CPZ Recommendation Approved
From the official record:
“On 20th May the Council’s Transport Consultative Group which consists of members of both political parties and lay experts advised the Cabinet Member for Transport and Parking to make a decision to include Moor Mead and Sidney Roads and Cole Park View in a further extension of the St Margarets South CPZ. However the Group also advised the Cabinet Member to give consideration to the inclusion of Kenley and Godstone Roads in the Traffic Management Order to afford their residents the opportunity to reconsider their position in the light of this further extension. Therefore whilst advertisement of the Traffic Order will include those roads the Council in accordance with its policy and supported by your councillors will only implement controlled parking in them if there is a majority in favour.”
The ward councillors will send a street letter to Godstone and Kenley to clarify and dispel doubts.
— from Christopher Squire
Comments
This minute doesn't mention the Grove flats, because their address is St Margarets Road; however a ward councillor has confirmed to me that Cllr David Trigg, the Cabinet Member for Parking, has agreed that residents of the Grove will be eligible for CPZ permits.
Chris Squire on 2009-05-27 12:24:21 +0000The parking in the roads adjacent to Winchester Road have already been affected by its inclusion in the CPZ. One can only imagine the impact on Kenley and Godstone Raods if they remain the only ones excluded from the CPZ, as the pressure on parking spaces in these roads is already immense.
I would urge all residents of Kenley and Godstone Roads to respond postively to the forthcoming letter to safeguard our ability to park our cars within walking distance of our homes.
JB on 2009-05-27 14:34:03 +0000It drives me mad that those making comments seem always to do so without stating their name and address! How do we know how relevant anything is to them without this information? Hiding behind the anonmymity of initials/no address is a bit of a cop-out in my view, and comments might even be from council people masquerading as local people when they should in fact declare an official interest.
Ref the CPZ, I really don't see how it's going to help - it's just an extra tax loaded on to residents by an avaricious council. The key time when it's difficult/nigh on impossible to park near to home is at night, yet the CPZ expires at 4.30 pm. This seems to have been overlooked by the council and by local residents. Why should we pay so much to park close to home from 10 am to 4.30 pm when it will make no difference whatsoever to parking at night? Sue Ockwell, 32A Sidney Road, St Margarets.
Sue Ockwell on 2009-06-01 18:43:02 +0000I note the piece from Christopher Squire with regards to:
"The ward councillors will send a street letter to Godstone and Kenley to clarify and dispel doubts"
Have you any idea when we might be receiving it?
ALSIE42 on 2009-06-16 23:02:32 +0000Alsie24: no, I haven't; I suggest you ask them directly. Instead, here is the formal council notice of Cllr Trigg's decision:
Chris Squire on 2009-06-19 16:32:33 +0000THE CPZ HELL CONTINUES
WE ARE BEING BULLIED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND GETTING NO WHERE WITH THIS NEARLY 2 YEARS ON. WHAT ARE OUR COUNCILLORS DOING???? WHEN WILL THIS END. THE SAME OLD ARGUEMENTS GOING ROUND AND ROUND PERPETUATED BY PEOPLE WHO DONT LIVE HERE
I JUST FOUND THIS HIDDEN ON RICHMOND WEBSITE www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/council/decision_making_council/committees/search_committee_documents.htm?mgl=ieIssueDetails.asp&IId=21174&Opt=3
In accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16, the Chief Executive (as Proper Officer) has called in the following cabinet member decision, having been requested to do so by two members of the Environment and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Committee:
" I hereby
(a) approve the continued operation of the St Margarets South CPZ in Bridge Road and Winchester Road
(b) approve the advertisement of a further extension in St Margarets South CPZ to incorporate Moormead Road, Cole Park View and Sidney Road. The advertisement of the extension of the CPZ to also include Kenley Road and Godstone Road to afford residents of these roads the opportunity to reconsider their position in the light of this further extension to the CPZ. A very clear letter should also be sent to residents and businesses detailing such."
The reasons for the call-in, as supplied by Councillor Head and Councillor Fleming, are as follows:
1) The Cabinet Member failed to consider CPZ implementation on a zonal basis as undertaken by Cabinet on 17th July 2006, ("point 3.2 the decision by the Cabinet Member should be based on considerations of the response rate, the level of support among those responding 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 but a majority will always need to be in favour of a proposed zone.") We note that in this case, of 779 households contacted in the zone only 155 (less than a fifth) supported implementation. As a result of this failure an extension has been implemented which has not assessed the overall impact of the St. Margaret's CPZ on the amenity of residents and local life.
2) There have been inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the voting figures because of poor consultation methods. (Appendix 2, CPZ Policy document of 17/07/06 "The council will consult, by letter, all properties within the agreed consultation area. The Council recognises that a CPZ can have a significant impact on a community. It is, therefore, essential to create awareness of the consultation and to encourage participation from as many residents and businesses as possible in the area")
3) The Council's own Parking study of Nov. 2007 disclosed that "overnight parking congestion is far worse than during the day with over 100 more residents' vehicles parked" See Appendix C, pages 97 to 113 of TCG Agenda of 20th May 2009 which bears this out. The Parking Enforcement Plan of Sept 2006 states under point 4.14, "CPZs will only be considered where they resolve a specific or identified problem and will not lead to unacceptable displacement". The problem of lack of night-time parking has not been addressed and the original CPZ has led to unacceptable displacement. This is why additional roads are being re-consulted.
4) The 20/05/09 TCG decision brings in Godstone and Kenley Roads who voted "NO" and who are to be consulted by letter as to whether they now want to be included, otherwise they will be boxed in by the CPZ. This is clear coercion.
5) The decision introduces Moor Mead Road with housing on only one side of the road. If parking space is lost on both sides, this will impact on Godstone and Kenley Roads and the local community.
6) CPZ creep means that Sidney Road residents feel pressurised. 9 extra households have, therefore, changed their vote. Again this is implementation by coercion.
7) Including results from only 1 house (one unoccupied) in Hill View Road (close to Cole Park View) skews the true picture. Hill View Road must remain outside the CPZ as it provides vital central parking. Again CPZ creep might change that.
8) The unreasonable refusal by the Chairman to allow the registered representative of Mr Noel Josephides, of Sidney Road, to speak on his behalf which is contrary to the published policy procedure of the Council which permits agents to speak on behalf of individuals. (Procedure Notes: "Members of the public have the opportunity to address the Group on all substantive agenda items")
9) We have the implementation of a CPZ extension that inequitably and unreasonably surrounds and threatens non-controlled roads, contrary to their original wish to stay outside a CPZ. Therefore, this CPZ and its extension is an imposition by the administration of a subjective policy, without the support of the majority of the residents. It is contrary to fair and reasonable standards of administrative practice."
JB on 2009-08-06 06:49:27 +0000Where do you live JB? I live in Bridge Road and the CPZ has had a very positive impact on the quality of my family's life. Not only can I park in the road where I live, it now means I can park almost anywhere in St. Margarets without getting a ticket. Before ANYONE could park in Bridge Road and I was forced to drive round and round until I found a space in one of a restricted number of roads.
Ian on 2009-08-06 06:50:20 +0000This call-in was discussed at the July 22 meeting of the Environment and Sustainability Overview & Scrutiny Committee; the papers for this meeting are at: tinyurl.com/nl2l46 ; the Committee rejected all the call-in objections, so the decision will stand. I will submit a a precis of the minutes of the meeting when they are published.
Chris Squire on 2009-08-06 10:18:04 +0000What is going on? JB`s comment was the first comment on the reminder that there is only one week left for St Margarets Residents to return the St Margarets Alliance Survey Form. The reminder posted on the 5th July has disappeared from this site by the this morning, 6th July and JB`s comment features now on this thread.
Reading the reminder and JB`s comment, both posted at the same time, suggest that JB`s comment reflect the stance of the Alliance on the CPZ issue ---- anti CPZ.
It is worth noting that the officers (chairman, secretary and treasurer) of the St Margarets Alliance aswell as others affiliated to the alliance live north of the A316 on Roads that voted overwhelmingly against CPZ at stage one of the CPZ consultation.
Ian Oddie`s comment demonstrates the benefits of CPZ as a resident of what I would say is more or less the centre of St Margarets.
Would he and his neighbours as a minority group enjoy this benefit under St Margarets Alliance administration?
St Margarets Residents, be careful what you wish for!!!! Different areas of St Margarets have different want`s and need`s!!!
Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-08-06 13:49:19 +0000Gerhard,
I moved the comments to this, more appropriate, article as never intended to allow comments on the reminder post.
Nothing sinister.
Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk
Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2009-08-06 14:01:08 +0000No i m totally pro cpz, the call in seems to be triggered by Felicity and co...
i just want the cpz in and sorted, not this continual going round the houses
If the call in was rejected, i can guess the next move - a judicial review in the high court!!
JB on 2009-08-06 21:23:49 +0000Add a comment