Teddington CPZ: An Unrepresentative Minority wants a CPZ
“I thought you might be interested in my analysis of the Council’s survey in Teddington. The issues are very similar — the worst parking problem occurs in the evening — and yet the Council wishes to force through a CPZ on a small positive vote (completely ignoring those who didn’t vote for whatever reason) of a relatively small section of the area (they asked half the households in Teddington for their views).
Parking in St Margarets is a pain and will remain a pain regardless of whether a CPZ is implemented. A CPZ will cost everyone money, will bring traffic wardens into the area on a regular basis (perhaps their contract could extend to something socially useful, like litter picking) and will reduce the amount of parking since parking at junctions will be controlled. Only those who haven’t thought about the big picture could possibly favour any CPZ scheme."
— former Cllr Simon Lamb
An Unrepresentative Minority wants a CPZ
There are more than 4,400 households in the whole of Teddington (as defined by Council ward boundaries) and just half of them were asked whether they wanted parking restrictions in the area around the station. Only 354 expressed support for such a scheme and on the strength of their opinions the Council is about to impose a CPZ on everyone.
Of the residents who live closest to the station, only in 2 roads (Adelaide Road and Avenue Road) does a bare majority of the total number of households actual want a CPZ. The Council has grossly inflated support by ignoring those who were not able or willing to express an opinion. For example, support in Adelaide Road is stated at 71% but only 5 out the 10 properties expressed support so the true level is just 50%. Just 1/3rd of the households in Station Road and The Cedars support the scheme.
The 2001 Census shows that there are 11 cars for every 10 households in Teddington so parking is always going to be difficult in areas without off-street spaces. Indeed, there are over 27% of households with 2 or more cars compared with just 22% with no cars (the balance has one car). The sensible option is to accept this is a fact of urban life rather than volunteer to pay for a service that has absolutely no guarantee you will be able to park close to your property.
In their own report the Council states other drawbacks of a CPZ:
- Displaces parking into nearby uncontrolled roads
- The amount of on-street parking spaces can be reduced since yellow lines will be painted at junctions.
And what of the costs? A 2 car household could pay £101.25 if their cars are in Band C for CO2 emissions or £337.50 if they are in the highest band (G). And every visitor’s permit will be an additional £1.10.
This Wednesday is the last chance to state your views before the Liberal Democrat Cabinet Member for Transport, Cllr David Trigg, makes his decision. Whilst 1/5th of local residents have no car, 2/3rds of the local Liberal Democrat councillors (Elengorn and Mumford) are without their own transport. The clear danger is that their dogmatic ‘Green’ opinions will be foisted on the rest of us by a combination of frustration and inertia.
— from Simon Lamb
Comments
Please post details on how we can further state our opposition to the CPZ scheme (other than the Council questionnaire returned some months ago).
Scott on 2008-02-06 07:42:25 +0000Councillor Morgan's December post stated where the Council is at in its 2 stage consultation process. I would suggest people E mail him and Cllr Trigg to let them have some views on the proposals.
Simon Lamb on 2008-02-07 06:34:48 +0000Re ' . . support in Adelaide Road is stated at 71% but only 5 out the 10 properties expressed support so the true level is just 50% . . '. Let me explain: 10 properties were surveyed; 7 replied; 5 said yes'; this has been reported as 'yes rate' = 5/7 = 71 %. This is how elections are decided and the results of opinion surveys are usually reported; it is fair to both sides of the argument. It would be possible to decide that everyone who didn't reply would be counted as a 'no' vote, but it would only be fair to do this if this rule was clearly stated in advance on the ballot paper. It would be just as reasonable [or unreasonable] to decide that everyone who didn't reply would be counted as a 'yes' vote, in accordance with the old legal maxim: 'qui tacet consentire videtur' 'silence means consent'.
Chris Squire on 2008-02-08 10:38:31 +0000Christopher makes a very good point and Simon is guilty of totally misrepresenting the statistics.
By writing in such a biased way, Simon tarnishes the rest of his article and leads me to question all of his points.
tomhemmant on 2008-02-08 11:54:23 +0000Just two points, I'd make:
- To make a change to the status quo that potentially affects so many people, I would think the Council would need to be sure that the groundswell of opinion is behind them - i.e. that the responses collected amounted to at least 50% of those surveyed. To take another example, if you want to start a neighbourhood watch scheme, you need to get the support of more than 50% of the residents in a street.
- For most residents surely the biggest problem is to find a park at night and not between 10 and 4 when most CPZs kick in.
Maeve Good on 2008-02-08 13:33:28 +0000Every day on my walk from Waterloo in to work, I pass some parking spaces reserved for and containing 2 cars belonging to a car club. I looked them up their web site, and the whole thing seems to me like a fantastically good idea. And not too expensive, either.
Unfortunately they will not move in to an area until they judge that there is sufficient demand. They judge demand by people registering an interest on their website. So please, let's all get on there and tell them that we're here!
(This is beginning to sound like a plug. It isn't! I'm anti-CPZ and I think this might be a better way of solving the parking problems that some people have.)
The one I came across was www.zipcar.co.uk
To register your interest, go to zipcar.co.uk/notify-me But the form seems to be USA-centric, so you need to chick on orange "Choose a different country" link first. The web site is www.zipcar.co.uk.
In fact there are quite a number of car-club companies, you can find the nearest at www.londoncarclubs.net There are already bays for www.citycarclub.co.uk and www.streetcar.co.uk down near Richmond Bridge.
Many people who only make occasional use of their car could benefit. The figures certainly add up favourably compared to the insurance, tax and depreciation costs of our own car.
Ed
Ed on 2008-02-10 13:05:09 +0000Ed, thank`s for putting car clubs back on the agenda! www.streetcar.co.uk appears to be streets ahead of other car clubs that had a mention on this site. They have bays in 3 locations within 10 mins walk from St Margarets Roundabout. 2 bays at Rosslyn Road (151 Richmond Road, gate next to Kwick Fit) 1 bay at York House Car Park (Civic Centre) 1 bay at South Sreet Isleworth (carpark near clock tower)
City Car club has only the one bay near Richmond Bridge and Zipcars have none in the area at all.
If I was considering joining a car club I would look for easy access by foot to more than just one car to ensure I can have a car when I want it.
I am for CPZ`s and I think a car club will expand faster in CPZ areas; bringing about a small reduction in privately owned cars parked on the streets. (Zipcar claims that over 40% of their members decide against purchasing a car, or end up selling their car) Makes no sense to me that 59% of their members decide to buy a car or keep the one they got!
Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-02-11 00:41:36 +0000This is clearly a revenue generating excercise being bulldozed through against the wishes of the majority of redidents. The introduction of a CPZ will not help parking in the area. There will be a reduction of available spaces created by the yellow lines to be painted at junctions. It is just as difficult to park in the area in the evenings when commuter parking is not the issue. It is a digrace that the questionnaire was designed in a manner to lead people into voting for a CPZ if it transpired that the surrounding roads were in favour. Therefore, by starting with a couple of roads that alledgedly show a majority in favour (right by the station) they have used the ripple effect of residents not wanting to suffer the displacement to achieve their original aim. Completely contrived. The unique country feel of the streets will be lost, and the difficulty of parking will remain the same, if not worse, and to top it all we will have traffic wardens patrolling our streets. The plain simple fact is the majority of residents who returned questionaires in the area (and the area should be looked at as a whole) were against its introduction. This means we don't want it. It will be an utter disgrace if this goes through.
Nick on 2008-02-20 15:37:24 +0000Gerhard makes a good point. I think car clubs have much to offer, its a win win situation. A link people may find of some use.....http://www.carplus.org.uk/carplus/breathingfreshair_events.htm
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2008-02-20 23:25:26 +0000"The unique country feel of the streets will be lost". (Nick 20/2) Of all the arguments against the CPZ - from the sensible through the cleraly selfish to the outlandish - this has the distinction of being the only one (so far) to make me laugh out loud!
David bertram on 2008-02-21 14:25:47 +0000So happy to make David laugh. It was a reference to the parking signs, marked bays and an double yellow lines, so in that respect the streets will change. All in all it's no laughing matter and the majority of residents don't want it. Why is it being imposed?
Nick on 2008-02-22 16:32:33 +0000Nick, I too had a laugh, so did every body else I talked to.
I am not aware of any streets in St Margarets voting to get rid of the existing CPZ despite the double yellow lines, marked bays and parking signs in their area. (as well as the cost of permits!)
The area I am in agreement with you is that only streets where a clear majority voted for a CPZ should go forward to a stage 2 consultation. Residents in adjacent streets should be given the opportunity to get together and allowed to join if the majority have changed their mind because of the result of the stage 1 consultation.
I might even agree with you that CPZ is used as a revenue raising exercise since the council refused to include 2 streets north of the A316 from stage 2 consultation despite having overwhelmingly voted yes at stage 1. The reason given by the councillors: The roads are too isolated! I think the real reason is that there will be little demand for permits as most of the properties there have off street parking.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-02-23 02:14:35 +0000The jokes are coming in thick and fast.......
Page 5 in this weeks informer.........
An under ground carpark below the grass of Moormeade Park!
Cllr Triggs reaction, if reported accurately, is that the cost would be prohibitive and there would be a problem with water because of the near River Crane and River Thames.
I agree about the cost, not about the water issue. Less than 1 Mile away 2 under ground carparks have received Planning permission as have several applications to dig out subststantial basements underneath existing properties.
What Cllr Trigg might have said is that he and his fellow Cllr`s opposed this U/G carpark suggestion as it would encourage commuter parking and would still require parking controls in surrounding Roads between the park and the station and north of the A316.
No driver will use an under ground car park if parking is not controlled in surrounding streets.
Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-02-23 15:14:02 +0000Alternatives:
Allow police who currently use Hill View Rd for parking a free C zone pass which is currently greatly under utilized. It is nearer and more convenient for them and the residents will have the assurance of a greater police presence (be it off duty) and they should be the last ones to park inconsiderately. Hill View Road at present is one car width wide with parking either side. The narrow pavements are blocked by large trees & therefore redundant. Mears vans hurtle along despite road humps. So - level and GRAVEL over to the outer tree line (2-3meters) either side. This disguises its function of a road and makes it more in keeping with the park (Possible cast iron bollards and bushes to further enhance this perception). This leaves space for increased diagonal parking, useless pavement becomes redundant. Vehicles can pass each other without reversing. The entrance could be signed 'Shared space - please drive carefully'. The extra parking would enable parents to come and watch their children play football and would be useful overspill for surrounding streets at night. I believe the gravel appearance would encourage careful driving, deter people using it as a cut through and not affect drainage. Sorting office staff also park on the Mead. I understand their office is relocating. If this is not the case there is ample waste land behind the sorting office for their own carpark. There is small carpark at one end of Winchester Rd for the warehouse use, but it is never used and could be re-allocated. There are other small spaces around the area which could be utilised for resident parking. Allow the local shops 30minute free parking and increase number of spaces. Helps local trade and deters visitors from using our area to park for shopping. Small school buses introduced or re-introduce the 'walking bus' which I believe was trialled. This discourages the congestion around schools and obviates the need for larger cars for the school run. Train fares restructured to make it a lower cost per mile the more miles travelled. Encourages people to use a nearer station to their home. Station parking could also be structured on this basis. i.e. cheaper car parks the further out you travel from.
Failing all that the Mums who use thier car for a short a.m. run to the school and shops then lose their space to a commuter could get together and desist from doing so for a couple of days (say over half term). When the commuter arrives and finds no space they may be forced to change their habits be it only for the short to medium term.
Mary on 2008-03-01 16:05:00 +0000Mary, I am pleased that at least you are giving parking some further serious thought. However, I do not think that the council can take over private land to establish public carparks or turn pavements into parking areas.
The numbers of motor vehicles owned by residents is the problem, the numbers are constantly increasing. The councils planning department, the councils policys and national policy can take the credit for that.
Just look at the current proposals for the Crown Road Doctors Surgery, 2 × 2 bedroom flats, 1 × 1 bedroom flat and one studio flat. That development can generate up to 8 cars if the council grants permission! (without visitors)
An end of terrace house, originally 3 bedroom, near me was given consent to extend and division into 5 self contained flats; 1× 2 bedroom, 2× 1 bedroom and 2 studio flats. 5 cars at present, 1 studio flat has no car. There is the potential of 10 cars in total.
Just around the corner in St Margarets Road (Nos 257-275) planning permission is applied for 27 flats and 20 parking spaces in the basement.
A potential shortfall of 34 parking spaces!
Directly opposite the Richmond Lock Development is equally short of realistic parking provisions. There are about 40 market flats and 60 social housing flats with 1 parking space per flat. The large houses (4-5 bedroom) will have 2 parking spaces.
Another application at present under consideration by the council is made by Octagon, the owners of the Richmond Lock Site. The application site is the listed Gordon House and ancillary buildings. The applicant seeks to relocate the swimming pool from an consented extension to Gordon House Chapel and seek permission to turn the extension into a ball room. A less prominent part of this application is that the applicant also seeks permission to link the extensive basement of Gordon House to the under ground car park on the adjacent site also owned by the applicant. The under ground car park is for the garaging of cars owned by the occupants of the large houses above and for staff of the recently relocated crown road surgery now operating on the Richmond Lock Site. There is no spare capacity in the car park but the tunnel would provide vehicular access between Gordon house and Kilmorey Road, The proposed ballroom suggests a considerable number of visitors to this single family house with 8 double ensuite bedrooms; 2 seperate self contained flats above the garages in the Geoffrey Knight Buinding and the swimming pool in Gordon House Chapel.
I fear that this latest application, in particular the proposed link between Gordon House and the under ground car park on the adjacent site, will eventually result in more cars parked by future visitors/ patrons to gordon house on the public roads around this private development.
Recent history shows that the fact that the absence of parking provision both on and off sreet does not detere residents from owning motor vehicles and to Date the council has no power to control vehicle ownership per property.
In the 1980`s planning permissions for subdivision of houses etc. where refused for the reason that it would create un acceptable pressure on on street parking. Some Years later this policy was changed not because the parking problem had gone away but the need for additional housing.
The global warming issue now results in the power for the council to stop developers to provide adequate parking provision without the council having the power to back this up by controlling vehicle ownership.
This is bound to increase the un controlled requirement for on street parking and totally negates the desire of reducing global warming by under provision of off street parking.
The big question is, are the majority of residents satisfied with the status quo or want to see a policy put in place that will halt the increase and over a period of time reduce the number of motor vehicles on the boroughs streets?
Gerhard Schellberg on 2008-03-02 18:08:20 +0000"The big question is, are the majority of residents satisfied with the status quo or do they want to see a policy put in place that will halt the increase and over a period of time reduce the number of motor vehicles on the boroughs streets?"
The answer, as ever, is "yes; everyone - except us - must reduce their car use. Us - well we NEED a car - each - for our jobs and/or all our day-time activities with the kids and the older son/daughter needs one because we don't want to be a taxi service...blah blah blah". The same group won't use buses beacuse they're "too unreliable" (that's because the roads are choked with cars) and "too unsafe" (that's because responsible citizens have abandoned them). Good thinking, Gerhard, but you're up against an addiction that is stronger and more in-denial than crack cocaine.
David (family of four, no car and managing just fine)
David bertram on 2008-03-03 06:28:58 +0000Add a comment