It would help to know more about the association and whether any resident has been asked to provide a contrary (pro-CPZ) view. Otherwise, it looks more like a rally where opposing views might be shouted down.

Trevor at 8 May 2008 12:22 PM

Firstly I would like to clarify that this meeting is on Wednesday 14th May, which appears to have been ommitted from the announcement.

In answer to Trevors comments: Our association was formed quite recently by a few residents who felt they didnt have an official platform to express their views.

We endaevour to have some speakers to discuss the full implications of this scheme. We apprecieate that opinions are many and varied and respect everyones right to express those views. Any one who wishes to speak would be welcome to do so at the end of our presentation.

Mary Ainscough at 8 May 2008 8:53 PM

I have added the date to the article, but it was on the event that you find behind the link in the article.

Sorry for any confusion

Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk at 8 May 2008 9:42 PM

I’m with Trevor. The leaflet that came through my door was hardly friendly or balanced. The point is not about paying to park near your house - it’s more about the rest of the world being able to park near our houses FOR FREE. These people take our parking spaces and I can’t park anywhere else because I’m not in the CPZ!

debphailian at 8 May 2008 10:40 PM

It seems to me that that the pros and cons of extending the CPZ have been extensively discussed here and elsewhere for many years and are well understood by residents. I think it is true that for most residents the cons outweigh the pros, but this does not give them the right to veto the minority who have been campaigning for this extension for many years and are entitled to get it. Other residents will then have to join to protect themselves. They may resent this but cannot prevent it.

What I would like to know more about is the Association’s alternative: am I right that they propose a publicly funded underground car park under Moormead? I am sure I read about this somewhere and laughed out loud but I cannot find it now on the web.

This meeting will in any case come too late to affect the outcome of the consultation: experience of postal vote returns shows that most residents who actually respond to a consultation do so within 3 days; after that, the voting paper is lost, buried under other bumf, and not found again until after the closing date. So the Association, if it has anything new to offer, should use this forum to offer it now . .

Christopher Squire at 9 May 2008 1:21 AM

I offer no opinion for the tone of the leaflet. I agree with the premise and the statements made within it.

I understand your primary concern is how this scheme will affect you directly. Experience, circumstances and perceptions are different for everyone and I hope that this does not preclude you from hearing about other peoples.

I too, laughed at the underground car-park idea and have never been able to determine the source other than journalist spin. I hope to avail more sensible suggestions at the meeting.

Mary Ainscough at 9 May 2008 2:40 AM

This meeting is a good idea. I have neighbours who felt they were being bullied and intimidated into voting pro CPZ by the second question on the survey form (..if surrounding areas vote yes, do you want it..), so it would be good to hear other views and ideas on what can be done if anything, and what REAL say we have with the Council.

Kay Mortimer at 9 May 2008 2:20 PM

I agree with Christopher, we are going around in circles.
This is nothing new, it has been going on for many Years in East Twickenham and St Margarets.
The arguments for or against CPZ`s have not changed while circumstances have changed significantly.

Younger and more affluent people have moved into the area and as a consequence car ownership has increased.
Every bit of land available has been developed and brought more cars into the area while on street parking spaces remain static.

That accounts for the shortage of on street parking for residents and a CPZ will not eliminate that shortage which only becomes apparent evenings, nights and weekends.

The implementation of CPZ`s in areas toward the centre of London (Kew, Chiswick ect.) and the Congestion charge have increased Comuter parking
in our area and CPZ`s can and will remove that problem….into adjacent streets.
There are not many of these left in St Margarets south of the A316 and no doubt Roads north of the A316 will soon be asking for a CPZ (St Peters Road has already voted by 75% to be included in the current Consultation but has been excluded by
Cllr. Trigg).
Walking distance to Richmond Town Centre and Station from some Roads north of the A316 is the same and more pleasant than from
“St Margarets Village”

Christophers suggestion for this new Association to use this forum to explain their Aims on how to
resolve the parking issues might well increase the
Associations membership.

Gerhard Schellberg at 9 May 2008 4:53 PM

Re Kay`s post
I can not see how anyone can feel bullied or intimidated by that question

Gerhard Schellberg at 9 May 2008 6:30 PM

Gerhard; me neither - the question simply gave people the option of expressing a different preference in the event of conditions changing.

David at 12 May 2008 10:31 AM

Parking at junctions will be prohibited when the CPZ is implemented - it is already illegal, but never enforced at the moment. Assuming council officers will attend the meeting, I would want to know:
how many spaces will be lost in the CPZ area due to the prohibition of parking at junctions?
whether this restriction will apply 24/7 or just for the hours of the CPZ.

From the survey we conducted 3 years ago it is clear that most of the problems occur later in the evenings and at weekends. I fail to see how the proposal deals with this problem. People will have to pay for the vague prospect of being able to park near their homes - the same as now, only at greater cost.

Simon Lamb at 13 May 2008 7:00 PM

Like all our Cllrs Simon has been involved in with the parking issue and he writes that parking is already illeagal at junctions.
It is illegal 24/7, every day of the Year, CPZ or no CPZ.
Is Simon advocating making parking at junctions legal?

The Fire Brigade should be consulted and their findings should be published!

Gerhard Schellberg at 13 May 2008 10:50 PM

Some confusion here from our Teddington correspondent: parking at junctions is now restricted by a single yellow line in place of the advisory white hatchings; this restriction applies during the day only and is enforced. The CPZ will not change this: I assume there is a local consensus that the safety of pedestrians, particularly children, using these crossings is more important than the convenience of visitors, from Teddington perhaps.

It is true that most of the problems occur in the evenings; however, not all do; some have a daytime problem as well: in some roads a clear majority of residents want the CPZ extended and have been asking for this for years. If they vote ‘yes’ in the consultation now under way they will get it, whether residents of other roads like it or not - which means that residents of other roads have to decide what to do, to join in or not?

This meeting will not, I expect, be attended by council officers: it has been called by a group of local residents who wish to propose an alternative to the CPZ. Nothing about this alternative has been disclosed so far: perhaps it doesn’t exist and this is to be merely an ‘indignation’ meeting, a chance to let off steam.

There have been two meetings of officers with residents re the detailed proposals since the first [informal] consultation, which were taken over by residents opposed to the CPZ. So the opportunity to question the officers about the details was lost.

Christopher Squire at 14 May 2008 1:31 AM

Gerhard, parking at junctions is a fact of life in St Margarets since there are simply too many cars for the narrow roads. I suspect many who support a CPZ haven’t appreciated there will be a net loss of parking places.
Mr Squire is quite right to say that I am not directly affected by the proposals since I don’t live in the area. May I point out that none of the Liberal councillors do either?
I pass through St Margarets on my bike ride to the office in Isleworth every day - I’m there more frequently now than when I was on the Council!
I just think a CPZ is the wrong solution to the problem and that people who are pushing for it will come to regret their decision. On a previous post, Mr Squire has mentioned the doctrine that ‘silence means consent’. Time will tell on the political implications of this legal principle.

Simon Lamb at 14 May 2008 7:12 AM

Simon, you are right, to many cars used/owned by St Margarets residents and the implementation of a CPZ does not guarantee a reduction in numbers of cars.
Residents that have asked for an extension of the present CPZ are well aware of the cost to themselfs and the perceived loss of parking at junctions (illegal parking).
These Residents have identified that cars that giving them a problem by parking in the area belong to drivers travelling on from the train stations and drivers that work in St Margarets,
East Twickenham, Twickenham and Richmond businesses.
A CPZ will deal with that problem.
It will also encourage some households to dispose
of cars that are rarely used or second/third cars.
Expansion of the use of Car Clubs may also be encouraged.
As for parking at junctions being a fact of life
I see it as antisocial behavior that can result in
loss of life, during Daytime, at Night and Weekends.

St Margarets is the last area for free parking for drivers on the way to London from the M3!!!

Gerhard Schellberg at 14 May 2008 12:39 PM

I attended the first 40 minutes of this meeting, which turned out to be an indignation meeting [= an expression of feeling] instead of a presentation of an alternative to the CPZ. The Tory PPC, Deborah Thomas, was there and read out a statement from Cllr Marlow [Tory] which may be posted here later. The gist of it is that this would never have happened if they were in office; in fact nothing would have happened: they scrapped the consultation which was about to start when they took over in 2002. A promise to reinstate that consultation was a key element in the manifesto that secured the election of three Lib Dem councillors on large swings in 2006. Perhaps they would have been better advised to do nothing but the message from the canvassing was very clear.

A lady on the platform said that the council should provide a car park, but she didn’t say where or how this might happen. It was explained that this consultation was being held under rules adopted in 2006 by the incoming Lib Dem administration which are different to the rules used by the outgoing Tories, in that the votes are counted road by road instead of for the area as a whole. A resident from Winchester Road articulated the ‘pro’ case very well.

This meeting, in any case, comes too late to effect the immediate outcome, as a formal consultation is under way and most votes have already been cast. A reminder of what happens next: ‘The results of the current consultation will be available on the Council website
www.richmond.gov.uk/st_margarets_cpz_consultation from Wednesday 11 June 2008. The results of the consultation together with any representations received will be reported to a meeting of the Transport Consultative Group (TCG) on Wednesday 18 June 2008 starting at 6.30 pm at York House, Richmond Road, Twickenham after which a decision will be made on whether to progress the CPZ proposals to implementation. Based on the results of this consultation the Cabinet Member will make a decision on whether to implement the proposals in full or in part on a street by street basis. The Minutes of the meeting will be available on the Council website and on request.’ To judge by tonight, it will be a lively meeting!

Christopher Squire at 14 May 2008 8:40 PM

Residents wishing to comment on the results of the consultation should get hold of ‘Controlled Parking Zone Policy’ issued in June 2006 from http://tinyurl.com/3znofl and study paras 3.7 to 3.17, which define the current practice which Cllr David Trigg and his officers must follow. The key points are:

‘3.10 It is proposed to remove the requirement to meet set minimum response percentages in
order to progress a CPZ. The intention of these was to restrict CPZ work to areas where
there was overwhelming support. However, in practice this approach is inflexible. For
example it tends to count abstentions as against and may not take sufficient account of
strong support in a small, defined locality within a larger consultation area.

3.11 . . If these minima are achieved, a “2nd stage” consultation is carried out (not necessarily within the whole of the previous consultation area) which requires a slightly increased support for a CPZ – again a minimum of over 50% to be in favour of a CPZ but at this stage the figure has to also be a minimum of 33% of the total number consulted to be returned.

3.12 The new approach proposes that at analysis stage of each consultation (both 1st and 2nd stage) the decision by the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking should be based on consideration of the response rate, the level of support among those responding in each road and within a viable area finally considered for a CPZ and congestion and road safety conditions. There will be no set numeric thresholds as such.’

So abstentions are no longer counted as ‘against’ and those in favour have to get the votes of at least 33 % of all residents. The moral is: use your vote and encourage your neighbours to do the same!

Christopher Squire at 14 May 2008 9:15 PM

Christopher, thanks for your report of the St Margarets Parking Association CPZ Meeting.
It is a shame that no alternative to CPZ was presented - I am only pro because there is no alterntive to CPZ.

No matter what criteria for consultation is adopted, the onslaught of cars onto St Margarets Streets from outside this area will not cease while there is uncontrolled parking either side of the A316.

Tonight Cllrs on the Planning Committee face the difficult task wether to endorse Planning Officers recommendation to give the go ahead to
two developments in St Margarets or not.

66 Crown Road converted into 4 dwellings.
Potential for 8 additional cars to the area.
A legal agreement would prevent some of these units from obtaining residents parking permits to park their cars in the CPZ “during hours of control”. (Streets outside the present CPZ are only a short walk away!)

361 to 367A St Margarets Road: demolish block of 13 flats and build a block with 27 flats with a potential of 54 cars
The development proposes 20 parking spaces in a basement car park.
A shortfall of 34 parking spaces!

Gerhard Schellberg at 15 May 2008 2:52 AM

Well, the debate seems to be very much alive and there are many points asking to be addressed.
Comment ‘…cons outweigh the pros but this does not give them the right to veto the minority’ sounds a strange idea of democracy ?.

Re parking at junctions: South Western Rd has single yellow, time restricted at junction. Many tickets have been issued outside the time restriction on the basis of being parked on the pavement. Pavement parking being permitted in said road due to its narrow width but parking on the road would restrict access making the time restrictions redundant and causing confusion. There appears to be a conflict in law here - no doubt due to complex regulations.

Alternative propositions to CPZ and council response were available on a display board at meeting.
I will make further comment on this weeks St.M Web site when I have the time.

Thanks.

Mary Ainscough at 15 May 2008 9:39 PM

I am looking forward to Mary`s next comment, particularly if it includes the alternative propositions to CPZ`s!

Single yellow lines at junctions are contradictory, I agree; to date it is illegal to park at junctions, yellow lines or not.
3m to 5m, depending on road width, of double yellow lines should be adquate to keep pedestrians
and road users safe and in particular afford free
passage for fire tenders, 24/7.

Pavement parking is to date also illegal, exept where it is clearly marked both by broken white lines on the pavement and appropriate signage.

Gerhard Schellberg at 16 May 2008 1:08 PM