Comments

• I completely agree with Lucy on the subject but bear in mind that this will only push more cars to park on Moor Mead road where I live. It is a vicious circle and either the entire area should be included in the CPZ or none of the streets at all.

  Melle on 2009-04-03 09:59:32 +0000

• With reference to your two photos, the only reason why Winchester Road is so empty is because Winchester Road residents are parking on Godstone, Kenley and Sidney roads to avoid paying for a permit. Yes you could introduce a CPZ in these roads, but actually why not scrap the CPZ on Winchester Road (after all 75% voted against it) and you will see Winchester Road fill up again and Godstone Road empty, as it was 6 months ago!

  Andrew on 2009-04-03 18:31:43 +0000

• With respect my perception and information is different to the above. If 75% of Winchester had voted against it I cannot see how they could have got the CPZ imposed on them. The response, in the council conducted survey, to the question "Would you like your road to be included in the CPZ..." as I recall was 60% for inclusion. I often walked through Godstone (pre CPZ) and NEVER had I seen it empty or anything like empty. Experience suggests the empty spaces in Winchester may be due to some commuters and non "locals" to have been driven out. If there are some Winchester residents parking in nearby roads to avoid paying for a permit they cannot be in any great numbers

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2009-04-04 09:26:58 +0000

• Cllr Khosa is, of course, correct: the results of the consultation were published on July 11 2007 at: www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2007/07/cpz_results_published.html . Winchester Road voted 73 % 'Yes'. Residents of other roads wondering how to vote should realise that this may be their last chance to join the CPZ for many years, as your councillors are likely to feel that they have fulfilled their election promise [to get a consultation] and the Council's Highways Department has a full programme of work elsewhere.

  Councillors do not, in my 20 year experience, go into public life out of a burning desire to help residents sort out their parking problems. So residents will have to learn to live with the outcome of this consultation, however unsatisfactory some may find it. Even if the Conservatives took over the Council, they would not dismantle the CPZ.

  Chris Squire on 2009-04-04 10:43:37 +0000

• Cllr Khosa is a typical politician, the statistics he quoted if analyzed show that only 60% of people voted and there were only 30% in favour of CPZ

  Ronnie on 2009-04-04 11:28:26 +0000

• Again I have to differ from you Ronnie. I do not think of myself as typical anything but I prefer to think of myself as a community rep, trying to do the best by as many as possible. I do not understand or agree with your analysis........in any voting or election do we take into account abstentions and non voters and try and guess what they would want.

  I think not.

  Which is why as Chris has highlighted above it so important for people to respond, whatever their views may be.

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2009-04-04 18:19:27 +0000

• I believe that the Conservatives have pledged in a leaflet distributed to remove any CPZ zones where they were imposed upon residents . I do not know why a Councillor is commenting on this site as I thought naively that it was for residents to air their views. The example of 73% of 60% voting for CPZ indicating that the majority do not or could not be bothered to vote proves how flawed this procedure has become. What about the effect on local businesses and people trying to travel into London to generate money for the capital ? Jill South Western Rd

  Jill Taunton on 2009-04-05 00:29:02 +0000

• The Liberal Democrats consistantly redraw the consultation boundary line inorder to find a majority (even splitting a road in two in Teddington) thereby effecting a domino effect to coerce surrounding streets into a CPZ despite the fact that the overall majority have 'NO' in each consultation. Conservatives, should they gain power in 2010 have stated that they will review upon request every undemocraticly imposed CPZ.

  Mary on 2009-04-05 00:33:34 +0000

• At least the Tories have now "come out" and admitted that they are anti CPZ. Previously they had hidden behind the St. Margarets Parking Association, despite hijacking the platform at the Turks Head public meeting last year.

  The fact is that if you reject joining Zone S you cannot park in most of St.Margarets.

  Also everyone else can park where you are allowed, whether they live here or not. (Usually not, usually traders, commuters, people wanting a convenient space near a station 30 minutes from Waterloo.)

  Adding Bridge Road to the CPZ has transformed our lives and as a floating voter, there is no way I would consider voting Tory locally.

  Ian on 2009-04-05 11:13:39 +0000

• Jill I regret the fact you feel I should not contribute here, however I was one of many invited for views on this site sometime ago but and ultimately it would be the editors decision and I would abide by that (perhaps Peter could comment) and incidentally I am also a long term ward resident and do feel a close affinity to St Margarets and its people. You make a good point about local Businesses and I am currently working on a Small Business Task Group formed by the council to investigate ways to help this particular group in the current climate and I am representing the views and difficulties faced by St Margarets traders though this is a Borough wide initiative and I am hopeful the Council will be able to make a positive contribution.

  I do not agree with Mary Ainscough's assertion that the Liberal Democrats consistently redraw.......etc ..the current criteria is designed to help those that most need it, as for the Tories having pledged they may take out any CPZ ask them how many they took out in their last term answer "0" ask them how many the council has taken out generally in the last 30 years answer "0" and the reason for this is that CPZ are put in for a good reason and only where the majority have asked for them and in general people find them helpful and useful. I certainly did when it was introduced in my area.

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2009-04-05 15:43:52 +0000

• Conservatives did a consultation in this area pre 2006 - Overall majority against. Consultation 2 under Lib Dems: Included roads north of the 316. - overall majority against. Consultation 3: Redrawn smaller boundary to include just one road north of 316. - overall majority against. CPZ imposed in 2 streets which had a combined majority of just 13 but failed to consult 2 flats and the Mews in Bridge rd and excluded the votes from the 60 Grove flats at the end of Winchester. Had these been included as they should have been it is unlikely there would be any majority at all.

  If Councillor Khosa stands in the next ward election and fails to get an overall majority - will he redraw the ward boundary to find favour with the 'few'?

  Mary on 2009-04-05 18:19:57 +0000

• Ben,

  You are very welcome and thank you for contributing here. It would be a shame not to have our Councilors participating in this discussion. Obviously this is a highly emotive issue.

  My personal opinion is that I hope the council listens to the views of the residents and then creates a strategy that will help all of us, not this road by road nonsense that just pushes the problem around and infuriates everybody.

  Peter

  Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2009-04-05 18:46:17 +0000

• There was no consultation by the Tories in their one period of office. When they came in in 2002 they canceled the consultation planned for that year and did nothing for four years. The three Tory ward councillors acquiesced in this inactivity. Their Lib Dem challengers promised a consultation in 206 and were elected on a huge swing. They have delivered on this promise.

  The only people 'infuriated by this road-by-road nonsense' are those who wished to boss other residents around by not letting them have a CPZ in their road.

  Chris Squire on 2009-04-05 19:03:58 +0000

• A lot of naive thoughts expressed by Jill and Mary. I like the fact that our Ward Councillors are commenting on this site, defending the majority of local residents that bothered to respond to recent consultations.

  Comments from local residents that are willing to stand as prospective Councillors (conservative, labour, independent or alliance) at the next election would be most helpful to St Margarets residents. Identify your selves to St Margarets residents and set out your stall, say what you would promote to enhance your neighbours life, on any issue that appears on this site.

  Jill and Mary are looking for prospective candidates that will be able to proove that CPZ`s in the area where put in place by un democratic process therefor have the CPZ`s removed.

  Jill is concerned that people travelling into London to generate money for the capital have no where to park because of CPZ`s in St Margarets.

  She is also concerned about St Margarets Businesses. Its not quite clear if her concern is for the numerous staff or customers.

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-04-05 20:52:36 +0000

• Peter, I am with Christopher! The only people `infuriated by this road-by-road nonesense` are those who wish to boss other residents around.......I would add `selfish`.

  You say the problem `is pushed around`! It is pushed in one direction only, away from stations and town centres like ripples on a pond.

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-04-05 21:31:38 +0000

• To me this is not a political issue but a practical one. I live on Winchester Road and I can now park outside my house thanks to the CPZ. I used to battle to find parking on my road before the CPZ came into effect. I am happy to pay for this convenience.

  Mary on 2009-04-06 14:06:29 +0000

• Mary of Winchester Road, we can not divorce this issue from politics. Have another read of Christopher Squires post above. Lib Dem councillors kept their promise and Winchester Road residents enjoy the benefit.

  Mary A. and Jill T. are hoping the conservatives will undo what the lib dems have done for Winchester Road.

  Does it not show that every thing we receive/ not receive comes from politicians?

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-04-06 18:07:40 +0000

• Not quite Gerhard in this case we just instigated the review and the residents decided against all that was thrown at them by a certain motoring organisation.

  Sorry got to go now wife in Hospital for routine op. Will add more later

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2009-04-07 12:05:35 +0000

• Cllr Khosa is correct: the promise was to give residents what they wanted and this what the Council has delivered. It is not just Winchester and Bridge Roads that got what they voted for in the consultation; the same is true for ALL the roads that voted NOT to join. Kenley Road voted to join but was not admitted but will no doubt be added this time. This just leaves a couple of roads north of the A316 that would like to join but can't.

  If the Tories take over, they will cut the budget for consulting on CPZs, so that there will be a waiting list. It is very unlikely that they will review any existing CPZs: the reduced budget will be devoted to the more urgent and productive task of consulting residents and creating [or not] CPZs that residents are begging for.

  Chris Squire on 2009-04-07 18:17:13 +0000

• Christopher, Ben, my post of the 6^th April was in answer to Mary of Winchester Road saying the implementation (or not) of the CPZ is not political.

  Are you saying that is not the case?

  Almost every post above and on other threads on CPZ`s contain reference to either Lib Dems or Conservatives!

  As for residents of every street that voted having received what thy voted? Sure, it is true, but only for the streets that voted NO!

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-04-07 20:58:28 +0000

• I live in Godstone Road and voted "No" in the first consultation for two reasons. 1 - I wasn't convinced that the zone would assist with evening and weekend parking. 2 - I simply didn't want to pay.

  However I have become swayed by the argument that a lot of the vehicles contributing to the evening parking problem are long term stays and would be removed under a CPZ. For example there are several long term untaxed vehicles parked in the road, which it is reasonable to assume will disappear under the CPZ.

  I continue to object to paying for the zone - but the option for a free CPZ does not seem to be on the table.

  So I shall reluctantly be voting "Yes" this time. The risk of another road joining the scheme leaving mine as an overflow is just too high.

  GM on 2009-04-08 14:45:38 +0000

• I wonder if the owner of an untaxed vehicle will worry about receiving parking tickets. Technically, I think you can report it now - to DVLA or Police and it will be eventually removed (and crushed!)

  David bertram on 2009-04-08 16:14:13 +0000

• The ways to report an untaxed vehicle are set out at: www.richmond.gov.uk/home/transport_and_streets/motor_vehicles_roads_and_parking/abandoned_vehicles/untaxed_vehicles.htm

  Chris Squire on 2009-04-08 17:58:49 +0000

• Somewhat tangentially, one does have to raise a question about the competence of an authority that can't actually print a residents parking permit, as I discovered earlier this week as part of my customer experience at the Holly Road facility. I note also that the online renewal facility (a very good idea in principle) is no longer available as a result of 'back office upgrades' I assume both these issues stem from the inability of the people concerned to implement the tariff increase that came in effective 1 April. Anyone got any idea what the story is and how long it might be before I can get a permit?

  Jimmy G on 2009-04-08 21:22:04 +0000

• I would be intertested to know if Gerhard Schellberg and Christopher Squire, who contribute so much to this site, actually reside in the area which will be affected by the introduction of the proposed St Margerets CPZ.I suspect that will be one comment that will not elicit a response Jill T

  Jill Taunton on 2009-04-08 23:43:51 +0000

• Christopher Squire draws your attention to the 2007 results. The more recent 2008 results can be found cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/Published/C00000174/M00001887/AI00016164/1039RTCG180608NPGeneralAnalysisAppBFinal.pdf

  Mary on 2009-04-09 01:34:55 +0000

• Happy to oblige, Jill T. I have been a resident in the area between Richmond Bridge and Railshead Road since 1953. I voted NO to the first CPZ (now known as Zone F) and was pleased that I was with the minority of residents within weeks, if not days, of implementation. My daughter went to Orleans Infants, St Stephens and Orleans Park and my Grandson went to Orleans Infants and is now at St Stephens. I now live in the area north of the A316 and voted Yes at the stage 1 consultation along with 20% of residents in the street that bothered to vote, Is my area affected by the extension of the St Margarets CPZ? You do not have to be a member of mensa to work out where commuters, long term parkers and 2^nd and 3^rd cars that are driven out from the CPZ south of the A316 have moved to.

  As an active member of the St Margarets Estate Residents Association I have my finger on the pulse and indications are that more residents are seeing CPZ in a different light today than was the case 6 Month ago!

  Are you satisfied that I am entiteld to contribute? Is there nothing at all in what I have written that you wish to contradict?

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-04-09 02:14:00 +0000

• Happy to oblige, Jill T. Why the suspicious tone? I cannot match Gerhard's 56-year residence but I have been around for quite a while:

  I have lived at the same address on Richmond Road [where I have off-street parking] since 1973; I came to the borough in 1967. I have been an active member of the local Liberal Democrat team since 1987, supporting firstly the former East ward councillors [the late Sidney Nunn, Mike Rowlands, David Cornwell, Laurence Mann and Trevor Whittall] and now Ben Khosa, Geoff Acton and Philip Morgan. So I can remember, or can look up, or can ask Mike, who is still around, what was said and done 10 or 25 years ago on a particular issue.

  My aim in contributing to this thread is to be helpful by supplying factual information and correcting mis-statements. I regard this website as serving the whole area of the former East ward, i.e. from Railhead Road in the north down to Richmond Bridge, which is a single community.

  Chris Squire on 2009-04-09 11:10:57 +0000

• In response to Ben D the good news is the Parking Shop in Holly Rd is now issuing permits.

  The online service will resume as soon as possible hopefully well in time for residents with permits expiring 30 April to apply for renewals in good time. Major changes to the system are being implemented and there are apparently many reasons for having to upgrade, the old system not being able to cope with the new changes not being the least of them.

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2009-04-09 20:30:59 +0000

• Re Mary's comment "If Councillor Khosa stands in the next ward election and fails to get an overall majority - will he redraw the ward boundary to find favour with the 'few'?"

  Local election rules are clear to every one regarding redrawing of any boundaries as were the rules regarding the CPZ to those that took proper note and to those that were not mislead by irresponsible propaganda.

  The initial consultation was designed to seek out areas with CPZ interest and did not ask the question "Do you want a CPZ in the whole of the consultation area" Instead the questions were quite specific about "your road" or the "the roads around you" therefore it is quite irresponsible to reproduce the results as 75% against.

  It would have been 75% against if the questions were related to the whole of the consulted area but they were not

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2009-04-11 09:07:39 +0000

• Thanks to Ben Khosa for the update on printing permits.

  Jimmy G on 2009-04-12 16:30:59 +0000

• Cllr Ben Khosa, You are right, the questionning in the consultation did ask about "your road" and the "roads around you" specifically, but note it did not ask about the whole area. Surely this promotes selfishness? The NIMBY factor (not in my back yard!) means on course people are not going to want "commuters" parked outside their house, but the lack of joined up thinking in the questionning meant that residents were not prompted to think about the wider area. Yes, it's great the put a CPZ on Winchester road to clear commuters, but if those commuters park on neighbouring streets that doesn't solve the problem, it simply re-locates it.

  Having the "majority" of Winchester Road vote in favour without asking them of the impact on their neighbouring roads, is hardly representative of resident's overall views.

  The consultation was flawed from the start, from the weighted style of questions to the ambiguous sample that was taken, or not taken in some cases!

  I would also like to raise the point of charges. Cllr Khosa, can you please respond with explanation as to why the pricing is linked to CO2 emmissions? After all, a parked car emits no emissions at all?

  Thanks Andy

  Andrew on 2009-04-14 07:52:19 +0000

• Andy

  In the explanatory notes attached to the questionnaire under Disadvantages to a CPZ the first point made was "Displacement effect to nearby uncontrolled areas" so residents would have voted with this in mind.

  Now I am not promoting a CPZ, but the ripples on a pond effect has been mentioned and I believe that may be the case with non resident parking. When a CPZ was introduced in my part of the ward years ago all commuter, post office and student parking disappeared overnight from our area and was diluted into a much wider area stretching towards Whitton.

  Charges are linked to CO2 to promote "e" friendly cars and behaviour. I do not think your "parked Car" argument is a good one as it can reasonably be assumed that it will have been and will sometime in the future be used for the purpose it is designed ie driving.

  Cllr Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2009-04-14 11:35:00 +0000