It was made clear to us at the local elections that a main issue for St Margarets was the quantity of vehicles and the difficulty of parking them in some roads, especially at night. Though it seemed unlikely that residents wanted parking controls after working hours, a controlled parking zone [CPZ] could ease the position during the day for some residents in some roads by excluding commuter parking. Richmond uses a two-stage consultation process to decide whether or not to implement a CPZ ( See this article ). Stage 1, which finds out who are these residents and which are the roads, was done in May/June; the results were published at on this site here and here, on the Council’s site .
The next task is to determine how roads wishing to opt in can be clustered into workable zones. This is Stage 2 of the consultative process; it is in two parts:
- traffic engineers, helped by a local representative working party, drawn at random from residents of all the roads [both opting in and out of the proposed zone], draw up proposals; a consultation document and questionnaire are sent to residents and businesses, who have 21 days to respond.
- after the results have been analysed and discussed with ward councillors and the Transport Consultative Group, the the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking either approves or decides against the statutory consultation (formal advertisement); if this goes ahead, there is a further round of consultation on a formal plan. Then the Cabinet Member makes a final decision which is implemented.
Some roads, which voted to opt out in Stage 1, have been included in Stage 2; this enables them to confirm or change their vote. It also allows for a change of mind in future years [unlikely as this seems now]: the appropriate Traffic Order [‘a legal document made by a local authority, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, that enables the local authority to introduce parking restrictions, speed limits, one-way streets, . . . ‘ see this article ] would be in place. If this were not so, these roads would have to go back to the beginning of the process and lose priority. This is NOT some means of coercing residents to join a scheme against their wishes; experience in other parts of the borough has shown that some residents do change their minds after a scheme has been operating for a while and welcome this opportunity.
A diagram setting out the stages is available here; we are at the beginning of Stage 2. The CPZ is reviewed after 6 months; residents of all the roads, including those from opted out roads, have a further opportunity to make their views known before the scheme is finally confirmed. It remains your councillors’ view that there is no intention to impose a CPZ on any road where there is a majority against it.
Councillor Philip Morgan Cllr.PMorgan@richmond.gov.uk
Thank you for your comments Cllr Morgan. How can the Council possibly ensure that they will not "impose a CPZ on any road where there is a majority against it" if residents are merely afforded the "opportunity to make their views known" in the Stage 2 consultation? How will the Council know what the majority wants if the question of the CPZ is not put to a vote? Indeed the Council has already made it clear that they will ignore the democratic process if they so wish. When the Council asked the residents of North St. Margaret's what we wanted in May/June 2007 an overwhelming majority (65%) were against it AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, AND MOST SHOCKINGLY, 52% OF THE STREETS IN THE STAGE 2 CONSULTATION SAID "NO". The majority have already spoken Cllr Morgan and you and the Council have unilaterally chosen to ignore our wishes. Kim ThomasKim Thomas on 2007-12-12 13:34:35 +0000
Well, I do not want a CPZ at all, however I also do not want to be the only street in the area without one. So by default I will vote to go along with this money making scheme that will not solve any problems.angela on 2007-12-12 17:24:57 +0000
Dear Sarah, I hope you'll reconsider your position. If you disagree with what the Council is attempting to do, and the way in which they are doing it, then it is our duty as citzens to make our voices heard. We have a right to expect a democratic and transparent process. Indeed, a Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act is being sent to the Council this week for all documents concerning this CPZ Proposal. Please do remember, politicans work for us - we hire them, and we fire them. I do hope you will come to the CPZ meeting tomorrow night (7PM, 12 December) at York House. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-12 19:45:28 +0000
Is the meeting tonight? You said tomorrow the 12th -that would be the 13th? Just getting clarificationangela on 2007-12-12 20:44:54 +0000
My apologies Sarah. It is tomorrow, the 13th.Kim Thomas on 2007-12-12 21:31:30 +0000
Dear Kim, in principle I agree with you.
It angers me that roads that have overwhelmingly voted for a CPZ are excluded while roads that voted against a CPZ are included.
St Peters road north of the A316 voted 70% for a CPZ and is denied a CPZ as it is isolated from the of the roads of St Margarets that have voted for a CPZ, the nearest road that voted yes and is included is Orchard road, also north of the A316 a few hundred metres from St Peters road. What distinguishes St Peters road from Orchard road is not so much distance as the fact that there would be very little revenue by way of permits as many of the houses have off street parking. I too live in a house with off street parking. I do not use the off street parking as too often in the past and present inconsiderate drivers park in such a manner that blocks the access. For the police to assist takes a minimum of 2 hours....I voted for a CPZ while 82% of my street voted against. Our three ward councillors have to date responded well to various issues I brought to them but I am not convinced that they have done enough in this instance. More detaild minutes of the Transport Consultative Group Meeting might have shown what was said and by our councillors.Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-12 23:40:12 +0000
I believe I understand the benefits of CPZ but I I'm not so clear on the arguments against. Could anyone provide a brief summary?Daniel on 2007-12-13 10:20:21 +0000
In brief Daniel:
1) CPZ results in a net loss of parking spaces per road as Chris Smith of the Environment Directorate has confirmed. So, residents will have fewer spaces in which to park their cars on their OWN road. 2) Cost for the Council to implement (which in turn you will pay for) and the cost of a permit (or permits) for you to park on your own street (see the Council's website where the costs per car are outlined, do note the high cost of a second car). And, you will also have to pay for visitors' parking during the restricted times. 3) Residents will have to pay for carers for our elderly, babysitters for our children, and workmen in to do our repairs/installations who need to park near our homes in order to do their jobs. CPZ will also further isolate the elderly as people will be less inclined to stop by for a short visit. 3) Adjacent roads (outside of the CPZ) will suffer even more as cars spill over into their roads. 4) It hurts local businesses. Shoppers will be further dissuaded from coming to St. Margarets by the CPZ. Don't be surprised if our high street soon becomes a ghost town as businesses close down. St. Margarets needs a public car park, not CPZ. 5) And perhaps most importantly, they don't solve the core problem - not enough parking spaces for the number of cars owned by residents. Nighttime parking will become an absolute nightmare for residents. With double yellow lines stretching around every corner there will be fewer spaces in which residents and can park their cars overnight. Bottom line: there will be more permits issued than there are spaces in which to park!Kim Thomas on 2007-12-13 11:06:17 +0000
Many thanks for your reply - your views are very interesting. I actually live in a road with CPZ and would not consider moving to one without, as the parking situation seems terrible.Daniel on 2007-12-13 11:16:56 +0000
Gerhard Roads out on a limb that have voted for a CPZ are not easy to enforce is my information. These are expensive properties and how many of the occupiers will be deterred from buying a permit for financial reasons against the convenience of being able to park in the Road is debateable. Now the Roads that have voted no are only included in the next stage as a safety valve for them as they are adjacent to ones that voted yes and there is a possibility of displacement later causing them to change their mind and they would only be included in the final CPZ in that circumstance. Were they not to be included in the next stage now it would be difficult and time consuming to bring them in later. It may be correct voting was 65% against if you look at the entire area, and 48% when you look at the group of Roads around Winchester. However when you look at the 6 Roads which have clearly said they want a CPZ the pattern is reversed and the average YES vote is 65%. If figures stand as they are at the moment these roads are the only roads likely to receive a CPZ.
I fail to see how that is in anyway unfair.
Below is an extract from a posting I made on this Forum on 8th June 2007 at 11.30 pm
"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"
So it was never the intention to take a "one solution fits all" stance, but to try and address each problem as individually as possible within the workable parameters.
There is clearly a difficult situation around the "Village" area and this was highlighted to us and thus we instigated the review to try and find a solution to a difficult task. The problems however are different for different parts of the consultation area so how can the council impose the will of the people Nth of the A316 on to the rest of the area.
Clearly there could have been better communication and to that end my suggestion to enlist the help of Peter Mahnke in this regard at an early stage may have helped.
Cllr Ben KhosaBen Khosa on 2007-12-13 11:31:57 +0000
We live on the edge of Moormead. We try to park in Hill View Rd (i.e. Moormead) & Sidney Road. We have great difficulty as the area fills in the morning with ( in sequence)the Sorting Office,the Police, commuters & finally several white vans. It is also clogged at any one time by properly taxed vehicles belonging to 5th,6th & 9th hand car dealers.In the evening the commuters depart & we get the night shift of the Sorting Office (& obviously residents). As I have been on sick leave for 2 months I can also confirm that we have cars from South Western Rd,the industrial estate, minicabs etc.etc. We were not consulted when Cole Park Road & Broadway Ave were CPDed. We are now being consulted according to the rules. I resent being lectured by those who are against, who tell me that because they have voted against that is the way it should go for me & those who voted in favour.Stephen Alexander on 2007-12-13 12:05:56 +0000
Ben Roads you call out on a limb (St Peters and Railshead) deserve the same consideration given to roads clustered together south of the A316.
Do you really buy the information given to you that it is not easy to enforce a CPZ in these roads?
Daytime parking restrictions are already in force at the T junction of The Avenue and Ranelagh Drive, St Margarets Road from the A316 to Railshead Road. Railshead Road and some other roads north of the A316 also have stretches of double yellow lines (24/ 7 parking restrictions). I would like to think that these are enforced!
Regarding response from the emergency services to the consultation on Railshead Road being given verbally to Cabinet Member Cllr Trigg I would be very surprised if they are not in favour of CPZ.
Please keep in mind that in the next few month the effects of the private CPZ adjacent to Raishead Road, St Margarets Road, Kilmorey Road and Gardens, St Margarets Drive and St Peters Road will be evident in these Roads. Whithin the private CPZ area are approx. 100 flats (1 to 4 bedroom) with 1 paking space each and approx. 70 houses (4 to 5 bedroom) with 2 parking spaces each as well as the new health centre with 12 spaces for medical staff and patients. There are no paking spaces for visitors or tradesmen within that CPZ.Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-13 15:58:14 +0000
I attended a council meeting on Thursday night to discuss the imposition of a CPZ in St Margarets area. During this meeting, the 20 or so attendees witnessed Mr. Chris Smith from the council say in defence of his pro CPZ arguments that there is an ancient law which says 'Everyone has the right to own a car but does not have the right to park it on the street'. This I thought is very interesting. Is he implying that only the rich and fortunate people, who can afford private land for their car should own one, and therefore the not so fortunate should keep the highways clear for them?. In response to another question as to why, we as tax payers pay for the council to lease land for them to be able to park free at work, He said that many employers pay for their staff to park. However, Mr. Smith we do not subsidise them. After all we do not subsidise the police to park or any others we charge with the duty of looking after us. This is the council that wants to discourage car ownership and for us all to use public transport. In doing so, it means I leave my car parked at home and on the road. Am I the only one who smells a whiff of hypocrisy in the air? Perhaps, next time the council want us to plug the gaping hole in their budget we can suggest that they give up the lease of land for their cars and do battle on the streets like the rest of us. In addition, I would be interested to hear from anyone who does know who actually owns the highways of this land.Mary on 2007-12-14 08:32:46 +0000
'The Highways of this land' are of course, the Queen's. A citizen has the right to pass and repass and to stop on the Queen's Highway for so long as is necessary for the purposes of their journey; having a lunch break, resting and feeding the horses, mending punctures and dealing with fellow-travellers who crash into you are all perfectly lawful at Common Law. They may also stop for any other reasonable activity; what is reasonable depends on the facts of the case.
What they don't have is any right to obstruct: "The King's Highway", said Chief Justice Ellenborough in R v Cross (1812) 3 Camp 224, "is not to be used as a stable yard. A stage coach . . may set down or take up passengers in the street, this being necessary for public convenience, but it must be done in reasonable time and private premises must be procured for the coach to stop in during the interval between the end of one journey and the commencement of another." So residents who think they have the 'right' to park in the street outside their front door [as many do] are mistaken. Chris Smith is correct.
What progress was made at this meeting towards creating the CPZ in Winchester and Bridge Roads for which residents have been pleading and petitioning for so long?Chris Squire on 2007-12-14 11:08:18 +0000
I think some of the comments on the Council and Councillors are somewhat unfair. Everyone has an opinion, and a right to share that opinion, but to me the Council is doing exactly what they said would be done. I live on a road where residents were split on this issue, but this road borders on a road where there was a clear majority in favour of a CPZ. As such that road going ahead with a CPZ may simply displace cars into the road where I live. Therefore I now would welcome a wider CPZ and would not be surprised if others felt the same. Residents I talk to who live in a CPZ area tell me that they cannot imagine life without it. Maybe there are more benefits which will only be seen once such a zone is created.Dave on 2007-12-14 12:38:49 +0000
The council embarked on the CPZ issue by way of stage 1 consultation and got a clear answer, road by road individual residents let their preference known in writing. What use are these meetings now other than giving those residents that do not agree with their neighbours desicion a chance to try and change a democratic outcome of a legal consultation? The council had already decided not to implement what residents asked for in writing and arranged these meetings to be able to say that residents could not agree despite these meetings and as a consequence the council have to impose their own plans.Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-14 13:38:17 +0000
No progress was made on the objetives of the meeting. It seems the determined, vocal, abraisive and aggressive presentation of views by some was enough to disuade others not to take part. However if there is one thing I have learned in my first year as councillor it is that vocal people who appear to represent the masses do not neccesarily do so. I take on board all of Gerhards comments.
Cllr Ben KhosaBen Khosa on 2007-12-14 16:39:16 +0000
Gerhard, Ben..... how can you say this is a democratic process when roads that voted against the CPZ in the first stage of the consultation, are being included in the second stage? I know what your answer will be: it's to give those "No" roads a second chance to reconsider their stance. OK, fine so far BUT they are not going to be given a chance to VOTE AGAIN, merely to express their views, with the council making the final decision on our behalf. If the council were to put the question of the CPZ to the entire North St. Margaret's again (after the trial) then that would be a democratic process, and I would wholeheartedly support the outcome of such a vote. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-14 19:10:50 +0000
While I don't like the CPZ one bit (as the problem is residents with too many and too large cars), I sort of disagree with the concept of letting individual streets opt-in and out of the CPZ. I think if the Council is going to implement one, they need to do it thinking of the area as a whole. Giving individual streets the right to choose is crazy.
In our case, what is to stop all the people on Winchester, Sidney and Bridge road from parking at least their second cars on South Western and St Margarets Grove all week long? And where will people on these roads now park, imagine the running around every morning moving your cars trying to find a place to park before you go to work.
Fine, the Council probably shouldn't have gone ahead with the CPZ to begin with, but dear Lord, if they are going to implement it, let them do it is a way that isn't gerrymandered and punitive to working people. They need to look at the area as a whole and do the right thing for most people.
Now, if they shouldn't have done it in the first place, go after that instead.
PeterPeter on 2007-12-14 21:08:12 +0000
Kim, please look at my post on 12 Dec. Stage 1 consultation clearly identified wich roads should go forward to stage 2 cnsultation.
All your posts seem to totally ignore the fact that 2 roads that voted for a CPZ (70% and 100%) where excluded.
I think you lost some credibility because of that, only advocating democracy for those that oppose a CPZ.Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-14 21:29:09 +0000
Me or the Council Gerhard?!?! Certainly neither are my mistakes/oversights. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-14 22:13:15 +0000
Kim, point me to a post where you complain about the council not including the 2 roads that voted for CPZ in the stage 2 consultation.Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-14 23:11:56 +0000
Gerhard...every voice should be heard, those for and against. It's unacceptable that we have a Council that seems unable to interpret either well.Kim Thomas on 2007-12-15 22:52:04 +0000
Kim, are you saying that a written YES or NO needs interpretation by the council? With regard to every voice should be heard I agree with you. When it comes to defending the democratic process I will do so irrespective whether, as in this case, residents voted for or against a CPZ or my own view on CPZ.Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-16 01:30:54 +0000
In the St Margarets CPZ Questionnaire the first Question is
"Do you want the proposed CPZ to cover your street"
It is to this question people have responded and this is what the council is responding to.
Where is the non transparency, where is the non democracy whose voice is not heard. Having noted Gerhard's points to which the other Camp have made no reference. It seems to me there are some rebels here without a cause.
The question was Definately NOT
"Do you want the proposed CPZ across the whole of the current consultation area" but do you want it "to cover your street"
It was never the intention to impose or not impose a blanket CPZ (I repeat - please see my posting 8th June 2007 11.30pm on this site) across the initial consultation area.
We live in a Borough where satisfaction scores are high, we spend less per head in delivering our services than most, we are one of the safest and fittest, longevity figures are high, top scorers in education, need I go on. So it seems someone has got something right some where and to dismiss all this as the council being undemocratic and non transparent is in my opinion tantamount to being criminal.
Another characteristic of our Borough is that it is articulate and intelligent and I therefore expect the effects of the negative victories (disruption of the two working party meetings) to be short term.
Officers working on this consultation are of the highest order, they do not have any private agendas. I am not saying they or anyone else is perfect or that we should not question them when necessary but that we need to work with and not against them to make the best of a difficult parking situation in St Margarets.
Cllr Ben KhosaBen Khosa on 2007-12-16 09:57:12 +0000
"Tantamount to being criminal." How so Cllr Khosa? This is indeed a fantastic borough in which to live (as it has been for centuries I would remind Cllr Khosa) but it doesn't excuse the Council's gross mishandling of the proposed CPZ in St. Margaret's. Your logic is risable. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-16 17:10:58 +0000
Dear Kim and Ben, are we loosing sight of the original issue? I think there is already ample evidence that once a CPZ is implemented the recognised problems it deals with sucsessfully move on to adjacent streets without exeption. Do you or any other reader disagree with that?
Any attempt to stop that progression appears to be futile. Correction, is futile.
Please look at the posts of Sarah, 12Dec, ; Daniel 13Dec. ; Stephen, 13Dec, ; Dave, 14Dec. All the above are for CPZ or recognise that it will be in there interest to be part of a CPZ.
None of the above live in a road adjacent to St Peters Road that voted 70% in favour of CPZ and it is therefore reasonable to assume that residents in adjacent roads to St Peters Road change their mind, vote for CPZ at the time 6 Month after implementation of the CPZ If Commuter parking is affecting them adversely, possibly even before as the above have demonstrated.
Is it possible to agree that with the evidence before us to accept Cllr Trigg`s desicion to include some roads that have voted NO to a CPZ providing he reverses his desicion not to include roads that have voted YES?
On a related issue I have noted that the price of a property with off street parking in St Margarets is upwards of 10 times the average price of an on street yearly parking permit.
I regard CPZ`S as an interim measure until we can reach agreement on how to reduce reliance on car travel and car ownership.
I applaude all those that have to date contributed to this debate and would ask all to comment on whether they would want to see roads that voted YES at consultation 1 to be included in stage 2 consultation.Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-17 01:16:30 +0000
'This borough' has only been a great place to live in since 1963. To my mind the behaviour of the disruptors is not criminal but foolish and harmful to residents. Stage 2 of the Consultation will go ahead without any input from residents, who could have reviewed and modified the proposals which the Council will put to residents in the New Year. Will this lead to a better outcome? I doubt it.Chris Squire on 2007-12-17 01:33:06 +0000
Christopher, I came to St Margarets in 1953 and thought it was a great place to live. Today I still believe it is a great place to live other wise I would have moved by now. I feel there has been a steady decline over the years but as this was universal St Margarets remains No1 for me! The current issue of commuter parking has been a problem for about 30 Years because of the former college/ university site adjacent to my house. We have had a restpite since the university vacated 18 Month ago and student parking ceased but I am not looking forward to the next 12 Month when the new housing development will be occupied.
Our planning department has made sure that parking provisions are in line with policy, ie. 1 space for each of the 100 flats and 2 spaces for the 70 4 to 5 bedroom houses and no provision for visitors. The so called policy to reduce car ownership does not prevent new residents from owning any number of cars as they can park them on the public roads outside the private estate. They can not park excess cars within the new estate as it will be strictly controlled by the estate management CPZ. I see bleak times ahead for myself and the neighbourhood! I hope my worst predictions will not come true but I would view the future with more confidence had Cllr Trigg not refused to give St Peters Road the CPZ it had voted for. Will he refuse our road if we ask for a CPZ?
I hope for some joint up thinking by our council, in particular the planning department!!!!!Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-17 03:28:05 +0000
The assertion that the council has grossly mishandled the proposal is deplorable and misleading and I do not and will not accept it.
Kim seeks to overturn the majority YES vote in her own Road to a No vote because it doesn't suit her and then talks about Democracy?
People who were eager to get involved were dissuaded from taking part by the aggressive and abrasively presented views.........is this Democracy?
If so on behalf of the peace loving, fair playing residents whose right seems to have been taken away from them I denounce it and will seek to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Cllr Ben KhosaBen Khosa on 2007-12-17 10:44:33 +0000
I can see no good argument to deny those roads which voted overwhelmingly for a CPZ to be given some relief. In contrast, the logical extension of Kim Thomas' arguments would be to withdraw a CPZ from the roads which have one now. Having said that, I do think the council needs to consider and act more effectively on measures such as car clubs, parking vouchers and other ways to mitigate any problems which follow the introduction thereof.Trevor Whittall on 2007-12-17 11:33:51 +0000
Cllr Khosa - I am delighted to read that you have retracted your accusation of criminality. I am not taking this stand as a homeowner in Orchard Rd. but as a resident of St. Margaret's, and of the borough. Please don't misrepresent the basis for my position. To suggest that people have been dissuaded from attending meetings because of dissenting voices is a very weak argument indeed. As I have said repeatedly, every voice has a right to be heard - even the lone man in favour of CPZ who attended this week's meeting. Do remember Cllr Khosa, it was I who encouraged him to speak.
The Council appears to have conducted this process legally (subject to further investigation) but it has been neither democratic nor transparent. The Council failed to communicate the process for this consultation in an open and effective fashion as was made obvious, and acknowledged by the Council, at our last two meetings. The original consultation logically considered the North St Margarets area as a whole and the majority of people living in it said they did not want CPZ. The Council has now unilaterally and naively sub-divided the area in order to introduce CPZ. CPZ will not solve the parking problem in North St. Margarets's, it will merely displace it at great cost. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-17 15:05:26 +0000
I believe Kim has got this the wrong way round. The roads nearest the station had been pressing for a CPZ for years. The consultation was about how far this should extend. Whilst there is a majority not wanting a CPZ in their own road, we were not asked to give an opinion as to whether Winchester Road should be given a CPZ. Thus, there was no question of consultees further away preventing roads nearer the station being granted their wish. Otherwise, those who actually cause the daytime problems in Winchester Road and Bridge Road, such as (on occasion) myself, would probably be voting for the status quo against those most inconvenienced. I accept the argument that there is then a danger of the tail wagging the dog, but if these roads satisfy the criteria for a CPZ (of very few daytime spaces being available) and there is a rising demand for the station and an increasing number of cars then I do not feel my vote should override that of those nearer the problem. So, I do feel that the council has gone about this consultation correctly.Trevor Whittall on 2007-12-17 20:47:02 +0000
Sorry Trevor but I'm afraid I don't understand your point. I would just urge the residents of St Margarets who will be in the Stage 2 consultation to not take an "I'm Alright Jack" approach to this problem - - which I could well do living on Orchard Road - - and keep in mind what is best for all of north St Margarets, not just their road. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-17 22:17:19 +0000
The council have carried out the conultation correctly, I agree. The implementation of the result was not carried out correct. I am still not aware of the purpose of the 2 meetings (Wichester Hall and Civic Centre). Was there an agenda for the meeting?
To avoid havig to repeat myself please revisit my post of 1.16am 17 Dec.
Is it now impossible to change the desicion not to include Roads that have voted to be included in a CPZ????Gerhard Schellberg on 2007-12-17 22:57:42 +0000
Re: car clubs: how they work is well described on City Car Club's website [http://www.citycarclub.co.uk/index.php]:
'Car clubs are a relatively new concept. The idea is that the club owns and maintains a fleet of cars which members can book by the hour, day or for however long they want. The club pays for all tax, insurance, servicing, cleaning and even petrol - members aren't liable for any running costs. Members simply pay a joining fee of £75 then they just pay for each journey they make which ranges from £3.60 an hour in a small car out of London to £4.95 in a bigger car in London. Day rates range from £45 to £49.50 with subsequent days from £22.50 to £24.75. Big discounts are available on these rates for just a small additional joining fee. The first 50 miles each day are free with each booking. Subsequent miles cost 20p a mile. The car will be parked in the same place whenever members want it - clean, taxed, serviced and ready for use. All members need to do is book a car online or on the phone jump in and drive off. It is then returned to the same reserved parking bay it was collected from. Simple as that.' City Car Club is currently advertising itself in this via red round leaflets placed under car wipers. So far they just one car here, a Fiesta 125 based at Clevedon Road: www.citycarclub.co.uk/display.php?club_id=TW1%202HYChris Squire on 2007-12-18 20:45:08 +0000
I do not wish to hog this site [in any case I will be unable to post for a while] but could I just say Kim's reading and, more importantly, her digesting seem to be rather selective. Could I please ask her to take in some of what I and others have said in previous posts? In one of her own previous post Kim boasts: "The meeting last night was indeed confrontational." While she and her camp may well revel in confrontational behavior, I sense it is a complete turn off for most residents. It may seem a weak argument to her to say the "confrontational" behaviour could have dissuaded people from taking part: my mail inbox supports a different view.
These two meetings were in fact intended to be a working party group meetings to work on detailed designs. These were not any decision making or opinion seeking meetings. It is unfortunate this was not noted by a few particularly as I had personally advised Kim of the above well before the meetings.
In response to Trevor, I made it my business last year to visit some other boroughs and attend seminars re car clubs; they have much to recommend them. I can report the Council is actively investigating this:
as Cllr Philip Morgan is now Assistant Cabinet Member for Traffic & Transport, I have handed him the torch.
Cllr Ben KhosaBen Khosa on 2007-12-19 12:57:26 +0000
Cllr Khosa, debate lies at the heart of a robust democracy - always has, always will. And sometimes it is indeed confrontational because within the context of that debate, people express their criticisms of a process. (That is what "confrontational" means by the way.) The Council has been inept in communicating with residents regarding north St Margarets CPZ (as some have noted on this blog, and as reflected by my mail inbox). You might therefore have expected residents to have used these meetings to discuss/debate the process as there has been no other forum in which, or means by which, to do so, irrespective of your agenda. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-19 15:27:38 +0000
The proper course for the 'antis', I suggest, was to call what used to be called an 'indignation meeting' in the Winchester Hall, where, under a neutral Chair, residents could debate a motion of 'no confidence', with a vote at the end. Councillors could have been invited to attend and to speak but neither they nor anyone else would be allowed to hog the meeting. I have attended several such meetings over the years and they have often but not always had a salutary effect on the decision makers. The antis' disruption of the two planning meetings has had no effect on what will happen next, i.e. Stage 2 of the consultation in January.Chris Squire on 2007-12-19 17:47:48 +0000
Surely Christopher you understand that such a meeting would have had no effect. KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-19 21:47:37 +0000
I have been an activist in Richmond's borough politics for 20 years and have worked closely with your ward councillors since before they were selected as candidates; so I know how things work here as you evidently do not. They would have been very concerned if such a meeting had been called, they would have attended and have endeavoured to convince residents of the correctness of what was being done by the council, which they have worked hard to bring about to fulfill the pledge on which they were elected; if there had been a vote of 'no confidence', they would have used it to insist that the council [i.e. their friend and colleague the cabinet member for traffic, David Trigg, cllr for Riverside ward] abandon or modify the consultation. There is no way he would have decided to be deaf to their pleas and press ahead regardless. This CPZ extension is clearly wanted by some, who have been pleading for it for many years and who are entitled to get it; so they will get it and residents of other roads who will be inconvenienced by it have to decide how to respond.
The ward councillors have no interest in imposing an unwanted CPZ on the residents of St Margarets. They worked hard, on the doorstep, for years, to get themselves elected; they want to be re-elected. So they are highly motivated to try to find a solution to this problem that delivers the 'greatest possible good to the greatest possible number'.Chris Squire on 2007-12-20 01:40:30 +0000
Well, we'll just see if they're re-elected... KimKim Thomas on 2007-12-20 16:35:20 +0000
Reading the posts above, I'm afraid that the Council's devious "Divide and Conquer" strategy will eventually win, leaving everyone with:
1) Fewer parking spaces overall (by DAY as well as by NIGHT)
2) More expense
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin - could well be applied to our existing parking freedoms!Ed on 2008-01-11 17:43:06 +0000
Ed, at present every person residing in Richmond can buy and register a vehicle (any number of vehicles?) at their home address.
Liberty that must be preserved?
------------------------------------------------ Is making street corners safe a loss of liberty? -------------------------------------------------
The "Divide and Conquer" strategy does not have to be used by the council to do as they please in this instance as residents views are divided enough.
GerhardGerhard Schellberg on 2008-01-13 00:00:09 +0000
To anyone who is in favour of a CPZ, I would just like to relate a very recent personal experience. I went to visit my sister for lunch where she lives in Putney (in a CPZ zone). I parked outside and asked her for a visitor voucher. The council had failed to send her any so I moved the car to top of the road in the only visitors bay, walked to the other end of the street for the ticket machine. It took 3 goes for the machine to accept just under £4.00 for 2hours parking, walk back to the car to display ticket, then walk back to her house. Spent the whole 2 hours clock watching. Will I be visiting her again - doubtful! (she does not live near public transport either). Perhaps it wont be only the elderly who will be isolated.Mary on 2008-01-17 22:32:32 +0000
Mary, the situation may not be straightforward. Perhaps, if the area where your sister lives was not a CPZ area it would have been difficult to find a place to park at all.Trevor Whittall on 2008-01-18 09:00:04 +0000
Mary, your comment is an excellent advert for the benefit of a CPZ! I agree with Trevor when he writes that most probably only because of the CPZ there was an available space outside your sisters house.
GerhardGerhard Schellberg on 2008-01-18 11:46:11 +0000
Mary, the pay and display too is only there because of the CPZ and this space therefore may also not have been available for you.Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-01-18 12:02:07 +0000
Gerhard & Tom, In the above instance I merely point out the inconvenience and expense of visiting someone who lives in a CPZ. Not only that but every tradesman I have spoken to say they charge extra or if busy deliberately price themselves out of the job for working in a CPZ area. A second point, is the council seem reluctant to state how many spaces overall will be lost if the CPZ goes ahead and eventually covers the whole area. I have heard as many as 80 spaces. Any resident who has tried to find car space on a Sunday night when residents are at home and commuters absent, will have an idea of it will be like 24/7 under a CPZ. Or perhaps you have found parking has been alot worse the last week or two because of gas works in South Western Road has meant decommissioning a mere 20-30 spaces. Broadway Ave might not be so pleased with their current CPZ when surrounding streets can and have to legitamately park there.Mary on 2008-01-25 17:41:50 +0000
I've just received the letter regarding the decision to implement the CPZ for St Margarets South. It's a disgrace ! according to the detailed breakdown of the results of the consultation, 2256 questionnaires were sent out. 369 voted YES and 751 voted NO In other words 49.4% of the questionnaires were returned. Less that 17% of the houses polled have voted YES. There was never any chance that this would not be forced through against the wishes of the residents. Have I missed something ? How can we stop it ?
Geoff Hellings 42 St Margarets GroveGeoff Hellings on 2008-05-02 18:50:21 +0000