CPZ: Outcome - Roads to be Included

[Reg Adams]

The headlines are that the following roads will be included in the CPZ: Blandford Road (1-83 & 2-84); Cedars Road; Chaffinch Road; ClockHouse Road (to the Hampden Road junction); Elm Road; Queens Road; Rowden Road; Sidney Road; and ThayersFarm Road.

The following roads will be excluded from the CPZ: Acacia Road, Beckenham Road, Belmont Road, Betts Close, Blandford Avenue, Churchfields Road, Croydon Road, Durban Road, Gowland Place, Hampden Avenue, Hampden Road, Hayne Road, Kendall Avenue, Kendall Road, Malory Close, Westfield Road and YewTree Road.

There were about 760 valid votes cast in response to Bromley Council's recent consultation survey on a Controlled Parking Zone in this area. Overall, that represents a turn-out in excess of 50%. Based on the votes, the territory for the CPZ to be introduced has been defined. Where the majority of residents in a particular road voted in favour of a CPZ, that road will be included within the designated CPZ. The converse applies in those roads where the majority of respondents voted against having a CPZ in their road. The scope of the CPZ scheme will be reviewed six months after its introduction. During the review, residents and businesses in roads within the designated CPZ will be invited to comment on the extent to which the CPZ has achieved the outcomes they anticipated. Also by the time the review takes place, residents and businesses will have had time to assess the possible knock-on effects from parking displaced from roads within the CPZ.

A letter is being circulated to all residents within the original consultation area, providing further details. The next stage will be formal approval of the CPZ scheme at a future PortfolioHolder's Meeting (probably 26 Nov 2008 or 15 Jan 2009). These Meetings, like most Council Meetings, are held at The Civic Centre and the public is warmly invited to attend.

Many thanks to everyone who voted. It's good to know that Democracy is alive and well here.

[Reg Adams]

I agree with Sarah and others that the "pay & display" sections of road seem to have been conjured up out of thin air, never having been mentioned in the Aug/Sep 2008 survey questionnaires. Cllr John Getgood's public meeting for residents in Zone 1 (Rowden, Chaffinch, ThayersFarm, etc.) might generate some useful exchanges of views on "pay & display."

As I recall from meetings with the traffic engineers and the PortfolioHolder, the way this evolved was like this: they felt there ought to be some permit-free sections of Cedars Road, Sidney Road, etc. "because the Council is not at war with commuters, has an obligation to support the local economy, etc., etc." There were already substantial permit-free sections worked into the massive CopersCope CPZ scheme (stretching from NewBeckenham Station almost as far as BeckenhamJunction) and then it was agreed (by popular consent?) that those sections should be "pay & display." The argument went that if permit-free sections near NewBeckenham and EdenPark Stations were "pay & display" but those sections near ClockHouse were free-of-charge, then all the local rail-commuters would pour into our (ClockHouse) area. So to keep a level playing-field, the permit-free sections near ClockHouse Station ought to be "pay & display" too.

I also think that marked-out parking-bays means lower overall on-street parking capacity. Several respondents made exactly that point in their additional comments on the survey-form and Sarah has made that point again on this website. But (rather perversely) most traffic engineers seem not to recognise this and I'm afraid I'm not aware of any "objective scientific evidence" that would convince them otherwise.

I'm really glad Jon set up this website to enable discussion of all these issues around the CPZ idea. Would a public meeting for residents in Zones 2 and 3 be helpful too? Or would it just be hijacked by those who can shout the loudest?

[Jon Clarke]

It's good to see Councillor Getgood be so pro-active and set up a residents meeting. Friends I have in Zone 1 are fuming over the inclusion of Pay & Display, the way residents have to pay out by car, and the amount of natural parking spaces taken away by added lines etc.

I'd welcome and indeed call for a public meeting for all those in Zone's 2 & 3 as soon as possible.

What the council inform us now that will be set out, is not what their 'informal' questionnaire asked about or accompanying material alluded to back last year. The woolly way the survey was written was to appeal to the individual more than the community as a whole and get a mandate that they could use to do anything involved with traffic management.

That is plain wrong. They should not be allowed to implement what they like, especially by hoodwinking good, honest, hard working residents. It's an error of judgement if they do, which will no doubt impinge on their popularity at the next local council elections.

Reg, who do we need to call upon at the council to set-up and attend a local meeting for zone's 2 and 3? I also, think those in neighbouring roads should be invited and informed. The whole thing isn't a micro issue, but affects a few thousand households.

[Colin Smith]

OK.... Let me start from Jon's email timed at 9:47 and working through the points raised (if I've missed any please let me know and I'll have another go !)

Before I do so though, the first point I would make is that this latest exercise is precisely what it says it is - a consultation.

The fact that the Council listens to residents is evidenced by the fact that it only undertook this exercise in the first place following ongoing complaints about problem parking from residents living locally.

The fact that only roads where a majority of residents responding in favour have now been included in this further consultation attests to the seriousness with which the process is taken and how individual householders views are respected as closely as they can be.

Sadly, it will never prove possible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time, the fact that the scheme (all such schemes come to that) isn't perfect or a panacea to every individuals parking preferences isn't in dispute.

It's an attempt to meet the expressed concerns of residents plagued with nuisance parking with the least impact possible on those less affected. That's why it will be reviewed after 6 months or so and it's effectiveness assessed.

Jon's comment

" What a waste of time and money, amazing a Conservative council being anything but. Good vote loser"

Cannot therefore be allowed to pass unchallenged either. It is wrong on a number of counts, setting aside he doesn't appear to be a Conservative, whilst the Council clearly is and that may be blinkering his view a little bit :

1/ Bromley Council is the second lowest funded Council in London per Capita (behind Richmond whose indicative Band D Council Tax bill is some £ 300 higher that Bromley's)
2/ Despite this, Bromley Council charges the lowest Council Tax in outer London (unless you count Newham who are rather bizarrely clase as such. If Bromley received their per capita level of funding we would be able to pay people four figure sums to live in their own homes ! (fanciful I know but true)
3/ Bromley Council has the lowest spend per Capita in London
4/ Bromley Council has recently been audited and assessed as being in the top 3 Council's for financial management nationwide
5/ Our CPZ charges are amongst the very lowest in the Capital
6/ All Councils of all political persuasions run such schemes, some at far greater intensity than Bromley.



So, getting down to business.

1/ "indiscriminate yellow lines" - Anyone concerned about any apparent 'mistake' should draw this out on the consultation document, and /or send an email to myself, Reg Adams or Sarah Phillips all at [e-mail] at all times copying in [e-mail].

Things are routinely changed at this stage as recent schemes in Copers Cope and Chatterton Village can confirm.

The need for yellow lines on the bends is on the other hand fairly self explanatory.

2/ The point about motorcycles has been noted and passed forward to Mr Nevard for further consideration
3/ Skips will not be 'banned' under the new arrangements, the restrictions on visitors and tradesmen work perfectly adequately in other parts of the Borough and people seem to be able to work around them without too much trouble.
4/ Inter zone commuting is discouraged by restrictioning the zones in the manner that they have been.

In reality heavy commuter parking causing problems in Chaffinch Road is no less of a concern whether the car comes from the far end of Cedars Road or Sevenoaks. Simlarly, in Cedars road from Chaffinch by somebody accessing the High street or the new facility at the Hospital.

5/ The review / possible changes. Please keep faith, that's what it says, that's what will happen.

6/ Possible displacement. It may happen, there's no denying it (and never has been). There is a point of no-return that's unknown. The review will be able to better inform us. Doing nothing would have left those currently blighted by nuisance parking and unable to park anywhere close to their homes unsupported. I personally think that's wrong.

To Caroline,

Residents cannot park in the (proposed*) P&D bays free of charge during the restricted hours. Whether the balance between P&D and 'residents permit bays' is right is something we will be watching extremely closely and will respond to proactively if needs be. Wether there are too many P&D bays per se is another question altogether.

As you've quite rightly identified, the Beckenham Beacon situated is another complicating issue that we're trying to factor in. It's a fluid situation. Again the review will assist in this regard.

A yellow lines is included between the bays, if this is a problem you you (anyone) please make the point on the consultation return.

Jon,

We don't want to drive out all commuters. (they will only park somewhere else and the cycle will start allover again)
Some of us were commuters ourselves in a previous life and recognise thier legitimate interests. We do however need to control their excessive numbers (on behalf of and at the request of a majority of local residents who asked us to do so in the previous consultation)

Caroline,

Please spell out what is complicating this matter for you and I'll try and justify the thinking more clearly for you.

To be continued .....(at Niners)

Best wishes
(Cllr) Colin Smith

Jon Clarke said:

Received the map through the door today and as expected there are more houses/flats/maisonettes than parking spaces, and that includes includes Pay & Display bays too. So not enough for residents, and so what space could have been permit, even though far from most houses is turned into a further revenue source.

There is also indiscriminate double yellow lines added infront of properties where others are only single yellow, thus even stopping residents the freedom to park infront of their house at the weekend.

It says that 'double yellow lines that operate 24 hours a day will be added in places unsuitable for vehicles to be parked' even though I doubt there has been one accident in ten years in said places and residents have enjoyed the freedom to park infront of their house. This is excessively used at the bottom of Clock House Road, even though it has the highest amount of flat/maisonette residents with cars. You'll find I guess they'll park 10 doors up and that will domino all the way up the road.

Motorcycles are treated as cars even thought they take up a fraction of the space.

If tradespeople visit the zones within the restricted period then they must either park in a pay and display, not close to the majority of properties or residents pay £2 each time and purchase guest permits in books of 15 = £30.

There are a lot of unanswered questions still. Presence of skips and or building materials on the roads? Zone 1 cars cannot park in Zone 2, no Zone 2 in 3, etc.

They do say that following the scheme being installed the area would be reviewed approximately six months after and the area either increased or reduced. Considering that they say it costs a lot of money to set up, and then employ Civil Enforcement Offices (traffic wardens) it's hard to believe they'd remove the CPZ.

Another 'informal' questionnaire is attached to the map and must be returned by the Friday 15th May 2009.

Further information: Contact Paul Nevard 020 8313 4889, email [e-mail] or [e-mail]

Nice to see the council 'informally' have introduced this all. Let CPZ Bingo commence.

Good luck to all those outside the CPZ you are about to be swamped... probably.

What a waste of time and money, amazing a Conservative council being anything but. Good vote loser.

[Jon Clarke]

Thank you Colin for your reply. I wasn't expecting I'd have to declare my political colours, but your assumption I am not Conservative is sadly wrong, I've voted Blue on each opportunity I've had over the years.

To be honest the points 1,2,3,4,6 of the first part of the reply are irrelevent to this discussion, 5 at least has some merit.

Why wasn't Pay & Display, extra yellow lines, less car parking spaces for residents in reality due to marked out bay sizes and the inability for residents to park across their drives with or without their second car ever dealt with in the initial 'consultation'? This is not the council's first CPZ, but if they had brought these up then no doubt more residents would have voted against the proposal because what is proposed now is not what was asked about in the first instance. Already many who voted yes are now no's.

What's taken as red by so many is the fact that the wording of the Council's papers are very much affirming that this will all go ahead no matter what, and perhaps (if a resident is lucky enough) a few minor changes will be made. Many tens of thousands of pounds will be spent, when perhaps a little more forethought and actually a better dialogue could have been set up by the council planners and the residents and a great deal of savings would have been made. Perhaps Councillors would step forward and call a public meeting for those in zone 2 & 3. You are proposing now new monetary and different parking solutions that the inital questionnaire covered. How much is the exercise costing the Council, and what will they have to spend setting it all up and then manning it? We have a right to know I guess, it will be coming out of our council tax.

'4/ Inter zone commuting is discouraged by restrictioning the zones in the manner that they have been.
In reality heavy commuter parking causing problems in Chaffinch Road is no less of a concern whether the car comes from the far end of Cedars Road or Sevenoaks. Simlarly, in Cedars road from Chaffinch by somebody accessing the High street or the new facility at the Hospital.'

I smile at the ridiculousness of it all. Residents in one part of Beckenham now will have to pay to park on a street they have always had a right to do so freely and now when they want to park in a different 'tiny' zone next door they are not allowed? It's us who are paying, not the commuter or any other person, so why not give us the right to park in any zone, any space.

'6/ Possible displacement. It may happen, there's no denying it (and never has been). There is a point of no-return that's unknown. The review will be able to better inform us. Doing nothing would have left those currently blighted by nuisance parking and unable to park anywhere close to their homes unsupported. I personally think that's wrong.'

Displacement will happen, and even though one may not have ever denied it, the Council has not informed its residents on the periphery who have a right to know. Just because you don't tell them is not a justifiable answer. There are hundreds of other families this CPZ will affect who never were given a voice or included in the process. 'There is a point of no-return that's unknown'? Should we be even considering something that has a point of no-return? I thought you said it could go ahead 'or' be disbanded, it is a consultation after all isn't it? Or perhaps not.

When I moved here 7 years a go I noted the station, the commuter parking, and I new it would be something I'd have to contend with, but I still chose to buy my house. All residents know what the area is like, they also choose to have in a number of cases more that one car so parking gets harder. But alas we are a car culture people and it isn't going to change so perhaps we should all just try and deal with the extra commuter traffic. (Just for the record I have off street parking and only one car, but I have fantastic neighbours and have never minded them or commuters from parking in front of my house even partially across my driveway. Now that that parking space and many others drawn on the plan are to go, at least ten cars down here, perhaps even a few more from fellow residents will be displaced from one part of Clock House Road to another part further up, so for many who voiced their concerns they will back to square one. It needs more thinking about.)

Why can't Caroline and others who have been made to buy a permit park in the Pay & Display bays if they wish? After all this was supposed to be an exercise to help the residents, but it just looks like a stealth plan to raise revenue and appease City Hall transport guidelines. Why can't those residents with 2 cars park one in front of their driveway as they have for tens of years? This is what will help, the Council need to work out a way not to penalise these residents further.

I'm not interested in the politics, I am interested in a neighbourhood that is harmonious though and feel that perhaps the best way to sort out traffic problems is to conduct an open suggestion forum both public meeting based and online to hear all points, garner better ideas, but just because you can change the rules does not mean that one should, change for changes sake does not always make things better.

[Colin Smith]

Jon,

Will reply to this and others soonest ( I've just lost 2 hours worth of input from Niners downwards by not saving it !)

I'm more than happy to tackle every question posed, provide the numbers and further break out the rationale for anyone that wishes to ask /discover more.

Best wishes
Colin




Jon Clarke said:

Thank you Colin for your reply. I wasn't expecting I'd have to declare my political colours, but your assumption I am not Conservative is sadly wrong, I've voted Blue on each opportunity I've had over the years.

To be honest the points 1,2,3,4,6 of the first part of the reply are irrelevent to this discussion, 5 at least has some merit.

Why wasn't Pay & Display, extra yellow lines, less car parking spaces for residents in reality due to marked out bay sizes and the inability for residents to park across their drives with or without their second car ever dealt with in the initial 'consultation'? This is not the council's first CPZ, but if they had brought these up then no doubt more residents would have voted against the proposal because what is proposed now is not what was asked about in the first instance. Already many who voted yes are now no's.

What's taken as red by so many is the fact that the wording of the Council's papers are very much affirming that this will all go ahead no matter what, and perhaps (if a resident is lucky enough) a few minor changes will be made. Many tens of thousands of pounds will be spent, when perhaps a little more forethought and actually a better dialogue could have been set up by the council planners and the residents and a great deal of savings would have been made. Perhaps Councillors would step forward and call a public meeting for those in zone 2 & 3. You are proposing now new monetary and different parking solutions that the inital questionnaire covered. How much is the exercise costing the Council, and what will they have to spend setting it all up and then manning it? We have a right to know I guess, it will be coming out of our council tax.

'4/ Inter zone commuting is discouraged by restrictioning the zones in the manner that they have been.
In reality heavy commuter parking causing problems in Chaffinch Road is no less of a concern whether the car comes from the far end of Cedars Road or Sevenoaks. Simlarly, in Cedars road from Chaffinch by somebody accessing the High street or the new facility at the Hospital.'

I smile at the ridiculousness of it all. Residents in one part of Beckenham now will have to pay to park on a street they have always had a right to do so freely and now when they want to park in a different 'tiny' zone next door they are not allowed? It's us who are paying, not the commuter or any other person, so why not give us the right to park in any zone, any space.

'6/ Possible displacement. It may happen, there's no denying it (and never has been). There is a point of no-return that's unknown. The review will be able to better inform us. Doing nothing would have left those currently blighted by nuisance parking and unable to park anywhere close to their homes unsupported. I personally think that's wrong.'

Displacement will happen, and even though one may not have ever denied it, the Council has not informed its residents on the periphery who have a right to know. Just because you don't tell them is not a justifiable answer. There are hundreds of other families this CPZ will affect who never were given a voice or included in the process. 'There is a point of no-return that's unknown'? Should we be even considering something that has a point of no-return? I thought you said it could go ahead 'or' be disbanded, it is a consultation after all isn't it? Or perhaps not.

When I moved here 7 years a go I noted the station, the commuter parking, and I new it would be something I'd have to contend with, but I still chose to buy my house. All residents know what the area is like, they also choose to have in a number of cases more that one car so parking gets harder. But alas we are a car culture people and it isn't going to change so perhaps we should all just try and deal with the extra commuter traffic. (Just for the record I have off street parking and only one car, but I have fantastic neighbours and have never minded them or commuters from parking in front of my house even partially across my driveway. Now that that parking space and many others drawn on the plan are to go, at least ten cars down here, perhaps even a few more from fellow residents will be displaced from one part of Clock House Road to another part further up, so for many who voiced their concerns they will back to square one. It needs more thinking about.)

Why can't Caroline and others who have been made to buy a permit park in the Pay & Display bays if they wish? After all this was supposed to be an exercise to help the residents, but it just looks like a stealth plan to raise revenue and appease City Hall transport guidelines. Why can't those residents with 2 cars park one in front of their driveway as they have for tens of years? This is what will help, the Council need to work out a way not to penalise these residents further.

I'm not interested in the politics, I am interested in a neighbourhood that is harmonious though and feel that perhaps the best way to sort out traffic problems is to conduct an open suggestion forum both public meeting based and online to hear all points, garner better ideas, but just because you can change the rules does not mean that one should, change for changes sake does not always make things better.

[Colin Smith]

Niners,

I'm afraid it isn't as simple as that and I have to point out in balance that you have conspicuously failed to quote paragraph 7.32 which reads :

"The Council sees the introduction of restrictions into residential streets as a last resort, and this only takes place where safety is compromised by anti-social parking, or where the bulk of the demand for kerbside parking is from people from outside the local area and is detrimental to residential and community activities. The views of residents and frontagers is given a significant weight in deciding whether controls should be introduced"

I hope that most neutral readers will see and agree from the marginal votes against joining the scheme in Westfield/Hayne & Durban Road all being respected and those roads omission for the scheme, just what significance the weight placed upon those views is.

Whether we like it or otherwise (we don't, bigtime) Bromley is bound at law to obeying the (former) Mayor for London's Transport Strategy (Which is currently being re-written incidently and is known as 'MTS2') and had to produce a disgracefully prescriptive, bureaucratic, resource wasting document at not insignificant expense to 'prove' how were are going to become "compliant" with it. It is called the Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Bromley was the last Borough to sign up to it and we did so under protest and in very bad grace in Jan 07 (the minutes of the meeting are available should anybody wish for a copy).

The reason that we had to fall in line was that had we failed to do so, the Borough would have had a 'Traffic Director' imposed upon us by Central London and in essence would have lost all control of what happens on the Borough's roads, as well as having to pay for any madcap scheme (and their staffing costs) that the appointed 'Director' then chose to implement locally.

The "Parking Enforcement Plan" (PEP) is directly linked to that family of documents.

Worse still followed in the shape of the former Mayor's 'London Plan' which both directed Councils at law to permit a higher density of dwelling space as well as to pay less heed to (obviously needed) parking requirements in conjunction with central Government 'guidance', when considering future planning requests. Similarly to the 'LIP' our UDP had to come '"compliant" to achieve the necessary "adoption" from central London necessary for it to become legally accessible to us in our attempts to prevent the Borough becoming and out of control building site. Like the LIP, without the UDP we would have been defenceless.

The evolving buildings adjacent to Clock House Station underline how badly the UDP is needed because even with it, the Goverenment's independent Inspectorate has rather peculiar ideas about what constitutes acceptable planning development locally.

Like the (former) Mayor's Transport strategy, the Mayor's London Plan is also now under review and will hopefully go some way to repairing the damage.

The point you make about 'permits' and the defacto posibility of 'trading' of them is a fair one ; as the document makes clear there is no easy or obvious solution to dealing with the 'problem' (if indeed it is a problem).

Some residents could actually make 'a profit' by either hiring out their drives (be they inside or outside the CPZ) and
or 'trading' permits that they don't need (although providing the cost of P&D doesn't exceed the cost of permits this will make it difficult for anyone minded to try and do so)

It's another reason why getting the balance correct between the number of CPZ bays needed and P&D bays available
is essential.





Niners said:

Interesting document on the Council website setting out transport and parking policy across the borough http://www.bromley.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/71F13347-E4DD-4044-809E-02E1...

It's pretty down on the car user and shows that they will continue to bring in as many restrictions and zones as possible Point 7.45 & 7.46.

Also details on how it might be unfair, but not illegal for residents to rent their off-street parking spaces for more than the cost of an annual parking permit, and themselves use permits to park on-street. 7.23 & 7.24

So in essence the Council is committed to increasing CPZs, reducing planning quotas on new areas to address parking needs, raising revenues and trying to make residents give up their cars. All this in the third largest car owning borough in London, where residents travel the furthest for their average journey.

Railroading I think one calls that.

[Colin Smith]

Marie,

I'm sorry if you see this as being complicated, that's possibly a failure of communication on our part so allow me to try and recap :

The reason that roads such as the Hampden's were consulted originally, but have not been on this occasion is that we are now discussing the specific details of the design within the participating area. As such, it doesn't directly affect you as a householder in a neighbouring street.

Everyone fully understands the concerns over possible displacement and this will be drawn out at the review stage at which point you will most emphatically be invited to comment or attend a public meeting etc (if that's what local residents wish for)... Your Ward Councillors Reg Adams and Sarah Phillips will be picking up on this point in due course.

I'm not quite sure how widespread you have in mind when you use the phrase "warren of roads" but it's in respect of the 'zone' system, that has been introduced to prevent 'inter zone commuting' as well as to recognise residents wishes
within Zone 1 who have indicated that they are interested in adopting a higher priced 'tariff'' - want the scheme implemented for longer hours.




marie shallcross said:

this all sounds riduculously complicated and without full consideration of the consequences, for the roads both within the CPZ and those immediately surrounding them! as a hampden road resident I'm very grateful to jon for posting this up as its incredibly difficult to get information about the CPZ if you're in a surrounding road ( like we wont be affected...duh).
I still hold by my original premise that this particular 'warren' of roads should be treated as a whole, and that sensible restrictions are most likely to meet residents needs and be cost effective - both in the setting up and running costs for council and residents! a case of KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is needed maybe??

[Colin Smith]

Jon,

It's simply not true to say that this is a "revenue generator/ stealth tax". The Q & A on the back of the consultation document (Q3) breaks out exactly why the scheme has to pay for itself.

The Council's parking account is a matter of public record and contains a line within it which demonstrates CPZ's as being a net square operation.

The scheme has absolutely nothing to do with City Hall, and I would respectfully challenge you to qualify your assertion if you genuinely believe that to be the case.

A good number of residents asked for it, they were consulted and counted as a result, and those who made their opinions know had there views respected whether they were in favour of being included or against.

I would again point to Westfield/Hayne & Durban roads as defining evidence of this being the case.

We've covered yellow lines previously, I would encourage all residents to use the consultation process to highlight any parochial concerns that they might have at this stage as changes can and will still be made ahead of implementation wherever it is possible to do so. (As has been evidenced recently with the Copers Cope Scheme and in Chatterton Road)

If it were as simple a matter as just putting in a single yellow line to repel all commuters, the Council would obviously have done so from the outset, but it isn't. As you yourself say, and I've touched on previously, we don't simply want to move the problem on elsewhere, just better manage it in line with residents requests that we do so.

The downside of yellow lines is that (at law) Traffic Wardens are not allowed to distinguish as to who they issue tickets to that are parked on them, commuters and residents alike. No exceptions.

There are many aspects of Traffic management which are incredibly frustrating and at face value fly in the face of common sense, this is just one of them.

As for community engagement, Ward Councillors Sarah Phillips and Reg Adams have both toiled manfully (sorry Sarah) to have this scheme refined to the enth degree for local residents and have been served very well by both.

Regarding Balgowan School, we will obviously be studying any displacement patterns that might emerge both there as well as everywhere else extremely closely and this again will become a function of the review.



Jon Clarke said:

Yes I'm against it on the basis that it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's a revenue source generator for the council, stealth tax and it just moves the problem on to others. Not very neighbourly. Balgowan Primary School has not been contacted about this CPZ by the Council even though they are on the ouside boundary edge of the CPZ and expect a huge amount of cars now circling the narrow roads there around morning school time.

Those who wanted a CPZ will find there are just as many cars fighting over less spaces, at those peak times, because the council has decided not to create enough parking spaces for residents. The Pay & Display are testiment to the revenue generation requirements of the council. It is not about commuter parking, it is about their need to conform to guidelines set down by City Hall. If it was about residents needs then they could easily create a large CPZ that each car in it is registered with a permit and no markings need be applied to the roads. Those cars found within the extended zone at the wrong times would then be ticketed.

Regarding double yellow lines. If they were not required in the past, they don't need to be painted now. The fact that entrance ways to some houses and access paths are single yellows yet others which offer no need for double yellows let alone a single one shows planners have not bothered to talk to the residents earlier about whether they are needed or not.

Again if this is about commuter parking then single yellow restricted to Monday to Friday are all that are required. Double yellow penalises those home owners at the weekends when there isn't a need to restrict traffic parking.

I'm happy to debate the issues with those for or against the scheme on here, at least here residents get to discuss it. The Council should perhaps engage residents like this to understand their local nighbourhoods better, instead of sending limited and controlled surveys.

[Colin Smith]

Sue,

It's sad to read / I simply can't understand why you "mistrust" the Council's motives.

This process has been resident driven from the outset ; those that want action taken are getting it, those that don't are also having their wishes respected.

The balance between CPZ bays and P&D bays is a vital one to get right though I agree, and any obvious adjustments that might need to be made will be, and quickly (within the 6 months if needs be). It is also the case that anybody (resident, visitor, shopper, commuter, patient) may park in any of them outside of the restricted hours.

Some may regard this as being one of the 'downsides' of adopting the cheaper Zone 2 & 3 tariffs rather than the longer operating hours of Zone 1, but that is the steer that Zone 2 & 3 residents gave the Council and asked it to design a scheme around.

It is clearly the case that clearing the fence side parking areas and making them 'sterile' is in no-ones interests
and this will not be allowed to become an established feature of the scheme.

The review will pick up on any evidence that might possibly develop along these lines.

The flip side of P&D is that if it were all done away with, the area would become swamped by those looking for 'free'
all day parking, thereby squeezing out any potential for local residents to access available space outside of the controlled time restrictions

The voting totals were verified by both Cllr Adams and myself. Westfield/Hayne & Durban were omitted due to their
marginal preferences against joining.



sue said:

> As somebody who ultimately voted NO -because I mistrusted the council's motivation for introducing a CPZ- I am now even more dismayed to read the recently delivered brochure/document
> I have so many questions but let me express the first few of my concerns.

The first thing to hit me was the multitude of pay and display areas down Cedars Road, on the end of Elm Road and Queens Road etc. Straight away this tells me that the council are in the business of making money from people who want to park - rather than helping residents to park close to their homes. Perhaps I have a short memory but when the council were consulting us on the CPZ did they tell us just how many Pay and Display areas there would be in the CPZ?
>Secondly - Does anybody read these HOURS of OPERATION rules the way I do?
> If you are in Zone 2&3 the residents parking bays will only operate during the restriction time.(10-12) Does this mean anybody can park in them outside these hours? If this is the case then I cannot see how the CPZ will be of assistance to residents unless the only time you need to park is between 10 -12 The traffic will continue to come and go in the area throughout the day, for the Leisure centre, Beacon Hospital, the GP surgeries within the hospital,stations and trams etc. So are we paying a permit to park for two hours per day and running the risk the rest of the time? - and let me say here and now I bet we have all picked up fines by the end of the year!

I fully appreciate we have an issue with commuters parking in the area for the stations/trams etc but I do not believe that this council scheme is to help the residents. I would urge people to read their brochure and see if you read it the way I do. It seems the truth is within this brochure but it has only just come to light and we will all pay heavily.

Could we ask for a public meeting? Could there be a chance to vote again on the grounds that the council did not fully describe the plan? Do we know the vote was genuininely counted? I think we should have some reassurance/guarantee that if this impacts negatively on those both within the CPZ but also (as I suspect it will) on the poor people just around the scheme, we have the vote to get rid of it. I would like to know exactly how much the scheme is costing to implement and what the revenue will be. They will possibly receive more parking applications than parking bays -isn't that taking money for a service which is not provided? We have three working people in our house who need cars for their employment. I'm sure other households will be in a similar position. Just how many people's money will they take for so few parking bays? They have taken those potential parking bays, made them pay and display and used them for revenue.

I have ticked the No boxes on the questionnaire. I have also registered that I do not agree with the proposed scheme. I have asked for clarity on the document. I feel as though I have come over all 'Citizen Smith' but I have a bad feeling about this scheme that we are about to allow happen in our streets.<</body>

[Colin Smith]

Sarah,

As touched on above, the balance between providing an acceptable number of CPZ places and the need to offer some provision for Commuters is essential, and this will be extremely closely monitored to make sure we get it right.

The rather challenging circumstances of zones 2 & 3 (being adjacent to The Spa, The Beacon and The High Street)
do however complicate the simple rule of thumb / principle that the further away from a facility that an individual parks, the less need there is to either regulate against or charge them for doing so. This isn't just a station 'thing'.

There is a real need to use whatever space is available extremely carefully and in a well planned manner. This scheme will better educate us (all) as to precisely how this can best be achieved, whilst at the same time protecting some of your neighbours from utterly intolerable over parking.

Were only 'just putting up CPZ signs' either legal or enforcible !



Sarah said:

Thanks Reg for the response. I know the Council has to do what it feels is appropriate to alleviate this problem but I really don't understand why we're getting into the 'Pay & Display'' territory here. Surely, if the Council want commuters to still be able to park near the station, wouldn't it be an idea to leave as is on a 'first come, first served' basis or am I being rather naive here? If the commuters refuse to pay (and I'm sure a lot of them will refuse) and the residents can't utilise these spaces, then we, the residents, are going to find ourselves in certain circumstances scrabbling for the spaces that are available - kind of back to square one again isn't it?

I've noticed from the circular received through my door last evening that on average we're going to lose probably a car space in most blocks. I counted this morning and where we currently have say 6 cars we're going to be down to in some cases 4.

I don't want to be the 'moaning minnie' here but wouldn't it have been a lot less problematic, cheaper to set up etc to just put up CPZ signs, mark with double yellows where currently commuters are parking their cars in silly places, and the rest just let us get on with?<</body>

[Colin Smith]

I'd just like to draw out / clarify at this stage that this meeting (which I've helped to arrange at Cllr Getgood's request)
is to draw out the slightly different circumstances affecting Chaffinch / Rowden (& Thayer Farm) Roads.

To cut to the quick, they have have been offered a late 'second' choice as to whether to plump for an 'inner' or 'outer' loop restriction solution, as well as in Rowden's case, a question of how best to deal with an access problem for the dustcarts.

The meeting is concerned soley about Chaffinch / Rowden & Thayer Farm specific detail matters, and is not set to debate about whether to proceed with the scheme or not.

I'm sure that Cllr Getgood, like Cllrs Adams & Phillips, may very well call a further meeting Public Meeting to discuss any possible further changes at the review stage in 6 months time.





Cllr John Getgood, Penge & Cator ward said:

I represent just the residents in Zone 1 in Thayers Farm, Chaffinch and Rowden Roads, The consultation document and latest/final plan have thrown up a number of new issues. We have a choice now between two plans, pay and display has been introduced and not all roads are being treated equally. Some residents have asked for a meeting to discuss these. So, we are holding a Zone 1 meeting at Beckenham Library on Thursday 14th may at 7.30. We'll get a leaflet round to those roads as soon as we can.

Cllr John Getgood
Penge & Cator
www.pengeandcatorcouncillors.co.uk

[Colin Smith]

The possible changes in Rowden / Chaffinch and the addition of a second choice were introduced/offered at my suggestion. As mentioned upstring, this is about managing our (inadequate) available parking stock intelligently, rather than expelling all commuters to an unknown and inconvenient location.

Some won't mind paying, some will, and I don't have an issue in defending the principle that those who do park closest and have been most responsible for causing the scheme to become necessary should be asked to contribute a small amount to pay for its policing.

I'm also marginally confused as to why your friends in Zone 1 should be fuming over the introduction of P&D, presuming they were ever in favour of the scheme in the first place. If more places are created and paid for, it will enable the Zone to be policed more regularly and for their interests to be protected.

If the bays were made free, there would be less revenue available for visits to the area by the enforcement team and in addition the bays would be packed by long term parkers keen to avail themselves of the facility.

If no 'extra' spaces are made available, whilst not being the end of the world it will offer less choice to all concerned, residents, their visitors, shoppers and commuters alike.









Jon Clarke said:

It's good to see Councillor Getgood be so pro-active and set up a residents meeting. Friends I have in Zone 1 are fuming over the inclusion of Pay & Display, the way residents have to pay out by car, and the amount of natural parking spaces taken away by added lines etc.

I'd welcome and indeed call for a public meeting for all those in Zone's 2 & 3 as soon as possible.

What the council inform us now that will be set out, is not what their 'informal' questionnaire asked about or accompanying material alluded to back last year. The woolly way the survey was written was to appeal to the individual more than the community as a whole and get a mandate that they could use to do anything involved with traffic management.

That is plain wrong. They should not be allowed to implement what they like, especially by hoodwinking good, honest, hard working residents. It's an error of judgement if they do, which will no doubt impinge on their popularity at the next local council elections.

Reg, who do we need to call upon at the council to set-up and attend a local meeting for zone's 2 and 3? I also, think those in neighbouring roads should be invited and informed. The whole thing isn't a micro issue, but affects a few thousand households.