St Margarets' Controlled Parking Zone Survey Circulated
The St Margarets Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Survey was distributed this weekend. Residents given the survey have until 15 June 2007 to complete it. The CPZ was a major issue in the last election and remains a divisive issue for the community.
We want to know what you think, so please:
- vote in our poll (results only ).
- leave a comment in our forum
Also, the Council is to hold exhibitions with detailed plans at the Winchester Hall next to the Turks Head on Tuesday 5th and Thursday 7th June from 4pm to 8pm. In attendance will be your local councillors and council officers from the Transport Department. In addition the councillors will be happy to meet up at alternative times should this be necessary.
Comments
In favour of short term controlled parking i.e 2 hours am and/or 2 hours pm, Monday through Saturday.
Ted Darby on 2007-05-27 11:09:35 +0000In favour of shot term controlled parking i.e. 5.30am to 7.30am and 5.30pm to 7.30pm Monday through Sunday. The reason for the times and 7 Days is to ensure that residents and their visitors are not crowded out by overflow parking from the richmond lock development, a private estate of about 70 4/5 bed houses with 2 parking spaces each and and about 100 1 to 4 bed apartments with 1 parking space each. Strict parking controls are enforced by an estate management company. ( No parking on any of the estates private roads)
Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-05-29 00:30:04 +0000Bottom line is, the councillors need a CPZ for the whole of St.Margarets in order to make their engine-size-based parking permits scheme not seem any more ridiculous than is already apparent.
On the other hand, we need a CPZ in our road like a hole in the head!
Residents of St. Margarets, unite! Vote against this ridiculous plan!
Ed on 2007-06-01 23:00:12 +0000I think it would help if people such as Ed did, like Gerhard, indicate where they live. I am at the Isleworth end of St Margarets Road and there are too many ifs for us. If Kilmorey Road and Gardens do have a CPZ we would be badly affected by overspill from the Brunel development. My overall thought is that it will almost certainly reduce car ownership so a yes vote is probably my choice, particularly if a car club is part of the package.
Trevor Whittall on 2007-06-02 09:50:44 +0000Trevor, I live in Cassilis Road. We don't even have much of a problem on Rugby days.
Rather than vote "yes" right now on a speculative basis for a tax which, once imposed, can never be taken away, I think it would be better to wait and see whether there is actually a problem.
The council will be only too willing to give you another shot at a future date if it turns out to be necesary in order to improve the situation. They want your money.
Regards Ed
Ed on 2007-06-02 12:43:58 +0000Thanks to Ed for his response. He could well be right that Cassillis Road would not benefit form a CPZ, but it seems to take a long time to get to the top of the consultation list for CPZs. I think we need to give as much, if not more, attention to the space for comments as answering the questions - whatever our views.
Trevor Whittall on 2007-06-03 07:04:20 +0000The Editor has a summary of the survey we conducted early last year in all of the roads around the Turks Head area. Perhaps he can republish it? Many people wanted action even though they recognise the greatest problem occurs in the evening and overnight. The higher cost of a CPZ may change the minds of some but I would urge all to reply - the Liberals have changed the rules so that it is easier for a minority to impose a scheme on everyone. There is a huge amount of 'mission creep' with these schemes since they mainly serve to push the problem onto someone else.
Simon Lamb on 2007-06-03 19:13:55 +0000I belive Simon is refering to this article:
www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2006/03/local_parking_i.html
Which did show a higher number of 'yes' votes than we are currently getting on the survey. Also, if you read the comments, the most common problem with parking is in the evenings, where the CPZ is useless.
People do have to be careful in separating the issue that they have a parking problem and assuming a CPZ will solve that problem. Sadly, they are quite possibly different things.
Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2007-06-03 23:05:47 +0000The main issue we have, being at the railway end of Winchester Road, is that our area is used as a glorified commuter car park during the day. A CPZ would substantially improve parking during the day and make our lives easier. However, I do realise there would still be the issue of lack of parking spaces in the evening for all the cars people seem to need. Again, perhaps this will reduce car ownership.
I am in favour.
Lucy on 2007-06-04 20:15:40 +0000The survey conducted by the Conservative councillors last year could never have been the basis of any action by the council since it could not have been seen to be unbiased. That is why it and the subsequent meeting in Winchester Hall last year was a failure and seen by many residents as a stunt that did not offer a way forward
The only valid survey is the one being conducted now and while there is no magic wand it offers a way forward.
Your current councillors are fully committed to achieving the best solution possible for the residents, what ever that may be and would like to remind residents to visit Winchester Hall on 5th and 7th June between 4 and 8pm to see the Exhibition and ask questions and then make an informed decision.
The current criteria for a CPZ affords the use of common sense flexibility which can be applied to more suit the local conditions instead of the previous rigid policy of having to work to percentages that didn't work so well in the real world.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2007-06-05 12:27:03 +0000I did visit the CPZ exhibition when it opened on Tues and found that there are a few key questions that needed to be answered by the Council before it was put to the community to vote on; plus there are some practical aspects that we must bear in mind when we do vote:
SO...
Five important things the Council must do swiftly, pre-15 June:
Then we'll have at least some of what we need in order to make an informed decision.
Hilary Ivory on 2007-06-07 11:32:36 +0000Heartfelt thanks to Hilary for her ever helpful input. Much as I respect Mike Rowlands things have of course moved on.
The following is my understanding:
CPZs and yellow lines on corners go together though not necessarily double ones. Any yellow lines COULD be enforced only during the CPZ enforced hours so any loss of parking due to the said yellows could be limited to the enforcement hours only. The length issue is not a done deal not least due to the necessary and currently undefinable input from other statuary bodies and also each junction may have its peculiarities but in this case 5 or 6 metres could be used as a guide only at this stage with a resultant loss of about 5 spaces. It is ofcourse taken for granted that the target is to keep losses to a minimum
Street furniture is unlikely to have a significant impact.
Borough wide car clubs at this stage are not a definitive proposal and even if they were the intention would be such that they do not impact on CPZs.....but even if they did have an impact, figures suggest the net result is a reduction in car numbers and miles driven. So looking at the darkest possible side of car clubs if one car club car removes only one other car from the street the net increased parking pressure is "Zero". In reality figures quoted for the number of cars removed per car club car are between 6 and 18 or more.
All CPZs are reviewed between 6 to 12 months after installation and if residents were to change their minds they could have them removed.
We have to bear in mind that this is a first stage consultation only and the idea is to gauge the level of demand for a CPZ and detailed designs would follow. Things have moved on, in addition to the above, parking space in front of existing drives is now possible to be utilised. As there are so many variables at this stage, the number of roads within the boundary of any CPZ, and such boundaries themselves at the moment are in a state of flux, may be totally different from the area being currently consulted. The possible losses on junctions are dependant on the characteristics of each junction, such as the width , formation and frequency of use.
Imagine working out and presenting figures for the area under consultation and then ending up with an area, and this is not only entirely possible but probable, that is unrecognisable in comparison. People would say they had been deceived.
At the end of the day we have tried to do what people had asked us to do and that was to facilitate a review to a difficult and may be an impossible situation.....it is now up to each individual.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2007-06-08 23:30:10 +0000Having myself given our three local councillors a bit of a hard time at the CPZ exhibition over various aspects of the questionnaire (and other matters), I think they do deserve some credit for attempting to tackle a very contentious issue on the basis that they will not automatically go down paths suggested by council officers. Whilst I appreciate that the latter need to bare legal consequences of any actions in their decisions, the former do seem genuinely anxious to take into account what the community would like to happen.
Harry Jacobs on 2007-06-09 08:01:04 +0000Agreed absolutely: the councillors' input and energies in this respect are laudable and appreciated. As Ben's answer reminds us, this is just the first stage of the consultation. If the majority of residents think that CPZ is worth testing, it'll be the next stage that will prove crucial: ie getting the right type of CPZ conditions to suit residents' requirements. I'm reassured by the fact that it would be treated as an experiment with a guaranteed trial period, at the end of which we would assess the impact and lift it, if necessary.
Hilary Ivory on 2007-06-09 09:50:32 +0000I am a member of the S zone of the St. Margaret's parking scheme. Our street is half-empty during the day but has a problem at night and in the evenings - simply because people use their car to go to work. The CPZ proposed will not help you with that problem and is simply another anti-car, money-making scheme from the Lib Dem council. Don't believe the clap-trap about it being "your" scheme, for the benefit of residents. We get ticketed by wardens regularly. They wait by the car until it comes into force when we have been unable to park in a Bay due to there being insufficient bays in the evening when we come home. Its a racket.
David Bonney on 2007-06-10 13:16:51 +0000My particular concern is the issue of people parking over street corners. Most of the corners in St Margarets have hatched white lines which seem to deter no-one, even though you would hope that people would think they served some purpose.
And the fact is they do. It is not just about emergency vehicles, but also about busy walk to school routes.
It is entirely possible that a significant percentage of people who park over these corners have never been at home when the daily migration of children takes place up and down Winchester Road. Nor will many of them have seen children walking to the park early on a Saturday or Sunday for organised activities such as football.
The Council quite rightly encourages children to walk to school, and runs an effective campaign to get children to make their parents feel guilty about using their cars.
But these children cannot see the road properly to cross it, or are trying to squeeze through parked cars to be able to see the road. Few people who have walked along Winchester Road around school time will not have witnessed a heart-stopping moment or two.
So far as the CPZ scheme proper is concerned, I used to live under the shadow of the Zone S scheme, and was never sure what the point of it was. I watched as Black and White clogged up the end of Amyand Park Road, making it virtually impassible most of the time. And yet no-one ever seemed to get a ticket, even though there were always cars there. And yet I had to pay for the privilege of parking a few hundred feet up the road, outside my own house. If the idea is to keep narrow streets clear of unwanted vehicles, then Amyand Park Road is not a shining beacon of success.
Years earlier, living in Haliburton Road, I could never get a parking space on a Sunday night. That was purely down to too many cars, not enough space, and I don't see how a CPZ will change that, although I do have some sympathy with those people who live near the new Richmond Lock development, as without a CPZ there, undoubtedly there will be some overspill parking making a difficult issue worse.
Nigel on 2007-06-11 14:31:11 +0000Many comments make the reasonable assumption that a CPZ can be implemented on an experimental basis and removed if it makes no positive difference to the problem. Given the cost of implementing any scheme and the bureacratic inertia in any large organisation, does anyone have any evidence to prove this assertion? Has Richmond Council (or any other in London, for that matter) ever completely removed a CPZ once it has been implemented?
Simon Lamb on 2007-06-11 19:06:29 +0000Nigel has a good handle on the situation. A CPZ is not a magic wand but a tool, which can with care be designed to help the majority but not all the residents in any given area at all times.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2007-06-12 09:25:49 +0000Re: Removing CPZs: A google search on 'removal' + 'CPZ' yields a 2005 report from East Sussex on an opinion survey after 6 months of a CPZ in Lewes town centre. It asked 'Q3 - The CPZ be removed completely?'; the response was: No 21% Yes 79%, even though 57% responded to question 1 that parking had got worse. So the question has been asked. The report is at: tinyurl.com/2g62g8 and merits study as a model of good practice.
Chris Squire on 2007-06-12 12:27:35 +0000This proposal is not for a "Trial" CPZ however there will be a review after 6 to 12 months of installation when the residents would be consulted and the council could remove or amend it.
Issues relating to one or more Roads having been left out of the initial installation or the other way round could also be addressed at this stage.
Amendments rather than complete reversal has sufficed in the past.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2007-06-13 08:54:46 +0000Add a comment