Zone WE CPZ imposition
LBH has decided to press ahead with the ZoneWE CPZ on the thinnest of pretexts.This is the third CPZ consultation in little over a decade. Both previous rejected a CPZ. It is hard to avoid the conclusion the council is determined to keep asking the same question until it gets the ‘yes’ answer it wants.The consultation was not phrased as a ‘vote’ nor referendum, just an indication of interest. The response rate of 28% cannot sensibly be taken as indicating as anything other than over two-thirds majority lack of concern about parking issues.64% support out of 28% participation (core) and 44% of 28% participation(outer) support for a CPZ, is no mandate for anything. 14% of residents should not be able to command such a fundamental change that applies to pretty much 100% of households.I wrote making these points and others, to Cllr. Paul Conlan, Cllr. Binda Rai, Cllr. Gareth Shaw, and the LBE Chief Project Engineer on 8 October. Aside from an acknowledgement, I have heard not a peep from any of them. My requests for explanation and information have been ignored.This forum won't allow me to post a link to the full text of my letter, so it's below. I and many residents require answers and an explanation of this bullying conduct.====This is the third CPZ consultation in little over a decade. Both previous rejected a CPZ. It is hard to avoid the conclusion the council is determined to keep asking the same question until it gets the ‘yes’ answer it wants.The consultation was not phrased as a ‘vote’ nor referendum, just an indication of interest. The response rate of 28% cannot sensibly be taken as indicating as anything other than over two-thirds majority lack of concern about parking issues.64% support out of 28% participation (core) and 44% of 28% participation(outer) support for a CPZ, is no mandate for anything. 14% of residents should not be able to command such a fundamental change that applies to pretty much 100% of households.I now know this particular consultation began as a Change.org petition organised by an anonymous and otherwise non-existent group calling itself Walpole West Residents, from 225 residents within the grid of roads bounded by Seaford Rd, Adelaide Road, Leighton Road, and Regina Road. That is, all the roads where the residents who participated in the consultation approved of a CPZ. This petition was not publicised to the wider area, as far I can establish. It appears to have been deliberately Gerrymandered to produce a desired result.Unfortunately for them, I doubt a CPZ will improve matters. Thanks to a proliferation of HMO’s enabled by Council planning policy there is not enough kerb space for the number of residents who have cars. From comments made at that petition, residents find parking almost impossible at any time of day or night. That is a problem no CPZ can address.However, I trust the Council will have carried out a feasibility study that shows otherwise, and I now ask for disclosure of that study. If a Freedom of Information request is necessary, please advise the procedure.The general experience of CPZ’s is they are a monetisation strategy, that actually reduces kerb space. Invariably fewer residents bays are created than parking spaces were available in the unrestricted road. Residents with permits who are unable to park overnight in residents bays, must then remove their cars before 9am to avoid PCN’s. Of course many do not, and find themselves paying penalties as well as resident parking permit and visitor parking fees. The consultation did not indicate this would be an outcome, nor indicate how many resident bays would be created vs how much kerbside parking would be lost to working day prohibition. Support for the CPZ seems to arise from an expectation residents will be able to park outside their homes. In fairness to residents, this must be disclosed.This gets worse, when the ‘no CPZ’ roads are considered.There is no reasonable requirement for controlled parking in Seward Road, nor indeed the adjacent roads that indicated rejection of a CPZ during the consultation.During the proposed hours of operation of the CPZ (09:00-10:00 and 15:00-16:00) there is absolutely no shortage of kerbside parking.Seward Road and adjoining roads do have some parking problems, but they are clearly caused by residents themselves and overnight competition for inadequate parking space. I have lived here for 30 years, and parking difficulties have only arisen as so many properties were converted to flats because the Council allowed it. The worst possible time to find a parking space is Sunday night after 10pm when most residents are home. Even so, it is not impossible, and anyone who expects to park without needing to walk 50-100yards is not being realistic.A CPZ offers us nothing at all in return for fees, except fewer parking spaces, the probablity of PCN’s and additional costs for visitors.I hope the Council will not go ahead with this opportunist and predatory plan that I believe will contribute nothing constructive to local parking shortage. I would remind you that you work for us, not the other way round. It is not the Council’s job to find inventive new ways of making life more difficult in pursuit of income. And it is disingenuous to pretend a casual and poorly-supported consultation is sufficient authority to impose such a scheme especially on streets that have repeatedly and clearly rejected a CPZ.My final point is this. 2870 addresses consulted will mostly own at least one car. This suggests an estimated revenue of in excess of £195,000 in the first year, plus visitor and commercial vehicle charges. £200,000 seems a conservative estimate. Please explain this costing, and the cost benefit analysis behind it. You will be aware of the recent judgement that prohibits CPZ charging being used for supporting general transport budget. If access to documentation requires an FOI request, please advise to whom I must make the request./ends[the original document included photographs showing the irrelevance of a CPZ during the proposed hours]
Tony Sleep ● 3239d29 Comments ● 3197d