topic list | login | register
Hi all - update on CPZ.
We recieved a letter this morning from the council confirming that the CPZ will extend to include Sidney, Moormead, Godstone and Kenley Roads as of the 15th Feb 2010.
In Godstone and Kenley we were given a second chance to be included in the CPZ as the council recognised the impact of not being in the CPZ could have on our roads. Both roads voted in the majority to be included.
I am campaigning and petitioning the Prime Minister Gordon Brown to ban parking penalties and car clamping from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would like to ask for your support in signing the online petition from the Number 10 web site available from:
This is a problem that affects us all in the UK. Councils and private companies are making enormous amounts of money every year from parking penalties and car clamping charges affecting our standards of leaving negatively.
The BBC reports that London councils make approximately £220 Million every year from parking penalties alone. More information is available from: n
In Richmond one single loading bay generated 10,000 penalties in a 20 months period raising for the council an estimated £1400 every single day.
The main cause of concern is that private companies operate the parking penalties system on behalf of the councils. Obviously they are motivated to issue penalties and make profits at the detriment of all of us.
I hope you would agree with me that this is not acceptable, that the system is being abused and that we have to fight to get this changed.
This is why I call on you, your colleagues, your friends and relatives to sign this online petition.
The link again is: p
Please sign the petition and forward this email to as many people as possible so that we can change and improve our lives.
Here are more details about the aims of the petition:
This petition is aimed at banning parking penalties and car clamping from the United Kingdom. Suggested alternatives are points on the driving licenses or use more the technology and human resources available to educate drivers with their parking habits. Parking fines and car clamping (and its related enormous charges) cause too much grievance to the population at a time when we need to pull together to make this country Great again.
Thank you in advance for your support,
Here is a copy of an email that we ahve sent to Cllr Khosa
Dear Councillor Khosa,
We attended the meeting last night to hear the discussions on the CPZ extension to include Sidney Road and Moor Mead Road.
As usual I mentioned the status of Cole Park Road - a private road maintained at public expense. The historical reason for its inclusion in Zone C is long past and it could now join Zone S (and enable the residents to park to use the St Margarets shops) As usual the Councillors & Officers looked pained at my blasphemy.
We did pick up a suggestion that the new CPZ is to apply to one side of Moor Mead Road. There was no suggestion of this in the consultation. Moor Mead Road is Moor Mead Road; it has parking on two sides and if it is suddenly to be reclassified so that only one side is CPZed then we will have to be re-consulted. Please assure me that I got the wrong end of the stick.
I am glad that Richmond and Twickenham Council are taking the problem of parking in the Moormead area of St Margarets seriously, but disappointed by the recent proposals.
The major problem is that in this very small area further division into streets with Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) and those without CPZ will add further pressure to the parking problems in the non-CPZ roads. Residents of the non-CPZ areas are likely to find that their streets are permanently ocupied by vehicles from other streets and by those using St Margarets as an unofficial "Park-and-Ride" scheme for the nearby station. The non-CPZ residents will be unable to park in neighbourng streets as they are all CPZ, and ineligible to apply for permits in the CPZ roads. Effectively life will become intolerable as finding a parking place will have become a virtual impossibility. After a short time all these non-CPZ residents will be forced to ask the Council to rush through a further extension on the CPZ into their own streets. The result will be that the whole area is CPZ which is exactly the opposite of the clear majority view (64.8% vs 31.8%) expressed in the 2007 census.
At best this misguided policy will result in short term chaos followed by a steam-roller imposition of the CPZ to the entire area. At worst it cound be seen as a cynical mechanism to impose the CPZ policy against the democratically expressed wishes of the majority.
The reaction to the CPZ proposal seems to have un-nerved the Council. The recommendation is now on their site. I have emailed our 2 councillorsas follows:-
I have just read the CPZ report & the recommendation
2.1 That the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking approves the implementation of an extension to the St Margarets South CPZ into Bridge Road and Winchester Road, St Margarets
2.2 That a review of the new CPZ extension is undertaken after a period of operation of six months
To say that I am gob-smacked is putting it mildly. For anyone living in Cole Park View,Sidney,Godstone, Kenley& South Western roads the effect will be disastrous. All the following will now be squeezed into an even smaller area:-
Drummond Place workers
Turks Head customers
St Margarets shoppers
With the six month review, don't you think this is precisely what the Council is attempting to do? Make the problem so bad that we beg to be included?
Seems they are unwilling to try and come up with a solution that will actually solve the parking problems in the area, just ways to get the CPZ extended.
It is difficult to know the impact of a CPZ on central St Margarets. I don't believe a DVLA assessment has been carried out assessing what the percentage of vehicles is commuter related (this links the registration of vehicles to their position i.e. Monday at 9am - Friday at 7pm. Such commuter passengers utilise the advantages of the 1st zone 4 SW Trains station into Waterloo. Also such an assessment would highlight the number of vehicles per household. Then it is simple math to work out are there more cars owned and parked locally than than there is carriageway distance. If you look at the streets north of the A316 M-F i.e. Ailsa Road, St Georges Road, St Peters Road, there is bumper to bumper parked vehicles which is enlightening as many of these properties have ample off street parking. The need for double yellow lines at the junctions along Winchester and the side arms is to allow emergency vehicles to have the necessary width to turn into these roads and for vehicles to have good visual aspect when entering exiting these streets. As well as this the general perception of these streets especially those with footway parking is the car is important and people are not, as I all to often see families pushing their buggies down the middle of the carriageway.
It is a real shame the above mentioned assessment is not available as for many of us who live locally I am sure we would only be too happy to pay a small annual fee to prioritise our vehicles when after all the carriageway is in public ownership.
Should vehicle statistics end up being favourable (i.e. a high percentage of commuter parking) the important point is the correct CPZ design so continuous bays are not put down mirroring the existing parking arrangements.
As this info has not been made available to us and so without an informed choice it is understandable that many local people are reluctant for change and perceive a reduction to their parking opportunity.
5 September 2007
I refer to a circular letter dated Sunday 2nd September 2007 from a Bridge Road resident regarding the car parking circumstances in Bridge Road, Winchester Road, and nearby roads.
Whilst pursuits to ensure traffic flow, adequate car parking and pedestrian safety are essential and welcome, the points made in the letter might require further clarification in order for them to be effective.
First, the removal of safe and reasonable car parking spaces by the council is not acceptable. The roads are within a densely populated residential area where the residents are the key matter. Furthermore, there is a school in Winchester Road. The residents require car parking which is provided on the public highway in the ratio of approximately one car per house. Maisonettes and flats within the same property create an overlap leading to further inadequate parking provision although there are some properties with an off street car parking space.
Second, vehicular access must be available near to the roadside in front of each property so that the emergency services can access a property if necessary. For example, in the event of a fire in a house, flat or maisonette, all other residents will wish to have that fire put out in order to secure their own homes. As it is now, an ambulance could not navigate its way around a fire engine in Winchester Road and in the surrounding streets. This is a clear and present danger.
The resident's circular letter is not clear in this regard. It suggests that the extended yellow lines create an excessive amount of open carriageway however excessive open carriageway is not possible in roads which have parking along each side reducing the total width to one vehicle's width!
Thirdly, commercial vehicles will be driving through the roads due to the existence of the industrial estate in Winchester Road. Until the industrial estate is relocated, (and perhaps a housing estate is developed with more than adequate parking on the same site), it is unavoidable that commercial vehicles will be driving through the roads.
What is required is further traffic calming measures along Winchester Road.
Finally, a car parking controlled zone seems inevitable although unwished for. It will provide (i) car parking for residents, and it will provide an opportunity for the council to (i) eliminate non-resident commercial vehicle parking and non-resident commuter parking, (ii) make commercial level charges for resident commercial business parking, (iii) moderate parking generated by the public house in Winchester Road and make charges for the customers choosing to park vehicles, and (iv) provide residents with a free licence to park one car per household in their own road and adjoining roads with a chargeable licence for a second vehicle.
The existing parking arrangements cause danger to (i) pedestrians, who also only have half a pavement to walk along in some roads (not possible with a pram), (ii) vehicles, both parked and travelling, which have to navigate narrow roads and very low visibility periphery and corners, and (iii) the communities in these areas.
Winchester Road, Bridge Road, Broadway Avenue area resident
Well, we certainly haven't had a holistic decision to deal with parking in the larger St Margarets Area... seems the decision has followed the path of least resistance including only the roads that voted for it. Democratic yes, but will it solve the problem, or push is around?
What do you think?
well, a few reasons really...
The advantages are not limited to reduction of commuter parking. There is:
A few points:
Linking council tax and paying to park-outside-our-own-house is a nonsense. People who provide a parking space on their own property also pay their council tax. People that have no car pay council tax. There are probably some of these in every street.
Also the Public highway is just that - Owned and maintained at PUBLIC expense - largely funded from general taxation via Transport for London, not council tax.
Lets get real, highways are no-bodies right and every-bodies right-of-way.
1 2 Next >
Read about the latest happenings of our site and make suggestions about how we can improve it.
Discuss recent news and upcomming events in the St Margarets area
Offer and find things to sell, give away, etc...