CPZ Latest
The long saga of the St Margarets Controlled Parking Zone [CPZ] is almost at an end. The results of the third and final round of consultation are on the Council website the Officers’ report [item 8] will be discussed at the meeting of the Transport Consultative Group at York House on Wednesday, 20 May 2009, starting at 6:30 pm. It recommends that the CPZ be extended to include two more roads only [Moor Mead and Sidney Roads] and the residents of Cole Park View and of The Grove flats in St Margarets Road.
This means that, as promised at the start of the consultation, the CPZ is only being implemented in roads where a majority [of those that voted] had said they wanted to join and then only after all the pros and cons had been outlined to residents. Cllr David Trigg, the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, will decide whether to accept these new recommendations for extensions in the light of the discussion at the meeting.
As is normal with the introduction of a CPZ, including an extension, there will be a review of its operation [normally after 6 months]. There will therefore be a further opportunity for residents in those roads presently excluded to express their opinion. These will be evaluated by traffic officers to consider any amendments to the scheme.
Geoff Acton, Ben Khosa and Philip Morgan promised residents a CPZ consultation when they stood for election in 2006; they are pleased that it is now nearly finished three years later.
— from Christopher J Squire
Comments
This would appear to be the worst possible outcome for me; living in Godstone Road and owning a car. All the remaining non-resident traffic will now be forced into Godstone and Kenley making parking during the day impossible as we will have no rights to use the adjacent roads as overflow. If we could at least buy permits for the CPZ it would at least give us some parity with our neighbours. Surely the imposition of a CPZ in this road-by-road piecemeal fashion is ludicrous. It has to be all or nothing.
GM on 2009-05-14 11:19:44 +0000I couldn't agree more with GM. This will obviously cause huge problems for the residents of Godstone & Kenley. I am expecting a baby in October and dread the thought of trying to park in such a limited area with a small baby in tow, with not even the option of parking in adjacent roads.
Agreed; it's all or nothing!
WH on 2009-05-14 16:06:42 +0000I'm in Kenley road - this is going to be an absolute nightmare for us and Godstone Road. I expect we will end up having to park the other side of the A316 - particularly if we are going on holiday and there are no 'non-CPZ' spaces left.
It's got to be all or nothing.
All this will achieve is another survey in 6mths in review the extended CPZ which will probably see Kenley and Godstone added. What a waste of money - no wonder the council had to increase council tax this year when other London councils froze rates if this is how shambolic their administrative processes are.
HJ on 2009-05-14 17:06:09 +0000As I have said all along, a CPZ makes a tremendous difference to your individual quality of life because you are part of a wider parking area and you don't get stressed trying to find somewhere to park. Please don't blame those who voted for it in their road - blame those who campaigned against it trying to make easy political capital it.
Ian on 2009-05-14 17:32:12 +0000It's not about blaming those who voted for or against the CPZ. The fact of the matter is that the CPZ survey was for the whole of the area, not for individual roads, and for the council to then further divide the area and decide that just two roads will not be part of the CPZ will lead to chronic overcrowding for these two 'outcasts'.
WH on 2009-05-14 19:24:19 +0000There are actually 5 'outcasts' not 2; the 'No' vote % for these roads was: South Western Road: 88, Brook Road: 83, Kenley Road: 67, St Margarets Grove: 63, Godstone Road: 58.
The Council decided to take the decision on CPZs down to the level of the individual road because decision by area was widely regarded as unfair and oppressive by residents who wanted the benefit of a CPZ and couldn't get one because residents in other less congested roads didn't want it.
The messy resulting procedure is not 'shambolic administration' as HJ asserts: it is grass roots democracy, something this country needs more of, not less. GM, WH and HJ need to get out on the doorstep persuading their neighbours of the merits of their point of view.
Chris Squire on 2009-05-14 20:26:24 +0000What utter nonsense. A road by road approach to government is ludicrous. It's not grass root democracy it's stupidity. We live in a community where every thing we do has an impact on everyone else. This is why we have wards and councils to represent people at a reasonable level of granularity. If the majority voted for the CPZ then we must have a CPZ. Whether we were for it or against it when it was first proposed it's here now and it must be inclusive.
GM on 2009-05-14 21:26:22 +0000In response to the last comment. What a joke -Councils representing us ?!In South Western Road ,we have voted against CPZ on 3 occasions and still there is to be another review .The Policy states that areas rejecting a CPZ will not be re-visited for 6 years.Another U-turn on behalf of the council when it did not achieve its goal. What a waste of our money. The Council has ignored the public response to the Riverside development. This Council is driven by its own agenda and does not represent the electorate or listen to our views If so why did RUG become established ?The sooner the next election comes the better. Jill
Jill Taunton on 2009-05-14 21:43:08 +0000It needs to be pointed out that Richmond Council has been awarded Four Star Rating, the top marks possible by the Independant Audit Commission for providing value for money services for local people. That is to say we are one of THE BEST Councils in the Country.
All Councils need a sum of money to run their services. Part of this money comes by way of grants from central Government and part is raised from council tax. The average London Borough gets £545 per person we get an average of £148 per person.
This Council is very very lean and efficiency conscious.
It was clear early on that a one solution fits all approach will not be the right one and the Council from the out set has consulted on a Road by Road basis and at no time was the survey for the whole area it was as I have said road by road and explaining the impact this could have on neighbouring roads.
To my knowledge no further "expensive" consultations are planned. However views and complaints will be monitored as they should to satisfy resident demand and need.
The three "consultations" South Western Rd has experienced are the three stages of the same consultation and are as safety valves should people change their minds as clearly Sydney and Moor Mead appear to have done. I dont know where the "u" turn fits in to this.
This was never going to be easy and it wasn't but it was one we felt we could not shy away from and one we felt must be resident lead.
I do feel the frustration caused by the sheer number of vehicles in the area but Car Clubs, Cycling , Walking and public transport (all of which the Council is promoting) may all help a little to ease the pain in the longer term.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2009-05-14 23:50:29 +0000Ben you are quite right - if you can't park get a bike.
Remind me what party you represent again - I need to choose one for the up-coming election and need to exclude idiots.
GM on 2009-05-15 00:18:05 +0000Ben is a Liberal Democrat: his good deeds are reported at: www.richmond.libdems.org.uk/pages/smnt.html . RUG, for those that don't know, is a motley umbrella group of single-issue protest groups: www.richmondunitedgroup.com/# ; one of these groups is said to be the 'St Margarets' Parking Association' who favour a multi-storey underground car park on Little Moormead as a technical fix. I do not know whether or not the SMPA really exists or not: is anyone reading this a member? I agree with Jill: roll on the next election, this time next year, to tell us who is credible and who is 'all talk and no trousers'.
Chris Squire on 2009-05-15 00:52:38 +0000I am amazed but not surprised that some people have not realized that stage 1, 2 and the review of the consultation was on a road by road basis and NOT a blanket consultation for the whole of St Margarets.
The way I understand what the review thought to establish was not only whether residents in roads adjacent to the recent extension now want to join the CPZ, having experienced the impact of the extension on their road but also whether the recently included roads want to come out again.
Residents have voted to stay in and others roads voted to be included. I would not call those roads that voted to remain outside the protection of the CPZ `outcasts` as they voted to remain outside the CPZ by their own free will and made their desicion in the knowledge that the council will not abandon them even though it may take some time before the council can enter into further consultation on their behalf. In the meantime they take comfort from being able to park without paying for permits north of the A316, a short walk away.
I agree whole heartedly with Christopher Squire`s post on the subject.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-05-15 08:54:11 +0000I can see why maisonette owners in Godstone and Kenley might have voted against CPZ, looking narrowly at the situation in their own roads, but looking at the bigger picture, it was always them that stood to lose most if other roads voted to join in CPZ. Now they will have the worst of all worlds, and I'm sure the Borough are expecting them to beg to join in in due course.
David bertram on 2009-05-15 14:23:53 +0000By the way, there are actually 6 'outcasts' as Chertsey Road was unfortunately a No vote majority. I voted for CPZ as due to work commitments my working hours necessitate me using my car during office hours and having nowhere to park on my return. I often have had to park on a paying meter in St Margarets during the day due to the CPZ and no restrictions in my road. I consider the suggestion ludicrous to march young children to and from the car across a busy dual carriageway to non-CPZ streets the north side of the A316. And why should I have to? I do not expect to park for free in such a busy urban area and cannot understand why others feel it is their right to do so. However I do expect to be able to park within a reasonable walking distance of my home.
The concept of a simple majority for individual streets is unworkable as GM noted, as another two roads added to the CPZ will have further impact on those few roads now unrestricted. "A grassroots democracy" in a situation like this that evokes so much emotion where it has created disharmony by pitting 'street against street' and 'neighbour against neighbour' is not positive by any means for our small community.
Where's the fairness in two-car families that voted for the CPZ on the intention of paying only for one vehicle whilst parking the other for free in my street, further restricting opportuntiy for me to park my car?
Parking along Chertsey Road has been difficult for a long time now, what with commuters using St Margarets station as not wanting to pay for parking at Richmond and Twickenham stations, the offices across the road at the old print works, teachers, and now with further CPZ additions parking, or should I say not parking, has become a daily stress. And is set to become more so. A tiny island of non-CPZ in a sea of controlled streets is ridiculous!
BTW on 2009-05-15 15:40:40 +0000Of course it's not hard to undertand why the residents of Godstone and Kenley have voted against the CPZ. These roads are composed entirely of maisonettes - typically populated by the less well off of the area. With the price of the CPZ and the current recession you would always be able to predict that the popularity of further flat rate regressive taxes would be low amongst the poorer citizens.
GM on 2009-05-15 16:17:40 +0000'Members of the public are able to register their request to speak at Transport Consultative Group (TCG) meetings. To register your request to speak at TCG, please contact the officer named on each agenda.' which is: 'Oyetona Raheem, Interim Committee Manager, 020 8891 7813, Email: oyetona.raheem@richmond.gov.uk;
Chris Squire on 2009-05-15 17:45:13 +0000I suppose I can not argue with democracy even if the vote against CPZ for Godstone was only 30% of the residents What I do object to is the discrimination against my right to buy a parking permit for the CPZ area - living within the CPZ area but not in a CPZ street while other residents who have been given their street CPZ status do not wish to purchase a permit and do not park in the CPZ area but in Godstone etc There is only one fair way all or nothing
Ronnie on 2009-05-15 22:44:53 +0000You're absolutely right Ronnie. Allowing the residents inside the CPZ area to buy permits regardless of whether their actual road has restrictions would remove an awful lot of the gripes.
GM on 2009-05-16 11:18:23 +0000Thanks GM on Wednesday I rushed back from Peterborough to meet my wife and catch a train to Waterloo What a surprise there was no where to park in Godstone or any of the free parking areas Doing the right thing I used a CPZ zone and parking voucher which I unfortunately incorrectly dated and when we returned I had a £100 parking ticket If I was able to be registered for a parking permit this would not only have made my life easier but less expensive and stress free Was I careless in completing the ticket - Yes Is this a stupid system - Yes Can the Authorities make a common sense decision and delay the inevitable - NO
ronnie on 2009-05-16 11:35:13 +0000At last the matter is resolved any my road will be having a CPZ. Residents of Kenley and Godstone, no point complaining now, you voted not to have the CPZ - all this rubbish about we cant afford it, you live in an affluent area, if you cant afford the permit sell up and move. Also, I often wonder how many people in this locality understand basic English. The questionnaire sent by the Council asked if others roads have a CPZ do you? and overwhelmingly you all voted NO - so again dont complain!! Lastly, has this Council got a bottomless pit of money to keep doing 6 monthly surveys on CPZs, no wonder Richmond Council Tax goes up and Ealing and Hounslow's doesnt. This must be raised in the meeting next week, no more money wasting CPZ surveys, its as bad as MPs expenses.
JY on 2009-05-16 13:31:32 +0000I agree with JY, Roads south of the A316 have had 3 chances to vote and in some Roads the majority of residents decided that their Road should remain outside the CPZ. I feel sorry for the minority of residents that voted Yes in those Roads as they will now have to wait some considerable time before the council can offer them another consultation. Not sorry enough however to allow them to purchase residents oarking permits to park in CPZ Roads!
Ronnie and GM, it would make a nonesense of the CPZ, allowing residents from a Road that elected not to join the CPZ to purchase parking permits to park in one of the controlled Roads. Don`t forget, residents in Roads that voted for inclusion done so with the full knowledge that the CPZ status only serves to keep out non residents and does not guarantee them a parking space in return for the money they pay for their permit.
It would simply not be fair to expect them to compete with residents from non CPZ Roads were non residents are allowed to park; One might even say invite commuters to the uncontrolled road!
I hope the TCG meeting will not be bogged down by argumnts/ requests like yours!
Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-05-16 19:51:36 +0000I do feel that The St Margarets Parking Association has lead some people up the garden path and is now whistling in the air.
Thank God (and Peter Mahnke here on earth) for the common sense arguments coming out above. Goes to show that just because you can be aggressive and vocal does not mean you have your finger on the pulse or the best interests of people at heart.
This will of course be of no comfort to the residents in question now so I would want to request the TCG not to wait for 6 months but to revisit (not a full blown consultation) asap.
Ben Khosa on 2009-05-17 09:16:00 +0000That's the community spirit Gerhard!
Ian on 2009-05-17 11:51:20 +0000Ben
Why do you want to reconsult the roads that said No, it makes the survey pointless, especially as these roads were asked the supplementary question, if they wanted a CPZ when other roads said yes, they voted overwhelmingly No, so why are we surveying them again exactly. It time to eat that cake so to speak!
JY on 2009-05-18 18:34:12 +0000JY
There will be no re consultation. However it is normal practice to take stock 6 months after the installation of any CPZ. The object of this exercise being to confirm that where implementation has taken place that those residents are still happy with the changes they asked for. Also there may be a displacement effect on neighbouring roads and judging by the number of people who have contacted us in the last few days I would say residents are getting increasingly concerned and that is why I am going to try and persuade the TCG to bring forward this exercise so that any tailoring can be quickly done so as to minimise any inconvenience.
Our aim as Ward Councillors should be to try and do the best for as many people as possible working within the system that we have but not to turn around and say sorry you have had your chips.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2009-05-18 19:09:34 +0000Ben
I don't remember any tears being shed when for the last 6 months I couldn't find anywhere to park on countless occasions, despite pleas to the council to speed the process. Why this favouritism now? The NO roads have voted, they should follow the same timescales we had to suffer esp as they voted NO to both survey questions. I fully appreciate your offer to help, but the democratic process must now be allowed to follow.
Jy on 2009-05-18 22:52:28 +0000JY, dont knock Ben for trying to help residents that voted Yes and live in a road that voted No and no doubt suffered the same as you have for the last 6 month! However, I think it pobably will take 6 month to make a suffcient number of the die hard No voters to change their mind.
Actually, I cant recall that 6 month was arrived at by democratic process.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-05-18 23:39:04 +0000Being a resident of Kenley Road who has consistently voted FOR a CPZ in all three consultations and expecting Baby no 2 in a few mths time, there is only one solution for us - to sadly up and move. We love the park and village location but it is impossible to think of trying to carry two pre-school children across the A316 at any time of day.
I understand that those residents who commute to work during the day dont want to pay for a CPZ which will not help them in the evenings(I was one such commuter myself not so long ago) but fear that the current situation will simply a) drive property prices down in the non-CPZ roads as who wants a house you cant park anywhere near and b) drive young families who use their car during the day out of the area.
Its a shame as in everyother way it is a great location, but I do wonder if those who have voted against the CPZ have thought about the wider issues at hand here and not just the individual cost of the permit.
B W on 2009-05-19 14:48:58 +0000I know that this has somehow ended up as a road by road self-inflicting CPZ, and I cannot go to the Council meeting tonight, but I hope someone can remind the Council that the original request was to solve the problem of parking at night. We also asked for a whole solution, not this road by road democracy.
Unfortunately, the Council only appears to have one parking solution, a CPZ. So even thought it only deals with passing daytime traffic, it will implement it. And only on roads that ask for it... or end up begging for it because of the CPZ on neighbouring streets.
Sadly, I don't know what the real solution would be, but if all those years ago, when the first meetings started, we knew we would end up here, I bet we would have all walked away from the process. The entire thing has been upsetting and disruptive for the entire community. People against the Council, road against road, neighbour against neighbour.
Peter
Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2009-05-19 16:37:17 +0000I can not understand why residents oppose the move to a CPZ because they use their car to commute to work. Living within a CPZ costs nothing extra if one uses the car away from the CPZ during the hours of control.
Evening and weekend parking problems can not be dealt with by CPZ but may be dealt with easier when non residents cars (commuters, holiday parkers and cars that have no parking permit and belong to residents of surrounding CPZ roads) are removed by a road being a CPZ.
I know the argument is often used: `What if I have a day off work.... Every household is entiteled to purchase visitor parking permits!!!
Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-05-19 17:33:11 +0000Peter, the meeting is tomorrow if im not mistaken!
You write as if St Margarets is an off shore island.
Passing traffic dealt with by the council by CPZ?
Have you got any suggestion on how to deal with the evening/ weekend parking problem?
Perhaps you will agree that St Margarets residents collectively own to many cars but do not own properties to accomodate them.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-05-19 18:09:05 +0000I have the solution to nightime parking a CPZ that runs from 7 am to 11pm 7 days a week, but this council is spineless to consider it
BW on 2009-05-19 19:57:35 +0000I suggest that people on both side of the debate save their acrimony for the council. They are the architects of this expensive protracted shambles of a consultation. One that has blighted everyones lives with uncertainty. It is a nonsense to use this piecemeal approach when such a vast disparity exists in the correlation of households to spaces in each street. People are capable of making their own mind up according to circumstances providing they are aware that circumstances can and do change, and that ALL the data is available to them to make a fully informed decision.
Mary on 2009-05-19 23:59:21 +0000Gerhard,
You are correct, the meeting it tonight (20th May 2009), I should read my own site!
St Margarets an island, interesting way of thinking of it... clearly the CPZ is meant to keep away people without CPZ permits, hence my reference to 'passing' traffic -- of course many of these people are also known as 'residents' and 'shoppers' and 'visitors' and 'friends' and 'commuters' -- but you can't keep just one type out!
I completely agree, the problem is too many cars. The solution would be to charge for parking at night. Even better, free for first car, something for a second and loads for a third. And this extended to the whole area!
Would there still be too many cars? Probably. People are strange about cars. I know many families with two cars that need one, many people with huge SUVs that don't need them at all, but you can't stop that.
Peter
Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2009-05-20 07:05:51 +0000Hurrah. The proposal to include Sidney Road and Moor Mead Road in the St Margarets CPZ was accepted at last night's council meeting despite last ditch attempts by Felicity Smart et al to block it. My deepest sympathies to those residents of Kenley and Godstone who likewise wanted a CPZ in their roads but were denied by their neighbours' apathy or parsimony. The one ray of hope for them was the council's agreement to include their roads in the traffic order and reconsult them a final time before the extension comes into operation. I suggest they follow our example and take positive action to avoid the inevitable parking hell that awaits if the majority again vote to stay out of the zone. Make leaflets and deliver them to every residence to spell out the situation (they're very welcome to copy and use the arguments we posted on our website sidneyroad.blogspot.com/), stick posters on lamp-posts, talk to their neighbours and urge them to vote YES. It will take energy, time and effort but we thought it well worth the expenditure and are delighted with the result.
Carol Townsend on 2009-05-21 09:57:59 +0000Just to clarify Godstone and Kenley will not be allowed to vote for another 6 months after the implementation in Sidney and Moor Mead. It was going to be 3 months but because of the summer holidays it was deferred to 6 months. They are not going to be consulted as part of the traffic order either. In my view this has happened in part by the arrogant and rudeness of Felicity and her pals. It seems many of them don't even live south of A316 but are happy to dictate over us though.
GM on 2009-05-21 10:30:44 +0000Here is a copy of an email that we have sent to Cllr Khosa
Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2009-05-21 17:31:32 +0000Stephen, rest assured the CPZ is going to be on both sides of Moor Mead road. That idea of single side CPZ was thrown out as unworkable
MM on 2009-05-21 20:01:10 +0000The suggestion to include Cole Park Rd in the same CPZ and take the overflow at first thought seems to be a good one. However we started looking at this idea some time back and consulted the residents of Cole Park Road on this thought. These residents were not supportive of this idea and since this Council is not in the business of forcing or imposing their will on residents and believes in transparency and democracy this cannot be progressed any further.
MM is right in that a single side CPZ in Moor Mead cannot work and was "thrown out"
I have not yet had sight of the minutes of the meeting on the 20th but my recollection is that they may receive a letter from the Council informing them of the current situation and inviting any reaction.
I apologise for being a little vague about the Council reaction however I can guarantee they will receive helpful communication from their current Councillors (Cllr Geoff Acton Cllr Ben Khosa and Cllr Philip Morgan) so that they can make an informed decision as they will be able to make their views heard in the coming weeks and months (I refer to residents of Kenley and Godstone)
Re GM's post I cannot disagree with him about his comment about "Felcity and her Pals" but as I recall I asked for the "reassesment" period to be reduced to 2 or 3 months (in order to minimise the pain for those that may wish to change their minds as experience shows this may well happen)however Cllr Trigg observed this would take us into the holiday month of August so my feeling is but I CANNOT confirm this at this stage that we will have "review" period of about 4 months though I will keep tugging at his trouser leg to shorten it further if possible and it is not neccesary to consult regarding the traffic order as it will just sit there in the background should they not choose to go in.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2009-05-22 08:02:01 +0000Add a comment