I hope all of you who are concerned about the spread of CPZ in St Margarets read this so you know what is happening currently. I was informed the night two nights ago that the council would be holding an unpublicised meeting on 4 December, 7PM, Winchester Hall, St Margarets at which the street and signage design of a “trial consultation” in a newly proposed CPZ in St Margarets would be decided by “invited” residents.
As you may know, last summer the council sent a questionnaire to all of the households in the originally proposed CPZ in St. Margarets. 65% of household voted against the CPZ and 36.8% said they wanted it.
Nonetheless, Councillor Trigg unilaterally (without any consultation with residents) decided that the original zone would be subdivided forming a new zone which would include a large proportion of streets that had voted for CPZ, but also embedded in that new zone would be streets that had voted resoundingly against it. And, that this newly proposed zone would be the subject of a trial CPZ consultation. There was no formal communication regarding this decision to anyone residing either in the new zone or to the remaining households who formed the rest of the originally proposed zone.
The meeting last night was by invitation, and was not publicised to the general public in any way. Before the meeting, I rang Chris Smith (Section Manager at the Environment Directorate) and he could not confirm how the invited guests had been selected. I also spoke to Councillor Khosa who confirmed that in spite of the overwhelmingly negative response to the original consultation it had been decided to go forward with a trial consultation in this newly formed zone, and that affected residents had not yet been formally informed of this decision. He further confirmed that the invited guests include “street representatives” from the new zone - the council has invited 3 people from each of the affected streets - 2 (two) in favour of CPZ and 1 (one) against. No effort had been made to contact any residents in streets adjacent to the new zone regarding this meeting, though apparently some people who live in the adjacent streets and who have contacted the council to express their concerns had been invited to the meeting.
The meeting last night was indeed confrontational. The majority of people in attendance were against the newly proposed CPZ and were livid at the Council’s lack of transparency in their handling of this process. The meeting lasted for an hour and a half, and all but ten minutes of it was filled with residents’ complaints about the Council’s gross mishandling, ineptitude and lack of communication with affected residents.
By subdividing the original zone the Council intends to ramrod zoned parking down the throats of the residents of St. Margarets. And, before going forward with this next phase of the consultation, they refuse to look at the real root problems of parking in the area.
Interestingly, last night when asked how many of the 50 (approximate) attendees had been invited by the Council, about 17 people raised their hands. Then, immediately thereafter, when asked how many people present were in favour of the CPZ, all but two of the previous group raised their hands. The Council is clearly only engaging with residents who are in favour of CPZ in this stage of the consultation.
The Council has now decided to convene another unpublicised meeting with invited residents at 7pm on Thursday, 13 December, in the Council Chamber at York House. Only the “design” of the “trial” zone (where the lines and signs will go) is on the agenda. Be there if you can to stop this abuse, whether or not you live in the new trial zone. Or write to David Trigg, Cabinet Member for Transport Traffice and Parking, Civic Centre, 44 York Street, Twickenham. It could be your road next!
– from Kim Thomas
Comments
New readers may wish to look at 'CPZ Results Published' at: www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2007/07/cpz_results_published.html to see the result of the survey. Most streets were clearly against but 6 were in favour:
'Bridge Road 54%; Broadway Avenue 89%; Kenley Road 67%; Winchester Road 73%; Orchard Road 54%; St Peters Road 70%; Cumberland Close 55%'
The Council is trying to find a way of helping residents in these streets, which the ward councillors promised to do at the last election. Residents of other roads may prefer the status quo but they should at least try to understand the point of view of those who have been asking for a CPZ for many years.
Chris Squire on 2007-12-07 11:01:31 +0000The St Peters Road statistic interests me. I thought that most houses on that road had driveways. Checking with Google Maps: tinyurl.com/2×5mdb this certainly seems to be the case. I wonder why this road voted in favour of a CPZ?
Nigel Perkins on 2007-12-07 12:46:33 +0000Railshead Road has also voted for a CPZ and like St Peters Road has been denied inclusion to stage 2 consultation.
Many of the properties in St Peters Road have adequate off street parking but commuter parking to often makes the driveways inaccessible. Unfortunately the images on google have been captured early morning, most likely at an weekend. (no sign of activity on the Brunel site, Old Deer Park Car Park fairly empty and football players on pitches on the Old Deer Park.) An image taken around 10am Weekdays would probably reveal the reason for St Peters Road voting for a CPZ.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-07 14:19:23 +0000Well speaking as someone who has lived for several years now in a local CPZ, this is only history repeating itself with the Lib Dems. The residents of my CPZ were canvassed for their views beforehand but the results of the consultation were never made available, despite several of us asking for them.
Indeed all requests, in writing, to ward councillors and the planners, for information about how the consultation had been carried out, what were the the results of the voting and the background to the decision to make our area into a CPZ, were totally ignored. Trying to phone the councillors concerned just got you an answerphone message and they never got back to you.
It was not long afterwards that two Conservative councillors were elected locally.
Ken Livingstone has discovered that while having a consultation might be a legal requirement there is no similar legal requirement to take account of the result if you don't like it, hence the new Congestion Zone in West London, soundly opposed by the majority of local residents in two polls.
Ken L keeps saying if you don't like what I am doing vote me out. Maybe Councillor Twigg needs reminding of this. I suspect he is being "wound up" by the planners who seem to have the upper hand over Councillors in many areas.
I take it the story is going to reach the local press?
Regarding St Peter's Road, it must be a very specific local problem - commuters parking. I had occasion to visit Ailsa Road for several weeks in succession two or three times a week, recently and it did not seem very congested to me. As you say nearly all the houses around there have parking bays and some have garages.
Hazelle Jackson on 2007-12-07 14:40:56 +0000The Google map link in my previous post seems to have become corrupted, here it is again in full:
maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=st+peter's+road,+twickenham,+uk&sll=51.462253,-0.584844&sspn=0.009612,0.012832&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&ll=51.460461,-0.317136&spn=0.001202,0.001604&z=19&iwloc=addr
The purpose of checking Google Maps was to see if my belief that the majority of houses on this street had driveways was correct -- the images seem to back this up. I also question the assertion that it is commuter parking that is the problem on streets such as this. I have had to park on St Peter's road and neighbouring streets on numerous occasions when I've been unable to park on my own street (which unfortunately doesn't have any off-street parking facilities). So maybe my legally and considerately parked 'residents' vehicle has incorrectly been assessed as a 'commuter' vehicle?
But to address the original point -- I believe that the behaviour of our elected councillors in this regard has been disgraceful if these reports are accurate. Maybe I'm being naively idealistic but the councillors are elected by us to represent us -- not to do as they please with total disregard for the community.
Nigel Perkins on 2007-12-07 17:04:51 +0000The St Margarets page on the Twickenham Lib Dem website [http://www.richmond.libdems.org.uk/pages/smnt.html] states: ' . . The next stage is for this information to be assembled into some zoning by the traffic engineers and with the help of a local representative working party the proposals will be put to residents as a second consultation in the near future. It needs to be emphasised that there is no intention to impose a CPZ on any road where there is a majority against it.'
It is unfortunate that the Comments from which this is taken has been delayed so that residents have not yet received it. Nonetheless it seems plain enough. I believe that Kim Thomas lives in Orchard Road, which voted in favour of a CPZ [yes = 54 %] so it is not surprising that her road is included in the second round.
The Council website describes the 2nd stage consultation thus:
'Stage 2 A consultation document and questionnaire is sent to residents and businesses within the revised consultation boundary. Residents have 21 days to respond. The Council analyses the responses to decide on the need for controls in the area. The Council reports the results to the ward councillors and then to the TCG. Based on the results and Council officers recommendations, the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking either approves or decides against the statutory consultation (formal advertisement). If the statutory consultation is approved, the proposals are formally advertised (posters on lighting columns and an advertisement in the Richmond and Twickenham Times). Members of the public are invited to write in within 21 days and all representations are reported to the next scheduled meeting of the TCG. A Cabinet Member considers all feedback before making a decision on whether or not to implement the controlled parking zone. If it is decided to implement the controlled parking zone, the traffic orders will be amended, which can take up to 21 days to complete. Implementation takes place within 2 months of the traffic orders being completed. If it is decided not to implement the controlled parking zone, no further action will be taken; the project is closed.'
See diagram at: www.richmond.gov.uk/first_and_second_stage_consultation_process.pdf
I hope this reassure residents that the Council is not 'ram-rodding' a CPZ down their throats but attempting, slowly and clumsily, to arrive at a solution which will work and will supply 'the greatest possible good to the greatest possible number.'
Chris Squire on 2007-12-08 01:33:30 +0000Christopher, you might ask the people who live on South Western Road and St Margarets Grove how they feel about this? They voted firmly AGAINST CPZ for their road and they are to be included in the Stage 2 consultation. Is this democracy in action? I should say not! The truth is that CPZ will only make the parking situation in St. Margaret's worse - parking spaces will be lost by the imposition of CPZ. I urge you to come to the meeting next Wednesday when its design is discussed. I trust Chris Smith will repeat what he said in the meeting earlier this week - there will be fewer parking spaces under CPZ. What St. Margaret's needs is a car park where visitors can pay to park so they can shop and support our local businesses. And finally to suggest that the Council is merely slow and clumsy is utter nonsense, just take a look at the facts! The process thus far has been undemocratic and conducted without transparency.
Kim Thomas on 2007-12-08 21:07:11 +0000The reason SW Road and St Margarets Grove are included is to give them the opportunity to change their minds and come into the CPZ when they realise that it is likely to go ahead anyway. Experience shows that streets often do change their mind in these circumstances. They cannot stop a CPZ going ahead in Winchester Road, however much they might wish to to be able to. So their 'least worst' course of action may well be to join the CPZ and to push the problem of parking by outsiders onto someone else. A CPZ is simply a scheme to enable the residents of a particular street to privatise the parking on that street to exclude everybody else.
The idea of a new car park is pure fantasy. Where? Who would pay for it? Council policy is in any case to discourage the use of private motor vehicles for shopping.
I agree that ' . . [a] CPZ will only make the parking situation in St. Margaret's worse - parking spaces will be lost . .'. However others do not; it is they who you have to convince.
Chris Squire on 2007-12-08 22:25:50 +0000I attended the Area Consultation meeting at York House on 9th October 07 & was surprised to learn that the CPZ survey for Cole Park Road was only whether they wished to be included in the new St Margarets & N Twickenham CPZ & not if they wanted to remain a CPZ!! Does anyone from Cole Park Road still have a copy of the survey for comparison? Also of interest is Item D from the minutes of the Area Consultation meeting on 16th April 07 as this was before the initial consultation. CPZ's destroy community, isolate the elderly & infirm, as they make it far more difficult for anyone to just drop in for a coffee & a chat or to offer lifts. Also they do not solve the current parking & van delivery problems. Apparently according to Cllr Morgan anyone can park in Cole Park Road when the CPZ is not in operation i.e. overnight, maybe this is how we solve the current overnight parking problem, it's not that far to walk & there's always plenty of space. Also why should we allow the Council to sell our streets to National Car Parks (NCP)?
L A Hall on 2007-12-09 12:08:41 +0000Apologies for my apparent ignorance but are we talking about an extension to the existing St Margarets CPZ (Zone S) or would this be a new zone?
Mike Dormer on 2007-12-10 13:53:36 +0000Mike, a good question! It took me a while to find the answer in print. LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE GROUP DATE: 18 July 2007 REPORT OF: HEAD OF TRANSPORT PLANNING SERVICE LEAD OFFICER: Mervin Bartlett SUBJECT: ST MARGARETS PARKING STUDY ............ ....... For general release
Further on in the report it says
As clear as mud?
There is however one concelation for council tax payers. A large chunk of the £81,000 will not be spend as only one road north of the A316 is going to be included in the "extended" or newly "implemented" CPZ. At least for the time being.
It will be needed in the not to distant future for a new consultation that will have to be entered in to when commuters filter into roads north of the A316 and overflow parking from the large private development (brunel university site) will invade the adjacent roads to the south and west.
The money may even be spend earlier to make roads safe that are not a CPZ. It is not acceptable that implementation of road safety depends on whether a road is a CPZ or not.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-11 01:31:27 +0000So, we have from the Lib Dems (quote): "It needs to be emphasised that there is no intention to impose a CPZ on any road where there is a majority against it."
Given the results of the CPZ survey, we now see if the Lib Dems can tell the truth, or ignore those who they serve. The handling of this appears not impartial, but against those who vote for no CPZ.
Backing this up, I notice that 54% is given twice as "clearly voted yes" on the results page. Is 46% a clear minority, then?. I do not think these are responsibly described stats. Who is my voice in the Council?
I echo the road safety dependency on a CPZ. What manner of bribery is this? Your Child's safety only matters if you implement a CPZ, otherwise they can run the gauntlet? Draw your own conclusions there...
(non-CPZ voting Gordon Avenue resident).
Ian Rouse on 2007-12-21 10:23:37 +0000