“Some residents of Sidney Road are distributing a flier in our street summarising why we believe we cannot afford to miss out on this opportunity to become a controlled parking zone. Perhaps residents of other streets in the consultation area may be interested in our reasoning.”
– from Carolyn Townsend
Why we need to say ‘YES’ to CPZ
We are sick and tired of the parking problems in our road. And we are increasingly sick and tired of people who don’t live within the area of the CPZ consultation actively campaigning to persuade those who do live here to vote against the implementation of a controlled parking zone, presumably to safeguard their own green and pleasant streets from the knock-on effect of non-residents displaced from parking in our roads leaving their cars in theirs.
If you haven’t already returned your consultation voting form, consider this…
- Property prices will be affected Without a CPZ in an area where parking is difficult and where adjacent roads do have controlled parking, the value of your property is likely to be adversely affected, so even if you have off-street parking or don’t own a car this issue does affect you
- Parking problems will worsen With several adjacent roads already committed to the implementation of the CPZ, our parking problems are certain to increase
- CPZ works in Broadway The argument that the CPZ will not improve parking problems at night because it only operates during the day is unproven - how many times have you passed empty spaces in Broadway Avenue (which has a daytime CPZ) in the evening when our road has none?
- Increase in 2nd car parking We know that some St Margarets residents who do have a CPZ in their street park second cars in Sidney Road to avoid paying for a second permit: these cars contribute to the evening parking problem and such practice would certainly increase when more neighbouring roads have a CPZ
- Greater security Patrols monitoring CPZ enforcement will provide an increased security presence on our streets
- Improved road safety Once commuters and other non-residents know that free parking is no longer to be had in our street, we should experience a reduction in road traffic
- Council says CPZs work The odds in favour of finding a parking space in Sidney Road should improve greatly: in the unlikely event that they don’t, we have the option of asking for the zone to be removed after the trial period (something which the council tell us has never been requested as all areas where CPZs have been introduced to date have wanted to keep them).
Finally… Sidney Road is beautiful - don’t let it be turned into a car park! We are fortunate in that, should Sidney Road residents vote against the CPZ, we have a garden we are able to turn from a lovely green oasis into an ugly parking space and so solve our parking problem. And we understand our neighbours may do likewise. Of course, this will not only detract from the visual appeal of Sidney Road, it will also make fewer spaces available for residents without this option. We truly hope it doesn’t come to this.
VOTE YES FOR A CPZ IN SIDNEY ROAD
Peter, Rosie, Clare, David, Carol, Rob.
Comments
Good for the pro CPZ residents in Sydney Road. I live in Winchester Road and we are in real need of the CPZ. Agree with all their comments. I have recently tried to park in a road in North London which has just been turned into a CPZ. At 7.30 in the morning it was half empty whereas before it was almost invariably full. CPZ works for residents !
Stuart Vernon on 2008-05-15 19:24:32 +0000I live in Winchester Road and am very much in favour of a CPZ. I agree with the residents of Sidney Road and would also like to point out that with the introduction of the yellow lines on some corners, parking has become even more dangerous elsewhere. It is difficult to see to cross the road with cars squeezed into every available parking space and on every corner even with white lines. Something has to be done and I think a CPZ is the answer. It works everywhere else.
Caroline Gardener on 2008-05-15 19:49:50 +0000I posted a shorter version of this under the 'CPZ Meeting' story last night: 'Residents wishing to comment on the results of the consultation should get hold of 'Controlled Parking Zone Policy' issued in June 2006 from tinyurl.com/3znofl and study paras 3.7 to 3.17, which define the current practice which Cllr David Trigg and his officers must follow. The key points are:
'3.10 It is proposed to remove the requirement to meet set minimum response percentages in
 order to progress a CPZ. The intention of these was to restrict CPZ work to areas where 
there was overwhelming support. However, in practice this approach is inflexible. For
 example it tends to count abstentions as against and may not take sufficient account of
 strong support in a small, defined locality within a larger consultation area.
3.11 The current policy involves a two stage consultation process prior to traffic order advertisement. Results of the "1st stage" consultation establishes the initial level of support for a CPZ within the consultation area. The current criteria require a minimum of over 50% to be in favour of a CPZ (however wide the consultation area) and also a minimum of 30% of the total number consulted to be returned. If these minima are achieved, a "2nd stage" consultation is carried out (not necessarily within the whole of the previous consultation area) which requires a slightly increased support for a CPZ - again a minimum of over 50% to be in favour of a CPZ but at this stage the figure has to also be a minimum of 33% of the total number consulted to be returned.
3.12 The new approach proposes that at analysis stage of each consultation (both 1st and 2nd stage) the decision by the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking should be based on consideration of the response rate, the level of support among those responding in each road and within a viable area finally considered for a CPZ and congestion and road safety conditions. There will be no set numeric thresholds as such.'
So abstentions are no longer counted as 'against' and those in favour have to get the votes of at least 33 % of all residents. The moral is: use your vote and encourage your neighbours to do the same!
This Policy, though carefully written, has gaps in it; the critical one is: do these rules apply to the consultation area as a whole only or each road as an entity or indeed to parts of a road only, as was suggested in Cllr Marlow's statement to the meeting? I read para 3.11 as implying that they apply to the area as a whole. However 3.10 makes it clear that one purpose of the new policy was to facilitate introducing CPZs in a 'small, defined locality within a larger consultation area.' '
It is a pity that this uncertainty was not cleared up at the two public meetings between stages 1 and 2 of the consultation.
Posted by: Christopher Squire | May 15, 2008 8:47 PM
Chris Squire on 2008-05-15 20:49:46 +0000The flier should convince some residents that have not yet made up their mind to vote for inclusion in the proposed CPZ. I hope commen sense will prevail!
Cllr David Trigg and his officers have already demonstrated how they interpret 3.10 of the "Controlled Parking Zone Policy" by excluding St Peters Road from the stage 2 consultation.
Questionaires Sent 34; Questionaires Received 23; Response Rate 68%; Yes 16 - 70%; No 6 - 26%; No Preference 1; 4%.
Did St Peters Road satisfy the criteria to be included in the stage 2 consultation?
I think it did.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-05-16 01:57:29 +0000Concur with all the above. Good arguments. Am In full support of CPZ in Sidney Rd.
GRAEME on 2008-05-16 07:39:31 +0000Firstly, Thankyou to all who came to our meeting and for warm and generous support. I am not about to argue semantics here about whether there is a space outside your door or not. I hope people would see beyond that (indeed, beyond Broadway Av) and examine the wider agenda: EEC/Central/Local government policy to 'ease congestion'. How else to do this but by encouraging alternatives (costs)and REDUCING CAR OWNERSHIP - hardly a vote winner. I have yet to meet the person who critizises others car use yet unable to justify their own. So how to reduce car ownership- by making it difficult and expensive to own a car - taxes, enforcing draconian and complex parking restrictions, exercising greater control over the roads with traffic engineering. The insidious creeping nature of a CPZ -selling you a parking scheme puporting to be for your benefit. The commuter today - You tomorrow. If I may quote -
"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost impercetible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed untilo past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed" - ALOPH HITLER.
Mary on 2008-05-16 08:42:06 +0000I used to live in Kenley Road and can agree with everyone's views about the parking difficulties, however I now live in a CPZ in Twickenham and can say catagorically that this does not work either. It costs an arm and a leg for a permit, now based on your co2 emmissions which still doesn't guarantee a space. Most of the time I have to park in other roads due to too many cars. In fact, the council have confirmed that 85 permits in my road have been granted for just 55 spaces. I can't see that the situation will be any different in your roads. I would strongly recommend that you reject the proposals.
Paul Edwards on 2008-05-16 09:11:13 +0000We will lose 7 parking spaces in South Western Rd so it is comforting to know that as the errant commuters have been forced out of Winchester Rd we will be able to move in . You will gain nothing with this insidious control tax
Jill Taunton on 2008-05-16 18:56:49 +0000Well done the Sidney Roaders. Two pro CPZ leaflets have been distributed in Bridge road and, I believe, in Winchester Road.
The hectoring tone of some of the speakers on Wednesday was not at all edifying but it was useful to hear the party political broadcast from the platform, all of whom were on first name terms.
I would much rather pay to have some chance of parking somewhere close to my house rather than having to park in the CPZ and, like a speaker on Wednesday, pick up a ticket when I forget to move the car before I WALK to work.
Ian on 2008-05-17 10:15:11 +0000If the CPZ operates only between 9.30am and 4.30pm, how on earth will that affect the number of cars parked on the road in the evening? My partner works at home and there are always many spaces free in the day. The time when we all really struggle to park is late on Sunday evening. These people must surely be residents at that time so why does anyone believe that the number of cars will decrease! I have seen no independent evidence that CPZs (or lack thereof) affects property prices. Does anyway really believe that someone paying the highest council tax rates in the country would park their second car away from their house to save £80 a year? I am afraid, having previously lived in a CPZ area, that the number of cars that can park will be reduced significantly with a CPZ and if you are returning late you could end up parking further away than currently. Finally, I agree that Sidney Road is beautiful but I would have thought that painting white lines on the road would make it look more like a car park.
The problem with this consultation is that the council continue to ask the rather absurd question as to whether you would want a CPZ if adjoining roads got one. Clearly for most people, the answer would be yes but the implementation should not have been proposed on a road by road basis but rather by the whole area, i/e we all have CPZ or not at all.
Sidney Road resident on 2008-05-19 14:43:09 +0000I just cracked up at this part of the argument:
>> Greater security Patrols monitoring CPZ enforcement will provide an increased security presence on our streets
At least the CPZ will force those pesky terrorists out! Like a traffic warden would ever do anything outside his job-contract. A true sign of the times!
Ed on 2008-05-19 22:34:09 +0000Gerhard,
Of course St.Peter's Road voted in favour of a CPZ. Just check the aerial view from Multimap.com (who have recently increased their maximum resolution nicely).
I don't think there's a single house there that doesn't already have the benefit of off-street parking; No-one who lives there is going to want any riff-raff parking outside their £2m+ homes if they can possibly prevent it, especially without it costing them a penny!
Count the number of cars parked in St.Peter's Road (at the time that photograph was taken - I make a presumption that aerial photographers work a similar week to the rest of us!) - I make it about 16 cars parked there in total (perhaps there are a few hiding under the trees). Compare that with South Western, St.Margaret's Grove, or any other road in the Moor Mead area. You simply don't have an issue!
Ed
Ed on 2008-05-19 22:50:00 +0000Ed,
Look and learn!
Go back to Multimap, St Peters Road and pan south-east to the Old Deer Car Park, Richmond Station Car Park and Richmond Green. The Car Parks and the Road circling The Green are virtually void of parked Cars.
Can we agree that the images where taken well before commuters decend on St Margarets and Richmond, probably about 6am?
The 16 cars you counted are most probably owned by St Peters Road Residents that do not use their off Street parking for fear of their drives being blocked by inconsiderate commuter parking.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-05-20 00:33:51 +0000The shadows show that the images were taken c. 0630 GMT = 0730 BST [as the trees are in leaf]. It was I think a weekend morning, as the traffic on the Chertsey Rd is very light and there is no-one at Twickenham station. However the images are very detailed, I agree. Following the links, I discover:
'Getmapping has created the most comprehensive and detailed aerial photographic survey of the UK, called the Millennium Mapâ„¢ . . a complete and seamless high definition aerial photograph of the UK. [It] is flown at an average resolution of 15cm per pixel [and to] to the most demanding professional standards in full stereo (which means that accurate height information can be derived from the photography [It] is also fully rectified so that it is geographically accurate to within 1 metre.' More at: www1.getmapping.com
Chris Squire on 2008-05-20 11:36:06 +0000Yes I concede, you're right, it looks like it was taken rather early; Aerial photographers perhaps all do their work rather early - all the other aerial mappings I could find (maps.google.com, www.192.com,, maps.live.com) also show an empty Old Deer Park car park, so rather out of luck there.
Ed
Ed on 2008-05-20 18:08:43 +0000Try www.map24.co.uk which has a different set of photographs. The car parks are full, there is a reasonable amount of traffic around, yet still St.Peter's and St.George's roads are hardly choked with parked cars. Weekend? I think I'll leave mine over there if we get a CPZ ;-).
Ed
Ed on 2008-05-20 18:22:25 +0000Ed, tried map24, yes, more cars in the Car Parks but they are a long way from full (Queen Charlotts Hall Car Park at the eastern end of the Old Deer Park Car Park is still empty). Weekend? Don`t think so, not enough activity on the Old Deer Park and Athletic Ground or Golf Course.
It looks as if all the satellite images are captured before the morning rush hour. Because of pollution later in the day perhaps???
Anyhow, the images on most of the sites are taken prior to 2000- 2001. The only site that has later date images is Google Earth in about 2005.
Evidence: Brunel University still operational until 2003. Only Google Earth shows the University gone and the Richmond Lock Development well on the way.
You say that you might leave your car in St Peters Road if the CPZ is installed. Probably tongue in cheek, but makes me wonder if there are any residents from the existing CPZ that leave their cars in the current consultation area!? They would all join you and the real commuters and migrate north of the A316! (The anonimous Sidney Road resident thinks that no local residents would park their 2nd car outside the CPZ to avoid paying for a permit)
Finally, I think the presence of patrols in CPZ areas will increase security. My opinion regarding the men and woman carrying out the work on behalf of residents within a CPZ is not as negative as yours Ed.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-05-21 12:24:16 +0000In response to the Sidney Road Residents Flyer (my 2 pence worth)
Property prices will be affected What statistics are available to back up this claim. Personally I prefer streets not cluttered with while lines, signs, and parking wardens.
Parking problems will worsen If adjacent roads commit to the implementation of the CPZ the quantity of residents cars is not likely to decrease, so regardless of the CPZ they will attempt to park anywhere they can.
CPZ works in Broadway If you look at the available parking spaces for residents against the quantity of properties on this road, it is easy to see why this street is not as populated as others.
*Increase in 2nd car parking* Do you really believe that St Margarets residents who do have a CPZ in their street park second cars in Sidney Road to avoid paying for a second permit. I would offer the assumption that it is the insufficient spaces in their own CPZ road that cause the parking overspill.
Greater security A few parking wardens aren't really going to impact the security in our area. Wardens collect money for the council, police or community constables are there to keep our area safe.
Improved road safety I obviously do appreciate that road safety is important to everyone in the area and if there were hundreds of commuters clogging our streets I could agree with this. In reality I think the number is considerably less and the impact of commuter traffic parking in the area negligible.
Council says CPZs work Not to be to cynical here, but that's because they make money for the council. To state that the council would remove the CPZ after a trial period is fantasy. If the council don't want to remove the CPZ (why would they) then surely they will make it as difficult as possible to do so. Hence the reason why no other area's with CPZ's have been able to do so in the past.
I agree that parking in St Margarets is a problem but the CPZ will not solve it. We will just end up paying money for the privilege of not being able to find a park. The council get enough of my money, I don't fancy having to pay more.
St Margarets Grove Resident on 2008-05-22 15:06:45 +0000Add a comment