Comments

• Parking is never going to be easy in the Moormead area because the number of cars is greater than the number of spaces. However, the problem has been exacerbated by installing a cpz in some roads (eg Broadway Ave) which has increased pressure on adjacent roads. I fail to see why Cole Park Road has a 24-hour cpz in situ when most houses have private drives - the fact that street parking spaces are rarely used here speaks for itself. Either all roads should have a cpz or none. And given the problems with commuter and business parking, I believe it should be all.

  Carol Townsend on 2006-07-07 17:46:52 +0000

• A controlled parking zone in our streets - I live on Godstone Road, close to the junction with the Moormead - is merely going to be an extra tax on the residents. The problem is not business or commuter parking, even on our roads which are outside the present CPZ: by day there are still plenty of empty spaces. The problems occur when the residents come home from work, and given that most of the houses in these narrow roads are maisonettes, frequently bringing four cars per house with them. A CPZ will make this problem worse, not better. It should be instantly clear just by looking at the roads within the CPZ that their introduction, complete with yellow lines and painted bays, immediately reduces the number of parking spaces. The hours and distribution of the current CPZ certainly needs review: as Carol Townsend says, 24 hours on Cole Park Road, resulting in kerbs almost empty of cars day and night, seems insane.

  maev kennedy on 2006-07-09 09:09:31 +0000

• I agree, the issue is residents, not commuters. Therefore the solution cannot be a simple CPZ as currently constructed.

  I think the non-comprehensive CPZs in the area have only compounded the issue. There are a large number of cars on Winchester pushed their by the Broadway CPZ and a large number on Moormead and Hill View as a result of the Cole Park CPZ.

  Whatever the solution is, it has to look at all these areas together and not just push around the problem.

  The other issue, which Trevor asks in the forum, is the number of multi-car families moving into the area (often replacing older households with no cars) and people getting larger and larger (completely inappropriate) cars that take up more than one space.

  Therefore I would hope for:

  • A comprehensive CPZ for the whole of St Margarets -- or none.
  • A system that encourages ownership of a smaller number and smaller size of car with huge surcharge for SUVs and oversize estates (or based on engine size) and second cars.
  Peter on 2006-07-09 09:25:41 +0000

• For those of you who are wondering why Broadway Avenue (rightly or wrongly) was the only Road, north of the railway line to be included in the original 'S' parking Zone, here's the reason.

  In 1989 we approached the council and complained about the parking difficulties that were building up in our road and surrounding roads during the daytime, due to the logarithmic increase in commuter parking by people using St Margarets Station. This came about for two main reasons. A large increase in parking charges in the Twickenham Station car park, and changes to the rail fare structure, making it substantially cheaper to go to Waterloo from St Margarets rather than Twickenham. At that time CPZ's were barely a financial twinkle in the council's eye. Between 1989 and 1996 we continually lobbied local councillors about parking (as Mike Rowlands can confirm - as he caught the brunt of our complaints!). When we learned that the proposed 'S' zone (implemented in 1997) did not intend to include any roads this side of the railway line, we vigorously protested to the council and councillors.

  We attempted to get the support of residents, especially in Winchester Road and Bridge Road, specifically pointing out the 'knock on' effects if we were successful and became the CPZ island this side of the railway. We got a unanimous 'No'. I still have all the paperwork.

  After a hard fought battle, our request to be included in the 'S' zone came before the transport sub-committee and was approved. This was mainly because we had the history of continuing complaints since 1989 with the statistics to back them up. We lost no parking space in Broadway Avenue, as a CPZ road does not have to be divided up into bays.

  Some of the Broadway Avenue residents who originally had reservations about becoming part of the CPZ (like others they considered it a potential licence for the Council to print money) are now the most vociferous in calling for it to be extended to Saturdays and the evenings.

  My argument has always been that our aim was to hit commuters not fellow residents, and before pressing for extensions, the whole of this side of the railway line needs to be part of the CPZ. Given the demographic changes in the area (especially over the last ten years); the impending potential increase in the evening parking problems with the opening of the 140 seater wine bar under the Phelps block; and this road's own CPZ experience - I'd say to everyone go for the CPZ option. It will help you during the day.

  When we saw the parking writing on the wall in 1989 it took nearly a decade for us to get something done - so strike now whilst the iron is hot, at a time when the council and the councillors claim to be listening to St Margarets.

  Harry Jacobs on 2006-07-10 07:19:57 +0000

• You could ask to join the Cole Park CPZ rather than the St Margarets South. That way, at least, the overspill could freely go onto Cole Park Road. It should certainly be in the consultation.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-07-10 16:40:55 +0000

• With despair I read the note re CPZ's. Why cannot these wretched people realize the seriousness of the problem and react. It is unfortunate that the only remedy residents have is withdrawal of the Council Tax which results in jail.

  We remain in a situation where it doesn't matter which party is in control as no one is interested and they have no control whatsoever over the LB of R.

  John on 2006-07-10 17:58:32 +0000

• Sorry Trevor if your comment is aimed at what I wrote, you've lost me? I don't understand what you mean - could you explain please. Thanks.

  Harry Jacobs on 2006-07-10 17:59:07 +0000

• In response to Harry, my comment was general and not solely related to his posting. There will be a loss of parking spaces with a CPZ. If there are still too many cars in the evening, then the overspill could go to Cole Park Road which is the only nearby area with space. If Moormead was part of the Cole Park Road CPZ then residents would not have to move their cars before 8.30 am. John is wrong, in that without a change of rules in 2002 there would have been a consultation in the last four years.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-07-10 22:25:49 +0000

• Thanks for the explanation. As I mentioned above, there were no parking spaces lost in Broadway Avenue, and just for reference the 'S' zone doesn't start until 1000am. However I think that your suggestion that if Moormead went CPZ , it should be in the Cole Park Road Zone is a good one. It would prevent 'S'zone people (like ourselves) pushing into Moormead territory in the evenings. I think the Moormead area particularly gets a bad deal with traffic using the business centre by day and their parking problems by night. But as Carol Townsend says we've reached the point of 'all or nothing' - and like her I think it should be 'all'.

  Harry Jacobs on 2006-07-11 08:59:09 +0000

• Harry, I think people will find spaces will be lost if the Moormead area generally were to become a CPZ. The areas around corners will be particularly affected if ordinary DoT standards are applied. The usual length of yellow lines around corners for example is, I think, five metres, whereas people currently park within a metre or less. That would be thirty spaces lost immediately. So, before agreeing to a CPZ, the first task of residents and councillors has to be to try to find evidence to suggest that shorter sections of yellow lines around corners are still safe in this area (e.g. sufficient to enable a fire tender to get past). This may be possible for the one-way streets, but the two-way streets are a problem. It may be easier if a 20 mph speed limit applies, too.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-07-11 13:36:46 +0000

• I agree with Carol & Maev, why should a large road like Cole Park Road be a 24hr CPZ, when nearly every house has off street parking, it should have the same hours as Broadway Ave, this would then enable the residents of the nearby roads to find parking spaces overnight,like in Broadway Ave, this way there would be no need for a blanket CPZ in the Moormead area, at a rough estimate you could then find overnight space for approx 40-50 cars, this would solve the problem, at least for the short term until we, as one of the largest council tax payers in the UK, make our councillers work harder to find a permanent solution.

  alsie on 2006-07-14 22:16:50 +0000

• Can you legally force a chnage of hours on the Cole Park Road CPZ? Something for councillors, but I doubt it unless, with a review of hours the residents there agree. Geoff Acton may know, but if you can't beat them join them.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-07-16 21:15:35 +0000

• I think Trevors suggestion of joining the Cole Park Rd CPZ is a good one and I shall ensure it amongst others is thoroughly investigated at the right time.

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2006-07-19 17:47:51 +0000

• You'll remember what we learned from Mike Rowlands' research the last time the Council considered implementing yellow lines on corners in St Mgts. He calculated that 83 parking spaces would be lost. This would be disastrous late at night when, on occasion, we have to park the other side of the A316. (Yes, time was when we could park on Cole Park Rd, if desperate, and walk home across the Mead). Given the level of vexation in the community, no decision should be taken unless it's the right one - which is impossible unless a thorough survey is carried out. This is why, after the end-March parking meeting at Winchester Hall, 23 residents volunteered to form a task force to monitor the situation over a month. We then came up with a plan to issue un-photocopiable/unscannable paper disks for residents to place on their dashboards, which would enable monitors to distinguish betwen residents' and non-residents' vehicles. Hower, this was deemed unworkable by the Council, who were concerned that residents' impartialiality couldn't be guaranteed, leaving open the possibility that they might deliberately miscount in the interests of their own agendas. So, in order to be valid, a survey has to be conducted by Council employees. This, as we know from experience, is never thorough enough: they don't live here, are not as motivated as we are to get to the root of the problem, and are unlikely to apply the same rigour and vigour, especially late at night. Nonetheless, a thorough survey remains what's required. Only then will we know definitively whether CPZ throughout the area is or isn't the solution.

  Hilary Ivory on 2006-07-22 09:43:16 +0000

• I agree totally with Hilary's comments with regard to analysing the problem before effecting the cure, and the way that surveys have been carried out by the council.

  With regard to losing spaces on corners. Various outer London Boroughs (Harrow and Barnet for example) have similar problems. Their solution has been to 'double yellow line' corners to exclude only one parked vehicle per corner of each road. They've obviously had no problems with the D.o.T.

  Assuming a CPZ covering all roads North of St Margarets Station, up to the A316 and finishing at the Hillview Road junction with Cole Park Road - there would be a lose of apx 42 spaces.

  With all our local narrow roads, many of these junctions currently can be difficult to negotiate for cars - let alone larger vehicles. I know that we'd like to deter these larger vehicles, but in practice they don't seem put off by cars parked on corners.

  As Hilary correctly suggests, the first step has to be to go back to basics and investigate who actually make up the car parking populations, and forget our own and the council's assumptions.

  Harry Jacobs on 2006-07-25 15:52:58 +0000

• Here in Orchard Road we are planning to go ahead with the exercise that Hilary suggested at the March meeting of colour cards in cars to identify which cars belong to residents. The parking situation has become so bad that people are arguing and becoming fairly violent - I witnessed one agressive argument last week between a neighbour and a mini cab driver from Apex Cars.

  Any CPZ on the other side of the A316 will drive more parking this way - we know that on most days there are at least 15 cars belonging to staff from A C Nielsen, Globe and Apex Cars as well as commuters who cannot park closer to the station - it is a long narrow cul de sac with limited turning space - the situation has become impossible.

  Can I suggest that the council might actually address the CPZ issue slightly faster if we all regularly inform council officers of quite how bad it acutally is - the main man there is Trevor Pugh ( t.pugh@richmond.gov.uk) perhaps he might prioritise the issue if he is faced with a daily reminder from the residents who he is meant to be working for?

  karen on 2006-09-30 13:31:57 +0000

• 'On-Street Parking Programme 2006/07, 2007/08 And 2008/09 Including Controlled Parking Zone Studies 2006/07' is up for approval at the Cabinet meeting on Monday October 9 [http://tinyurl.com/qtzuo]. It says:

  ' . . Following the review of CPZ policies, reported to Cabinet on 17 July 2006, it is considered appropriate to consider additional schemes . . A revised 2006/07 programme is shown in Appendix A, which includes the three previously approved studies . . along with the following areas, which have been identified as areas that are suffering the most acute parking problems:- . . * St Margarets . . Extensive consultation will be carried out with residents/businesses in each of the proposed study areas and the results will be reported to the Transport Consultative Group.'

  It doesn't say when the consultation will start or how wide an area it will cover. Appendix A gives the cost as £110k and the income as £20k in 2007/08 and £10k in 2008/09 [assuming a CPZ is agreed, which may not happen]. See also S.5 which says: 'Within six years the additional income will have paid for the entire costs of these schemes.'

  Chris Squire on 2006-10-05 18:53:38 +0000