become known as places where people have their phones out. A machine does not carry that risk.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Paying by phone depends on reading a location code from a sign. Residents report that at the Beck Theatre, where parking is already phone-only, the signs are not lit and cannot be read after dark. Every car park would need clear, lit signs, and a machine would still be easier.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council’s report (paragraph 4.1) links taking the resident rate off the machines to a technical problem: the machines cannot ask for a number plate and check residency at the same time. So residents are being consulted on the consequence, losing the discount at the machine, while the Council says requiring number plates is an operational change it does not plan to consult on. I ask the Council to explain what technical alternatives it assessed, including upgrading the machines, before deciding that residents must lose the discount at them.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

If the current machines cannot take a number plate and check a resident’s eligibility at the same time, I would like the Council to explain whether it has asked its supplier for machines or software that can, and what that would cost, before taking the resident rate away from everyone who uses a machine.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

If the resident rate is only available through a phone or other cashless system, I want to know what happens when that system is down, there is no signal, or a payment cannot be completed. Residents should not lose their free half hour or the resident rate, or receive a fine, because the technology has failed. I ask the Council to publish its arrangements for failures, including a practical alternative way to get the resident rate.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council limited free sessions to one a day per cardholder this year, but the rules have not been published, and some residents have found their card refused at a machine without knowing why. Is it one free half hour a day anywhere in the borough, or one per car park? I ask the Council to publish the rules, and to show what effect the change has had, before using misuse as a reason for further changes.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The orders say the resident rate will only be available to residents ‘registered in accordance with the Council’s conditions’, but the Council has confirmed that those arrangements are still being developed. I cannot comment properly on a scheme whose rules have not been written, and I ask the Council to publish them and consult on them before any decision.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report says one aim is to remove the resident discount from people who move away. Hillingdon First cards have no expiry date. An expiry date, or a simple periodic check of address, could deal with that without forcing every resident to use a phone to get the resident rate, and I ask the Council to consider it.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

My Hillingdon First card is also my library card and gives me other benefits. The Council says only that any changes to those will be communicated before they happen. I would like a clear assurance that replacing the card for parking will not take away its other uses.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Hillingdon First cardholders can currently park free for up to three hours at Ruislip Lido. I ask the Council to confirm that this will continue, and that residents will be able to claim it without a mobile phone.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Many older residents are driven by a carer or a relative. Today the cardholder can use their card at the machine, whatever car they arrive in. If the resident rate is tied to a phone account or a registered vehicle, how will it work for a resident travelling in a relative’s car, being driven by a paid carer, or using a hire or courtesy car? I would like the Council to explain.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council’s report says public consultation is required on all five changes, including asking for number plates, and that without it the Council ‘will not lawfully be able to implement any of the changes’. The Council now says requiring number plates at machines is an operational change and no further consultation is planned. I ask the Council to explain how that fits with its own report, and to consult on it properly.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report says requiring number plates would allow more use of cameras and fewer enforcement officers on foot. If so, that could mean more fines arriving by post, with no chance to explain at the time, and fewer people on the ground who can help. I would like the Council to say whether more camera enforcement is planned, and where.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report says number plate and camera data must be handled under data protection law with proper governance and privacy arrangements, but nothing has been published about how it would be stored, shared or kept. I ask the Council to publish this before any decision.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

People make innocent mistakes typing a registration, especially on a small keypad or screen. I ask the Council to explain whether a mistyped number plate would lead to an automatic fine, and to provide a simple way to correct mistakes and a fair appeal.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report says number plates would stop people passing on unexpired tickets. I would like the Council to publish evidence that this is a real problem and what it costs, before asking every driver to type in a registration.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I want the pay and display machines kept at Ruislip Lido. The car parks are very busy in summer, used by many visitors from outside the area, and there is no shop nearby where anyone could pay another way. The mobile phone signal at the Lido is also poor, so making the resident rate available only by phone is not practical there.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Machines should be kept by GP surgeries and health centres. For example, the Abbotsbury Gardens car park in Eastcote serves two GP practices with about 15,000 patients, plus community health services, and a machine was put by the entrance in 2019 so that patients with limited mobility did not have to walk far. Removing it would mean late and missed appointments.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council’s own principle (report paragraph 4.4) is that machines would go only where there is another way to pay by cash or card, other than by phone, such as a nearby shop. Where there is no such shop, at the library, Kingsend South or the Lido for example, that principle means the machine must stay. I ask the Council to commit to that principle in any decision.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report talks about paying in ‘nearby shops’ without saying what nearby means. I would like the Council to say how far, whether across a main road, whether it is step-free and accessible, and whether the shop is open whenever the car park is in use, including evenings and Sundays. Walking to a shop first also leaves the car unpaid and uses up the free half hour.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council says some machines are little used. I ask it to publish the usage and running cost of each machine, so residents can see where removal might be justified and where it clearly is not. Low use in some places does not justify removing machines everywhere.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Paying in shops, or at libraries and the front desks of other council buildings, would be welcome as extra ways to pay. They should not replace the machines.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council has been trialling phone-only parking at the Beck Theatre. Before extending the idea anywhere else, I ask the Council to publish what it found: how many people struggled to pay, how many paid the full rate, how many fines were issued, and what theatregoers said.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Leader has said the Council is looking to keep cash payments, possibly by paying in shops. The orders say the resident rate needs a cashless account linked to a registered resident. I would like the Council to confirm whether a resident paying cash in a shop would get the resident rate and the free half hour, and how.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Paying by phone can carry extra costs, such as charges for optional text reminders. If the free half hour and the resident rate are only available by phone, I ask the Council to confirm that residents will never pay any fee on top of the parking charge.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Residents are already saying they will park in side roads, shop at out-of-town supermarkets or shop online instead. Making short stops harder and dearer will cost local shops trade, and the Council should assess the effect on high streets before deciding. Local businesses are collecting their own evidence on parking and footfall this month, and the Council should consider it.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report says any savings will be evaluated after the consultation, yet savings of £95,000 from changes to parking payment options and £65,000 from limiting free sessions were already in the budget agreed in February. That raises the question of whether the outcome was decided before residents were asked.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Residents have been given no figures: what the machines cost to run, what PayByPhone costs per transaction, what the new digital system and reconfiguring the machines will cost, or what will be saved. I ask the Council to publish them so the proposals can be judged properly.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

This year’s budget includes £95,000 of forecast savings from changes to parking payment options, but the Council has confirmed that no machines have yet been chosen for removal, and no decision is due until December. I ask the Council to say how much of that saving it still expects this year, on what timetable, and on what evidence.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Missed and late GP appointments cost the NHS, and fewer short visits cost local shops. None of these effects appears in the Council’s report, and I ask the Council to consider them.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council says its Equality Impact Assessment will only be published with the Cabinet report in December, and its own timetable allows about a week to write it after the consultation closes. Residents cannot see or comment on it during this consultation. I ask the Council to publish a draft before any decision.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council says the consultation will help identify equality impacts, but the consultation asks no questions at all, and the report’s own table of implications does not tick ‘Equalities impact assessment’ or ‘Public Health’. I do not see how impacts can be identified this way.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council’s own report says particular consideration should be given to the effect of digital parking payments, digital resident discounts and fewer machines on older and disabled residents. These are the people most likely to be shut out by these proposals.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Age UK has reported older people missing GP appointments because parking required an app or a mobile phone. Patients who cannot pay easily near their surgery will be late or miss appointments, and GP practices have said they cannot teach patients to use parking apps. I ask the Council to assess this before any decision.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Medical appointments are not optional. Where a council car park serves a GP practice or health centre, I ask the Council to talk to the practices and their patient groups before making any change, and to consider a concession for older patients.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Many older residents have paid for parking with coins all their lives, and a generation still relies on machines. Any move away from them should be phased over years, with help and alternatives in place first, not pushed through in a few months to meet a budget.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

On 22 October Cabinet agreed, without asking residents, to raise resident parking charges by about 70% early next year, shrinking the Hillingdon First discount from about 40% to about 10% in many places. Residents are now being asked only how they get to that discount, after its value was decided. The price and the way of paying should have been considered together.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Cabinet Member approved consultation on five changes on 30 September. The published notice covers only three. Requiring number plates is not mentioned at all, and the Council says machine removal will be consulted on later, while councillors say it is part of this consultation. Residents do not know what they are being consulted on.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The consultation is 117 pages of legal notices and draft traffic orders, with no plain-English explanation of what would change and no questions to answer. Most people affected would not be able to tell from it that they would lose the resident rate at the machines.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council’s report promised ‘a range of communication channels’, targeted communications and collaboration with community partners. The Council says it used only notices in the Gazettes, notices at what it calls relevant locations, and its website. It has not said where those notices went, or what it did to reach residents who are not online. Many residents still do not know this consultation exists. I ask the Council to explain what targeted publicity it did, and how it checked that people knew.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The Council has admitted that the draft orders put online for this consultation were not the latest versions. It told residents on 6 November, with less than a week left, that corrected versions had only been sent to its web team. I ask the Council to say what changed, when the corrected versions were published, and how people who read the earlier versions will be told, and to allow more time as a result.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The only alternative listed in the report is doing nothing. Keeping the resident rate for card payments at machines, upgrading machines, or keeping machines at health centres, the Lido and other places used by older and disabled residents are not discussed. I ask the Council to publish its assessment of these options.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The consultation started a week earlier than the report’s own timetable and closes on 11 November rather than in the week of 16 November. I ask the Council to extend it and run it properly, covering all five proposals, with plain-English information and questions that residents can answer.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The proposal for Blyth Road and Pump Lane car parks in Hayes is a flat Sunday charge of £4.20, or £2.50 for residents, for any length of stay, and the Council has confirmed there would be no free half hour on Sundays. That penalises short Sunday visits to shops, places of worship and community activities.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report said Sunday fees in Hayes would be set through the normal fees and charges process, but the notice already proposes flat charges of £4.20, or £2.50 for residents, and the Council now says the fee will be set when the decision is made. I ask the Council to explain how those amounts were chosen, and to consider cheaper charges for short visits.