We condemn the decision confirmed at the recent meeting of the Richmond Council’s Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee to include two more roads in the St Margarets’ CPZ because:
- It defies all normally understood principles of democracy that a majority in these two roads of only 13 votes can trump over 300 against in the consultation area.
- It undermines the purpose of a consultation that confusing information on procedures is given on the Council’s website and in its literature.
- It compromises the electoral process that inadequate figures were available on which voters could base their decision, e.g. the Council’s Beat Survey, giving the full facts on vehicles parked at different times in the area was withheld (this showed that night time parking was worse than daytime, so residents will be paying for nothing).
- In makes a mockery of the consultation that the Council’s database of addresses is flawed, so that a business park, some flats and users of a service road adjacent to the new CPZ extension were left out. Consulting them now is calculated to force them into the CPZ, when instead the whole exercise should have been declared invalid.
- It is indicative of the Council’s attitude to accuracy that the committee Char, Cllr Mumford, should joke that a questionnaire was sent to a bus stop in the Teddington CPZ consultation last year.
- It is absurd that representations from a single resident that a further road should be included in the CPZ (with a majority of only one, originally considered insufficient by the Council) should receive sympathy and an assurance of an early review, when serious concerns expressed by eight residents who spoke strongly against the CPZ were largely dismissed.
- It is unacceptable that the Lib Dem majority on the committee should be satisfied with assurances from David Trigg, Cllr for Transport, and from Council officials, that all requirement had been met, when clearly they hadn’t.
We thank Cllrs Head and Hodgins for challenging the decision on our behalf, and Cllr Seymour, Vice-Chair of the committee, for supporting us.
– Statement issued by the St Margarets Parking Association
What the planners and residents fail to realise is that partial zoning has the effect of putting further pressure on those streets which are outside the CPZ. My own road Sidney is a good example. There has been a large Black and White van parking in Sidney for two weeks together with the usual rag bag of Darling trucks, commuter cars and people using Tesco.John on 2008-07-26 07:50:55 +0000
The single resident of Sidney Road who spoke and achieved the commitment to a review for that road, probably impressed the council with the force of his argument - that a majority of one is still a majority. Combine that with the fact that he is a resident of the road and hence directly impacted, sounds to me like his argument won the day, rather than sympathy!Mike Ainger on 2008-07-26 11:37:42 +0000
Most people realise now that the Council is the major beneficiary of CPZ schemes,& why it is their intent that the entire borough be a CPZ !!Meantime, those able to, will create off-street parking thereby pretty soft-edged front gardens which positively support wild life will disappear & StMargaret's will join the other characterless suburban sprawls. Personalised cross-overs make matters worse as it reduces further potential parking space. 50% of those people generally leave their driveways free! The outcome of StM's CPZ issue is sadly another example of how seriously UNdemocratic decision making is in the UK. It does effectively distract people from the even more serious issues in life which are currently being 'tinkered' with...perhaps that's by design?Annie Hambidge on 2008-07-28 19:14:57 +0000
The "call in" was made on behalf of the "St Margarets Parking Association" ???? Should it not be called the "St Margarets anti CPZ Association???? Or perhaps the "St Margarets Friends of Commuter Parking Association"!!!!
Question 1 on the consultation paper was: "Do you want the proposed CPZ to include your road?"
It is insulting to suggest that residents do not know how to answer without having the benefit of figures generated and published by the council. Particularly when the author of the post call in statement then goes on to say that the councils data base is flawed. (A statement I agree with but I am sure that when it comes to collecting council tax no household or business premises get missed out!) For Kilmorey Gardens 41 questionaires where send out and the number of households/properties is 57.
Kilmorey Road 6 questionaires send out, the number of properties is 10.
The next Road to the north, Railshead Road, 26 questionaires send and the actual number of residences, offices and businesses is 71. I got the Railshead Road number from the planning officers report attached to planning application Ref: 06/3530/FUL published on Jan. 16th 2007.
As I did not attend the meeting I am unable to say whether the 2 Roads that got excluded from the stage 2 consultation despite having voted in favour of inclusion of the proposed CPZ. Railshead Road 100%, St Peters Road 70%.
A little more research by the 2 councillors would have beefed up the call in to show that they are acting in the interest of all St Margarets residents and not just for the St Margarets Parking Association wich is to date anonymous.
My comment on the three comments posted so far:
John is wrong if he believes that residents and planners are not aware of the consequences of any form of CPZ. When commuters are driven out of one Road by a CPZ they will move to the nearest Road outside the CPZ.
Mike is right, a majority of only one is a majority and be recognised without a resident making a representation in person.
Annie is wrong, the main beneficiarys in any CPZ are the residents that live in the zone and no longer have to compete for parking places with commuters. She has in the past as councillor insisted on the provision of off street parking provision as part of planning applications. Parking on cross overs will in future be allowed providing the vehicle displays a permit.Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-08-03 01:30:52 +0000
Broadway Avenue was included in the original consultation. Should the CPZ in that road be taken away? I make this point solely to highlight the fact that any boundary for consultation is artifical and that the question was not whether Winchester Road and Bridge Road should be allowed to join the CPZ. If it were then the SMPA might have a point. As it is, surely some degree of autonomy has to be allowed individual roads.
Incidentally, I am not sure Gerhard is right about Kilmorey Road. It has numbers 2,4,6,8 and 10 but no odd numbered houses. Similarly in Kilmorey Gardens there are odd numbers up to 57 but even numbers only as far as 28 so I believe the council sent out the correct number of questionnaires in both roads.Trevor on 2008-08-05 10:51:32 +0000
Trevor is right, there are only 41 properties in Kilmorey Gardens. I added the 13 odd No ( 1 to 21 = 13) houses twice by mistake. I apologise unreservedly, in particular to council officers!
Kilmorey Road however has more than 6 seperate addresses. For many Years the Violet Needham Chapel on the east side of Kilmorey Road N/S was No 1 Kilmorey Road.
This changed when No 1 was allocated to the side extesion to No 2 Kilmorey Gardens, fronting Kilmorey Road. That resulted in flat 1, flat 2 and flat 3 at No 1 Kilmorey road.
No 2 Kilmorey road has a self contained 2 storey side extension.
No 4; 6; 8; and 10 Kilmorey Road are un changed.
Violet Needham Chapel (previously No 1) goes under that name.Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-08-05 14:46:00 +0000
The St Margarets Parking Association complains that the recent St Margarets CPZ consultation 'defies . . democracy' by allowing each road to decide for itself whether to join the CPZ or not. This is looking-glass logic. The truth is that the council recognises that it would be oppressive to residents in those streets who wish to join the CPZ to prevent them doing so due to votes from other streets which do not have so grave a problem - including some over half a mile away, the other side of the A316.
Nor does it presume to know what is best for people, which is why they asked them to vote on a street-by-street basis and are going along with their decision instead of imposing a "one size fits all" solution based on a much bigger area. The result is that two roads which voted to join the CPZ will do so, seven which voted 'no' will not do so and one which voted in favour by one vote has been excluded but has been promised an early review which may decide to include them. There will as well be a real and thorough review of the whole area in six months time. What could be fairer than that?
The Beat Survey is just confirmation of residents' own experience that there is more trouble parking at night rather than during the day; this will only be solved by residents having fewer cars. The changes will have little effect on the available space for night-time parking. The minor problems with the consultation database do not invalidate the clear results for Winchester and Bridge Roads.
This consultation came about because the St Margarets councillors promised it at the 2006 election, when, on a large swing, they unseated the sitting Conservative councillors [including Annie Hambidge] who had supported the scrapping of the previous consultation [under way in 2002 when the Tories gained control]. They promised a full consultation of a wide area and to adopt a scrupulously neutral stance. Both promises have been kept: they have not sought to influence the debate in any way and have left it to residents in each road to decide.
It is therefore a surprise and a pity that the Association have chosen to politicise the issue by inviting Conservative councillors and their prospective parliamentary candidate to take it up in a partisan way. It won't help them win their case. Their only hope is to convince the residents of the two roads joining the CPZ, one by one, that the Association [whose Officers prefer to remain anonymous and which has never published any statement of its aims and objectives] understand their problems better than they do, so that they would be better off if they would see things its way.Chris Squire on 2008-08-05 19:45:49 +0000
Bravo Christopher, I support every word in your last comment!!!!!!Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-08-05 20:12:09 +0000
C Squire sums it up perfectly.David bertram on 2008-08-06 08:52:16 +0000
Interestingly, the two roads that "said yes" to the CPZ, are Bridge Roaad and Winchester Road, the two roads closest to the border of the current CPZ, it is these roads that feel the full effect of commuters parking, unfortunately it is inevitable that once Bridge Road and Winchester Road are included in the CPZ, the commuters will spill into the roads on the other side such as Sydney and Kenley Road, the only way for everyone to be able to park will be if everyone south of the A316 is included in Zone S.Philip Oddie on 2008-08-29 16:32:51 +0000
Philip Oddie`s comment is in line with historical evidence.
There will always be roads just outside the CPZ and the A316 is not going to be a barrier. If commuters can`t park to the south they will park to the north of the A316. (many already do).
The leading light of the St Margarets Parking Association,(anti CPZ), resides north of the A316 in Orchard Road and has got an interest in keeping the commuter parking problems to the south of the A316.Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-08-29 21:53:18 +0000