CPZ Poll Thoughts

pollresults

To date, with 160 people voting in our informal CPZ poll, ~57% of you have said ‘NO’ to a CPZ in the Moormead and north of the A316 area (only ~37% said ‘YES’). We also know of two non-web groups walking various streets collecting names of people who are against the CPZ, which we have not seen since the last Council elections.

While some might have predicted this, we did not. We assumed that most people would be for anything that might relieve some of the parking pressure (right or wrong). It will be interesting to see what the actual survey results are.

Where you surprised?

22 June 2007 | Category » editorial

Comments

The council are attempting to sell the idea of a CPZ to us on the premise that it will combat ‘commuter parking’. Now while I accept that this may be a problem in some area of the proposed extension (i.e. those closest to the station, Moormead Pk etc.) it most definitely is not an issue in the areas north of the 316. The proposed extension area is too big and in my opinion includes residents with very different needs.

Commuter parking is not an issue north of the 316 — just talk a walk in these areas after 9am. The most difficult time to get a parking space is late Sunday evening when most residents are typically home having returned from day/weekend trips. The problem is simply that there are not enough spaces to accommodate the amount of cars - its as simple as that.

I used to live in a flat very near the station in the existing CPZ. There were no full time residents bays on Crown Rd, so I was forced to park, quite legitimately, on a residential side street. All my neighbours with cars had to do the same thing thus reducing the amount of spaces available for the ‘true’ residents of that street. I can imagine that the maisionettes near Moormead Pk have exactly the same problem — if every owner has a car then there simply aren’t going to be enough spaces on your streets.

I now live north of the 316 in an area without a CPZ and its much much better. Yes I admit that I sometimes struggle to find a park near my house or even on my street late on a Sunday evening, however I am prepared to put up with this minor inconvenient compared to the major inconveniences that a CPZ introduces, namely:

1) Paying extra money on top of our Council Tax which guarantees absolutely nothing

2) Having to pay arbitrary fines when the Council decides to ‘suspend’ parking bays. This happened to me several times and is a major problem if you don’t use you car regularly and are unable to park near where you live. The council can (and will) suspend bays at anytime they please and give you a £40/80 fine.

3) Paying extra for visitor permits when you have visitors and/or builders at your property

4) The stress of queueing for a long time in the Parking Shop to collect visitors permits or contest a penalty charge notice issued incorrectly

In my experience of living inside and outside a CPZ the latter will be your experience when a CPZ is introduced — definitely not more parking spaces.

Neale Patton at 22 June 2007 9:15 AM

I don’t agree with the proposed CPZ scheme. It’s difficult to suggest it is anything but an additional revenue stream for the council - the question is where will this money go to? Will the significant revenue raised from the scheme really be required to run a parking scheme?

However, I do believe that there is a requirement for some form of parking control in the Moormead Park area. Something has to be done to prevent cars being dumped for week long periods in the streets. I also believe that something needs to be done to encourage residents to use common sense a bit more. How can one house really expect to have three cars parked on a local street when clearly there is only really space for one car (or less in some instances) per household?

I would propose that there is a half way house solution whereby the council simply issues two parking permits (free of charge) per household as part of our annual significant rates bill. These permits could then be used as the resident chooses, i.e. if they have two cars then fine, if they have one car and give the other permit to visitors or a neighbour then that is the residents choice.

This would then provide some form of sensible / common sense control without the draconian measures and charges suggested by the proposed CPZ scheme, whilst at the same time addressing what is a pretty frustrating situation at times.

Dave Simmons at 22 June 2007 10:05 AM

The CPZ is NOT being foisted upon residents. Exactly the opposite is true: your councillors have worked hard to obtain the present consultation in response to repeated requests from some residents, over many years. If it returns a clear majority against the CPZ over much or all of St Margaret’s, they will, I imagine, be highly relieved: ‘Parking, bl**dy parking!’ is the bane of a Councillor’s life. Likewise the Council’s officers, who have a heavy workload elsewhere in the borough.

Chris Squire at 22 June 2007 10:06 AM

I genuinely can’t see why people would be against the CPZ. Is the real issue whether to pay yet more money to the council, as a covert tax maybe?

Owning a car doesn’t give any resident a right to assume they can park it anywhere, effectively extending the land area of their own property by 3 sq m when parked. The road is public property, not a private driveway, and we’re now at the stage where congestion demands a degree of control.

Maybe the ‘No’ camp could suggest an alternative, for south of the A316 at least. Maybe they would consider turning little Moormead into a station car park is less objectionable than a CPZ?

Andy at 22 June 2007 10:16 AM

Andy,

How does a ‘yes’ vote give anyone any more control?

Peter

Peter Mahnke at 22 June 2007 11:27 AM

I live in one of the maisonettes in Moormead and we have to bring in a CPZ. It’s not just evening parking that is a problem - in fact I can park outside my house easily in the evening - but day time parking is worse. This is directly because of commuter traffic - we are walking distance from St Margarets and Twickenham station, plus we suffer from local business employees parking down our road. Now while I know business can buy permits, the number of permits that they can buy are limited and they would not be able (or willing) to give permits to all staff. I can’t see Tesco’s giving permits to all their checkout staff who park down my road! Our area is well serviced by public transport for people who work in the area.

I know some people have pointed out that we will lose parking space because the council will stop corner parking - I can only see this as a bonus. When driving you can’t it’s impossible to see if any traffic is coming down the road as your view if blocked by cars parked on the corners. This also makes it unsafe for children cross the road as cars cannot see them trying to cross the road due to large cars obscuring the pavement.

Our local councillors are sensible enough to realise that Moormead needs CPZ, my warning to those North of the A316 if we get residents parking in Moormead your the next nearest ‘free’ parking area. While you might not have a problem today in a few years time you might wish you could pay a fee to park near your house.

Janey at 22 June 2007 1:13 PM

As a non-car owner (with wife & kids - yes, it can be done), I like Dave Simmons’ idea - the Council should give every Council tax payer (i.e. householder) 1 (or maybe 2) permits. Then, if we want to use or sell or hire them we can. Maybe additional permits could be made available to households but at a seriously penal rate that reflects the land-grab/pollution burden that two and three-car households impose.

David at 22 June 2007 3:16 PM

I live just south of the 316 in the proposed extention area for CPZ.. More money for less parking spaces, doesn’t sound a good idea to me, I know parking is bad, but I dont think CPZ is the answer, it will make it worse - Same ammount of residents cars and fewer spaces.

Why not just give every house one parking bay that is theirs and theirs alone. If you dont want it you can rent it to other residents that have two cars.

This would create fixed supply and a free market demand for the spaces, the parking would sort itself out. You could trade off having to use public transport by renting your space, and if you needed 2 spaces then you pay extra for it..

John at 22 June 2007 3:26 PM

John a large number of properties in the area consist of maisonettes, that is 2 properties per frontage. Your suggestion of 1 parking bay per house would not work here.

Maddie at 22 June 2007 6:14 PM

I live in the moormead area and have never had a problem getting parking during the day, which leads me to believe that it is a problem of too many cars . this is definitely made worse by the number of maisonettes in this small area. If there really exists a problem with buisness employees parking here, people parking second cars, leaving them for weeks on end etc, why not get rid of the CPZ in the rest of St Margarets. These few streets are being forced to take the burden of everyone else parking here as they can’t do it anywhere else for free. If the CPZ was lifted elsewhere the burden would be spread around and not concentrate in a few roads.

angela at 22 June 2007 6:31 PM

I live in Godstone road and I think Angela has come up with the most sensible idea of the lot, scrap all CPZ as it is just a few streets of mainly maisonettes that are now taking the brunt of all types of parking, take Cole Park Rd for instant, it is virtualy free of parking for 24 hours a day as most residents have driveways, as we all pay some of the highest council tax in the land, ALL residents should be willing to allow parking in their street, just because some have very expensive property does not mean they should be exempt from sharing parking spaces with other residents, the only other drastic solution would be to take the right hand side (as driving towards Cole Park Road) of Moormeads and turn that into a residents car park, SHOCK, HORROR, I NOW HEAR, but lets be realistic, its hardly ever used, the only people I ever see are dog walkers who let the dogs poo at will, without ever picking it up, go there yourselves between 7:45 & 08:30 and you will see what happens.

alsie at 22 June 2007 8:20 PM

Well, while I am thinking about it…..I am against it, but if we “need” a CPZ why will it be a different one from the rest of St. Margarets. While I walk 99% of the time, I do occasionaly have to pick my children up from school on the way to somewhere else, or am out with a friend fromt he St Margaret CPZ section and can’t stop back at their place without paying for parking, or park nearer to the stores if am picking up a big item, without having to pay. I am a resident of St. Margarets so should be able to park anywhere in the area. Why divide us either by part CPZ and no CPZ as currently, or two different CPZ’s? I realize the point is to help someone park around their own house but there are also other issues to it.

angela at 22 June 2007 9:11 PM

I live on the corner of Winchester and Godstone and I am constantly aware of the danger and trouble that corner parking causes. There are always lorries getting stuck on that corner and when the kids are going to and from school they have to walk right out into the road before they can cross, to see if a car is coming. When I first moved here, Broadway Avenue had free parking and my sister, who lives there with two little children, could never park near her house due to commuter parking. They do not have anywhere near such a problem now since getting residents parking. We have the problem. I hear the cars arriving outside my house early in the morning, parking, and the owners then marching up to the station to go off to work for the day. All we need is some sort of parking restriction, 7am to 10am say, to prevent that from happening.

katy at 23 June 2007 9:27 AM

I guess there’s a simple reason that commuters favour St.Margarets station over Twickenham too, despite the latter having a nearby multi-storey car park and 8 trains per hour, including the faster services.

St. Margarets is zone 4 (127.50/month) whilst Twickenham is zone 5 (152.90/month) (including travelcard).

If St. Margarets were re-designated as zone 5 it would force travelcard season ticket costs up, but it might spread the parking out a bit too.

(I’m not saying I’m necessarily in favour of that, just making the point. Personally I WALK everywhere I can!)

Ed

Ed at 23 June 2007 2:36 PM

Have just read all the comments on this proposed CPZ parking and would like to say to Neale Patton that we would love to know which road you live in because we too live north of the A316 and commuter parking is a huge problem during the week in St. George’s Road and St. Peter’s Road. It has also spread to Gordon and Ailsa Avenue, Newry Road, to mention just a few. We have also known people come from a considerable distance and park their car in one of these roads and then go off to the airport for their holiday. Even so there are reservations to the proposal as it will not solve the parking problem generally and I am wondering if scrapping the whole thing across all of the Borough is the best solution to the problem.

M & R at 23 June 2007 6:22 PM

Ed,

Twickenham could be moved into Zone 4 with the same benifit you mention… I would vote for that over raise costs here.

Peter

Peter at 24 June 2007 11:53 AM

Ed,

The problem with that is that it would be penalising those of us living in the area who choose to use public transport instead of clogging up St Margarets with cars. I think Peter has a good point, but it’s not an easy problem to address with just one measure, since the problem seems to have more than one cause.

Fiona

Fiona at 24 June 2007 5:07 PM

Twickenham has CPZs in every direction because it has fast trains to London. Commuters are not willing to pay for parking, they can not and do not park in proximity to Twickenham as a result. Hence the problem of commuter parking has migrated to St Margarets as train travel has increased. Changing zones would only have a temporary effect. Apart from which these decisions are not open to random changes - being set by strict criteria. The answer to commuter parking does not lie there.

Trevor at 24 June 2007 9:32 PM

I read with interest Chris Squire’s comment suggesting the council would not be in favour of increasing the CPZ (22nd June). I wonder where he has been living for the last year. The council love nothing more than meddling with the CPZ, finding ways to charge residents more and making life as difficult as possible for car owners and residents who have friends visiting by car. Does he really think we should feel sorry for the council because of the work load the parking issue causes them, a self imposed work load? I suggest if they don’t like it they scrap the whole scheme. No more para-military style wardens patrolling our streets, less unsightly street furniture oh and less revenue for the council. Guess its here to stay.

Charlie Leech at 27 June 2007 1:59 PM

I wonder where Charlie Leech has been living for the last 30 yearas? I have lived at my present address on Richmond Road since 1973. If he has complaints about how the CPZ he is in works, I recommend that he takes them up with one of his ward councillors. A CPZ amounts to the privatisation of public road space for the benefit of residents, at the expense, primarliy, of commuters but also of visitors to residents. The south St Margaret’s CPZ, which I take to be the one he lives in, and the East Twickenham one I live in were both introduced because residents wanted them to keep commuters out and for no other reason. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously misinformed, perhaps because they were not living here at the time and do not remember the problems residents had before the CPZs.

Chris Squire at 28 June 2007 6:58 PM

If the CPZ was introduced ‘because residents wanted to keep commuters out and for no other reason’ why have we allowed the council to take them over for their own self righteous political crusade?

Charlie Leech at 29 June 2007 12:49 PM

Because you had no power to stop them. The manner in which the scheme was developed, consulted on and finally adopted are summarised in the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 29 January 2007 at: http://tinyurl.com/2mpkdo . It concludes: ’ . . Having considered carefully the opinions expressed and the information before them, Cabinet Members stated their own views. They stated that the Administration had been elected on a platform of putting the environment at the heart of everything they did and that this was one of a series of measures to tackle the effects of climate change. They did not accept the accusations that the proposals were unfair and unlawful. They believed that the effects of the proposal would be revenue neutral. It was also intended to review the Scheme after twelve months. They considered the proposals to be a positive step. Accordingly the proposals were agreed.’

As the scheme was enthusiastically endorsed by the leader of the Conservative party on national TV [‘Oh yes! Absolutely!’], it is, I am confident, here to stay, though I believe the local Conservatives have yet to say whether they would keep it or scrap it.

Chris Squire at 30 June 2007 2:13 PM

I dont believe this has never been mentioned as a potential solution. Have you never noticed that we dont use our existing parking spaces effectively. There should be painted marks on the road defining a parking space. I have been frustrated on so many occasions when driving around looking for a space, only to find that people have taken up 1.5 delierately or not) which results in so much potential space being wasted. Also it would assist people who cant parallel park damaging other cars through ‘bumper to bumper’ park.

Jack at 30 June 2007 6:07 PM

When are we going to hear from the council what the outcome of the of the survey was?

Sarah at 2 July 2007 8:23 AM

I have been told that the report on the consultation will go to the Transport Consultative Group meeting on Wed July 18: 6.30 pm in the Council chamber. See: http://tinyurl.com/2d87nl The Group will make recommendations. It then goes to the Cabinet Member for Transport, David Trigg, for him to decide upon.

Chris Squire at 2 July 2007 2:13 PM

JANEY (22 JUNE 07) is right. The area north of the A136 will attract more and more vehicles if it remains CPZ free.
It is surrounded by CPZ areas on all sides.
The latest CPZ is the private estate still under construction in the north east of the area.
The council attempted to use the planning tool to reduce MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERSHIP by approving a planning application including the min/ max parking/ garage spaces of 2 per 4-5 bedroom house
and 1 space for apartments.
This attempt is rather futile as excess vehicles
owned by the estates residents and their visitors vehicles have unfettered right to park on public roads outside the private estate.
St Margarets residents could have helped to enforce the spirit of the law by asking for a CPZ
as residents of the private estate outside the CPZ
can not purchase residents parking permits.
The parking overflow from this private estate will be considerable as the no parking rule on the private roads will be strictly enforced.

Is the permit cost really as exsorbitant as some
commentors say?
A household with permits for 2 cars of 1500cc and
1 book of 10 1/2 day visitor permits will pay about £100 a year, less than £2 a week. (for 2
vehicles)
I can hear the cries: what, give up a bottle of tescos plonk a fourtnight or 20 cigarettes every
3 weeks?!?!?! (shared between 2 persons/ drivers)

I am not particularly surprised at the result of the informal poll; the options listed (times of operation and days offered) on the official consultation document will not adress present or antissipated future problems north of the A316
with the exeption of St Peters Road.

Some streets would only benefit from out of hours
parking restrictions. (not listed as an option}

Another item that has prompted some resident to reject a CPZ was the listing under disadvantages of a CPZ that it >REDUCES ON-STREET PARKING SPACE<
As this relates to highway safety of street corners and junctions it should not be part of consultation but be adressed as a matter of urgency whether in a CPZ or not.

Gerhard

Gerhard Schellberg at 12 July 2007 11:56 PM

Are you aware that people you don’t live in the area, park their cars in the non-controlled streets around Moormead Park, to avoid CPZ charged in their own streets?

Dan at 28 November 2007 10:21 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?