St Margarets CPZ : Letter on "Stopping up order"

We have received the following letter regarding the odd inclusion on in the CPZ survey about the road behind Taylor’d Lighting on St Margarets Road.

A questionnaire has been circulated this week to all who could be affected by the proposed St Margarets CPZ. My comments here are not about the main thrust of the questionnaire but about Question 4: - “Are you in favour of the proposed stopping up order at the rear of 141-143 St Margarets Road?”

The suggestion is to move part of the public highway, currently available for occasional parking and for general public use, into private ownership. I do not see how this can benefit the community.

Frankly I do not understand why the question has been included here because it bears little connection to the CPZ. But accepting that the question is included here for convenience, I write because there is very little, if any, discussion in the information pack as to the impact of this change and why it is being considered.

I accept that there would be very little impact to most of St Margarets, but it may be considerable to my neighbour and I, the nearest two premises affected, who feel strongly about this, and to others in Broadway Avenue. We shall be voting no to the proposal and hoping that others do likewise.


Bob Hampson
2 Broadway Avenue

21 May 2007 | news


I completely disagree. The area that is in question with regard to Question 4, does not have any parking bays at all. It is purely for turning, loading and unloading for the flats and the shop. The area needs to be kept clear.

Users of the 2 existing bays already have plenty of space for turning and this is not going to be jeopardised or changed.

I can see no impact at all on those neighbours who apparently object and say that the impact ‘may be considerable’, as the ‘nearest’ premises. Yet, no reasonable reasons are given for this impact.

As it stands I find no substance to their case.

I have direct and very strong interest being the tenant of one of the flats which uses the garages.
My reasons for encouraging acceptance are:

i) My rented property IS the nearest and is directly affected.

ii) Why should I have the risk of being unable to enter/exit my own private garage and be at risk of parking tickets whilst accessing my own property? This is already keep clear area.

iii) Removing it from public use actually should not change anything, since the public should be keeping clear of it anyway.

I urge people to accept and tick yes to question 4. There is no affect on the number of parking spaces for St. Margarets and in any event there is a cost benefit to us all, since the council will no longer need to maintain this part of the parking area.

Let some common sense prevail, please.

Simon at 22 May 2007 5:57 PM

St Margaret’s CPZ: Letter on the stopping-Up Order SUO

Like all of you I too have received from the Council their survey inviting comments on the CPZ in St Margaret’s. I have also seen the comments on this website from Mr Hampson and from Simon.

I declare my interest. My mother and I have, since my father’s death, continued to run Taylor’d Lighting at 141 - 143 St Margaret’s Road, and the Stopping Up Order (SUO) mentioned in part 4
of the Council survey relates to the area directly behind our shop, Not the whole area but just the end of what is already a dead-end service road.

What I find most intriguing is that, although the survey as a whole is of absolutely crucial interest to all of us who live and work and have to park in, the St Margaret’s area, the only part of the entire survey that Mr Hampson deems worthy of mention to all of you who read this web site is the one he himself admits is ” of very little impact to most of St Margaret’s”, namely the SUO!! Perhaps he is not interested in parking in the whole of St Margaret’s! He has, however, known of the SUO for many months and has already made his objections known to the council.

Objections have not stopped the Council from continuing to put the proposal forward for consideration. The objections do not stand up to examination. Essentially they have been that the area is used to teach children to ride bikes(pretty dangerous, and that would be a totally improper use of a public highway!), that the area is used to turn round vehicles(and they would still be able to do so,even after the SUO), that the area would then be used to erect buildings (and the council agree that the SUO would not itself allow that to happen), and that the area would no longer be used for public parking.

On this last point, it should be noted that the council have themselves already indicated by putting a KEEP CLEAR sign on the section of road in question that cars should NOT park there, and Simon’s excellent contribution to this debate has already pointed out that parking there would obstruct his access to the garage he uses to park his own car. All I would add is that, in the recent past the Council decided to remove a parking bay from the small area in question because its use had prevented cars getting into and out of Simon’s and another garage there. Councils do not lightly decide to remove revenue generating parking bays! For Mr Hampson to seek to persuade you that the area is suitable for public parking flies in the face of reality.

So why do we support the idea of a stopping- up order (SUO)? First let me say that all that really means is that we would take on responsibility from the Council for that bit of land. There would be no fences or walls. We would have to maintain it at our - not the Council’s - expense and, for the Council to propose a SUO, they have to be satisfied that the land is no longer necessary as highway. A glance at earlier messages on this site will show that the owner of Nosh restaurant next door has already gone on record as saying that he sees “no reason” why the proposed SUO should not go ahead.

Even after the survey, the Council would still have to get approval for the SUO from local Magistrates. Maybe Mr Hampson does not like the idea. Maybe he has rather unfounded and illogical fears about what it might all mean and cannot himself see any benefits in freeing up the Council taxpayers from having to maintain the patch of road.
But the matter would be considered by greater minds than his or mine!

The order would not be pursued by the council and would not be agreed by an impartial Magistrates’ Court if the very small area of land at the end of a dead- end service road behind a shop were considered “necessary” as highway!.

Simply, we would be able to use the area for loading and unloading without getting parking tickets nearly every time we do so! I can give an assurance here and now that all we aim to do is smarten up the area concerned with a more attractive road surface and to put up a few hanging baskets etc.

If you have not already filled in your survey, and if you intend to do so, I would invite you to tick the “YES” box and support the proposal to stop-up the area behind 141- 143 St Margaret’s Road, safe in the knowledge that it will not impact on the wider problem of parking in the St Margaret’s area.

Please support your local business.
If you would like to chat, please call into the shop.

Best wishes, John Taylor.

John Taylor at 23 May 2007 2:52 PM

I agree with the comments made by John Taylor and Simon.

A YES vote to question 4 of the CPZ Questionaire will not be detrimental to parking availability in this extra busy area of St Margarets.

The fact is that customer loading and delivery unloading at the rear of the Taylored Lighting premises without the danger of getting a parking ticket will free up parking bays in front of the premises in St Margarets road, benefitting
shoppers and all businesses situated along this parade alike.

These shoppers/ customers come from all areas of
St Margarets and beyond and I can therefor see the relevance of question 4 in the CPZ Questionaire.

Apart from the obvious benefits for customers and
businesses in St Margarets all Richmond Council
Tax payers will benefit as Taylored Lighting will
be paying for the maitenance of the extreme end of this dead end service road, costs that hitherto
are met from coucil coffers.

A YES vote to question 4 will be a vote for a win
win outcome for customers and businesses alike!

Gerhard Schellberg at 30 May 2007 12:28 AM

Well it took me quite a while to figure out what a “Stopping Up Order” even was.

I do wish they’d explain in clear plain English and not use technical jargon.

Then I had to get out and find exactly where in St. Maragerts Road they were talking about.

Not very clear, and not really any of my business since I don’t live anywhere nearby.

I ended up voting “Don’t care”.

Ed at 1 June 2007 11:04 PM

Loading Clarification -
Gerhard notes that customer loading is affected, correctly as I understand that loading restrictions on commercial vehicles are not indicated by yellow lines, but by other markings usually on curb stones, as mentioned in

Also, does stopping up this roadway make removal of parking from out the front more likely?

Steve Doole at 11 June 2007 9:01 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?