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.

[Cllr John Getgood, Penge & Cator ward]

The details of the Zone 1 meeting have had to be changed.

I can now confirm that this will be held in the children's section of Beckenham Library on Thursday 14th May starting sharp at 7pm.

The time has had to be moved as there had been an unfortunate double booking of the Library. West Beckenham Residents Association is meeting at 8pm in the Reference section. The slightly earlier time will help those residents who want to attend both meetings.

We will get a leaflet round over the weekend but please share this information with your neighbours.

[Kennedy]

Seems to me that the original questionnaire the council sent to us all did not have all the facts, and was biased, or at least it did not state all the information the council could have and should have put in it for us residents. No mention was made of Pay & Display, the inability to park across crossovers and driveways, cost per vehicle not household, and therefore there should be a public meeting and councillors held to account on why they feel these introductions can be legally introduced. Cllr Colin Smith states it's a balance between resident and commuter, yet earlier it was stated that the CPZ was for residents, called for by a number of residents and if they are to pay for it then why are commuters being allowed a voice or consideration.

I think before residents are asked to pay for a service they should be given the strict conditions on how it will operate, the cost to implement it, the running costs, the number of traffic wardens, if non-profit making what happens to any revenue collected that exceeds the running costs, the guaranteed yearly increase (if any) for 5 years and the conditions of the Pay & Display bays.

I'd urge everyone here, even those who voted yes for a CPZ to email or call Paul Nevard, the guy in charge and ask for a quick public meeting to discuss these issues. If Zone 1 can have one then surely Zone 2 & 3 have a right to discuss newly introduced measures which were not part of the original consultation. What worries me is that we are sleep walking into this and the council feels it can introduce new measures slyly without consulting properly its residents. I'd be for the scheme at the start, but having seen the plans I'm now not so sure and would vote no. It's no longer what was first proposed.

Contact Paul Nevard Tel: [phone], Email [e-mail] or [e-mail]

KJ

[C Andrew]

Hi,

I am a resident on Churchfields Road which voted against the CPZ. After reading all your comments on this forum I have gathered that those streets that voted no are being kept in the dark on the latest detailed proposals despite the impact it will have on us. I'm sure my street isn't the only one. I emailed Paul Nevard yesterday to ask about the proposals for Blandford Road which voted yes, as the majority of Churchfields residents park at the bottom of Blandford Road as there is never spaces on Churchfields (I live within 40m of Blandford Road).

It turns out that the bays will be extended as far as the Churchfields Road junction and the lack of response to my - will I be able to buy a permit to park here? question I took to be a no response. I think its disgusting that the neighbouring streets that were in the orginal consultation are only being kept informed of the update on places like this. I'm pretty sure my fellow Churchfields rd residents do not know what is looming. Since I moved to the area a couple of years ago we have / will lose two thirds of our original parking spaces on Churchfields Road (with about 1 space to every 5 dwellings.) We would lose even more spaces if we went to designated CPZ bays - which is why I voted no.

The lack of forethought / detailed information seems to be extending across the whole scheme and the whole area needs to be looked at collectively - not what is happening at present. The council should be looking to assist us not make things worse. I suggest that the no voting streets need to be kept up to date with progress otherwise the council is just going to drive full speed ahead into a disasterous scheme for residents.

I urge all of you residents in no voting streets to contact Paul Nevard with your concerns. The 'you will be consulted again in 6 months time' is just not good enough - it will take a full year of parking misery of the CPZ operating before we would be included in the scheme - with no guarantee it will actually make any difference!

Contact Paul Nevard Tel: [phone], Email [e-mail] or [e-mail]

[Mirrie]

I was against this plan from the very start and in view of the current proposals, am vehemently against it now in the format envisaged. I believe that I am right in saying that many residents who thought this was the answer to all their parking problems are against it as it is now presented.
The object (it was thought) was to provide and reclaim parking spaces for the residents. However it seems that it has not only reduced the parking spaces available, it is heavily weighted on increasing the council's revenue by adding Pay and Display meters indiscriminately.
The problem is not, and never has been, just commuters' cars, as is evidenced by the lack of space even at weekends when commuter parking is at a minimum. A lot of the problem is the fact that many houses have two, or even three cars, and nowhere to put any of them. Therefore they have to take parking where they can, which is often outside another resident's house. By marking out parking bays you are at a stroke reducing the space available for residents' cars. Very near to me there is an area in which seven cars are now able to park; you are reducing this to 5 parking bays, and I am sure this is happening throughout all the zones. Are you now suggesting that this overload of cars should go into a pay and display bay? You have totally underestimated the number of bays which should be available for RESIDENTS (which as already stated, I believe was the ONLY aim of this plan).
Furthermore, why have you taken the decision to add yellow lines across mine, and other peoples' driveways. These have been bought and paid for by the residents and always ensure parking when parking in the road is impossible and the space in front of the house is taken by one's visitors – usually one's visiting adult children.
With very few exceptions, other residents or commuters, do not take these parking spaces, so if I am reading the situation correctly, you are effectively denying people the right to use that which they have paid for during the hours of 10am–12 pm.
My solution for all this is to reduce the number of Pay and Display bays and use this area for extra parking for residents and/or parking permits for visitors and to remove the yellow lines from peoples' driveways to give them an assured parking area when all else is taken.
This I believe satisfies the primary aim of this plan and one which those residents who said 'Yes' expected to evolve. It goes without saying that all residents are looking to the council to honour the basis on which they first proposed parking zones.

[Sarah]

I agree with a lot of what Mirrie says below. I voted FOR the CPZ because, like a lot of residents, I was fed up with trying to park my car vaguely within a walking distance of my home. However, it strikes me that the Council have just gone mad with their proposal. At NO TIME was this Pay & Display idea presented to us at the beginning of the discussions and I think the residents will find themselves ultimately in a worse situation than they currently are which, frankly, is hard to believe.

From what I can see, we the residents are going to lose about 30% of the spaces currently available where we will be able to park with our permits. We won't be able to park in the Pay & Display areas unless we are willing to do just that - PAY and the other final ruling that a resident won't be able to park in a road close by I think is just pure madness. I live in Clock House Road and if when this has all gone through I need to park I WON'T be able to park in Cedars Road which is a stones throw. Likewise, if someone living in Cedars sees a parking space in Clock House, they can't park there either - but WHY? - someone give me a reasonable answer please. What's going on?!!! This is NOT what we wanted and NOT what we were asked to agree to in the first instance.

I see that there's a Zone 1 meeting being called later this week. I think Zone 2 and 3 should follow suit.

How a simple request by residents to have their areas parking issues at least partially resolved has fallen into this I've no idea. Perhaps we all forget the whole thing and go back to wacky races - got to be a lot simpler than this!

Mirrie said:

I was against this plan from the very start and in view of the current proposals, am vehemently against it now in the format envisaged. I believe that I am right in saying that many residents who thought this was the answer to all their parking problems are against it as it is now presented.
The object (it was thought) was to provide and reclaim parking spaces for the residents. However it seems that it has not only reduced the parking spaces available, it is heavily weighted on increasing the council's revenue by adding Pay and Display meters indiscriminately.
The problem is not, and never has been, just commuters' cars, as is evidenced by the lack of space even at weekends when commuter parking is at a minimum. A lot of the problem is the fact that many houses have two, or even three cars, and nowhere to put any of them. Therefore they have to take parking where they can, which is often outside another resident's house. By marking out parking bays you are at a stroke reducing the space available for residents' cars. Very near to me there is an area in which seven cars are now able to park; you are reducing this to 5 parking bays, and I am sure this is happening throughout all the zones. Are you now suggesting that this overload of cars should go into a pay and display bay? You have totally underestimated the number of bays which should be available for RESIDENTS (which as already stated, I believe was the ONLY aim of this plan).
Furthermore, why have you taken the decision to add yellow lines across mine, and other peoples' driveways. These have been bought and paid for by the residents and always ensure parking when parking in the road is impossible and the space in front of the house is taken by one's visitors – usually one's visiting adult children.
With very few exceptions, other residents or commuters, do not take these parking spaces, so if I am reading the situation correctly, you are effectively denying people the right to use that which they have paid for during the hours of 10am–12 pm.
My solution for all this is to reduce the number of Pay and Display bays and use this area for extra parking for residents and/or parking permits for visitors and to remove the yellow lines from peoples' driveways to give them an assured parking area when all else is taken.
This I believe satisfies the primary aim of this plan and one which those residents who said 'Yes' expected to evolve. It goes without saying that all residents are looking to the council to honour the basis on which they first proposed parking zones.

[Jon Clarke]

Paul Nevard, the person in charge of this at the council was invited to join the discussion here on this site last year and again this week, but as yet not taken up the offer. Perhaps he'd like to address residents at a public meeting for those in Zones 2 & 3 and deal with the new questions over why the initial survey did not outline all the facts and why the new zones provide less residents parking spaces, those with cross overs cannot park their own car over them, the lack of thought going into permits, the need for many to be able to obtain more than 60 guest passes and why Pay & Display parking has materialised out of the blue to the detriment of the residents who have to pay extra now to try and find a space outside their own home and can't even park in the Pay & Display unless they pay the £2 charge.

Perhaps he would be so good as to call a public meeting within the next week.

[Jon Clarke]

What a lively Zone 1 discussion it was last night at the library. Although I am in Zone 2, I attended, and was glad I did. Cllr Getgood arranged it for the residence, and in attendance was Cllr Collin Smith and Paul Nevard. Over 150 residents attended, of which about 10 were still in favour of the scheme, others who had been but were not now, and the overall majority who were totally against it.

Although the meeting was to go through finer details. Cllr Smith was challenged time and time again by a passionate and in many cases angry audience on how an informal review, without enough information given, could be turned into a policy. In fact the policy has not been installed yet, but Cllr Smith from Hayes, is the man who will make the decision and he already has. He stated time and time again that he would not reverse his decision, not even if it was proved the majority now, being told of all the facts, rules and restrictions, did not want it. You have to ask why he is so set on having one?

He did say that residents crossovers in light of the questions and agreement from the majority of people in attendance would be left alone and free for residents to park in/on them. There would be no yellow lines on crossovers. I hold him to that here.

What was absurd was Cllr Smith's assertion that the meeting had no right to discuss or call for a re-vote because only people who are annoyed or angry about something attend these meetings. I'd put to him that only those who feel they have trouble parking fill out a CPZ 'informal' survey, those many who don't have trouble don't and therefore the basis on which he makes his decisions is flawed and inaccurate, and probably not legal.

What I think everyone knows, but the council and certainly Cllr Smith does not understand is that in 4 or 5 roads there are pockets and small stretches of residents who are blighted by overcrowding cars. These are both commuter, resident, visitor and business caused. And for the road lay outs, lack of crossover/offstreet parking etc this for some is not good. For others in the slimmer roads in Zone 1 it's about easy access and in some cases access for emergency vehicles. What the council should do and absolutely should have done is to engage the residents who live on those streets either with public meetings or online forums like this one (or on their own council website) and listen to what everyone has to say. They could then implement micro parking zones for residents blighted, kept swathes of the roads clear for those who don't want it changed and appeased all sides. Tosh! they might say, but have they tried? No. They'll spends tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the council money on doing it their ill-conceived way.

After the meeting a few Zone 2 & 3 people got a chance to talk to Cllr Smith and Paul Nevard. No joy in changing their minds for those areas. It must be said that Paul Nevard is being put in a very hard place, he understands that residents have differing needs, but he's not the one making the overall decision.

What was stated later by Cllr Adams is that there will be a Zone 2 & 3 meeting probably at Balgowan Primary School (they'll need the large hall!), but not until late June, early July. Why so late I don't know. By then it could all be done and dusted. The meeting will be arranged by the West Beckenham Residents Association, and I do hope Cllr Smith, but also his Leader Stephen Carr and perhaps even the Mayor of Bromley attend, this is a worthy public meeting for them to do so, and I'll also publish details on here and the Twitter feed for everyone to know about it and attend.

The only way to overturn Cllr Smith's iron fist decision is that when he publishes his policy, our local councillors have only (!) 5 days to say they disagree and why, finding good reason, and then it is taken above to the Executive made up of 9 people; the Leader - Stephen Carr (Cllr Smith's superior), 6 portfolio holders (our councillors) and Liberal Democrat Reg Adams and Labour Mr Getgood. If that is unsuccesful for those who want it not to go ahead then a Class Action would be needed to take the matter to the courts. Listening to angry attendees I have no doubt that would be the case too. More publicity for the council, they might not wish.

I urge every resident whether for or against to attend and be part of the decision process. It seems that you have no voice unless you are around to fill in an informal survey, which is as good as the council surveying people on Beckenham High Street and asking if the road has enough fast food takeaways, a whole load of teens say no they want more and then the council saying the majority wants a Super McDonalds. Oh yeah and the survey was done at school leaving time and not when everyone affected was around.

Makes you wonder about politics at the moment with all the expenses scandals and whatever else papers bring up, but what I was most disheartened about last night was that the council member Cllr Smith had made his mind up already and was not willing to listen or in many cases answer the residents fair questions who will have to pay against their will. These are councillors who are supposed to be our representatives. I question whether they are representing the people.

Please if you attended the meeting add your comments here, also pass this website address onto Bromley Times, your neighbour and friends. It is the only freely available and democratic forum there is for all parties. Perhaps with politics as it is at the moment it's time for neighbours to get involved and really attend to the issues we want solved.

And lastly just to clarify one point - I vote Conservative - I am not a member of any association, party, union or group. To me this is not about lining up to agree with a political party representative, but about the honest needs that nighbours have. What I have seen so far would certainly make me think about who I'd consider able to represent my ward in future.

[Reg Adams]

ClockHouse Councillors are hosting two public meetings to hear residents' views, to answer questions, to present information and to debate issues arising from the Council's proposals for Controlled Parking Zones in the area around ClockHouse Railway Station.

Weds. 24 June 2009, Meeting start-time 19:30. Balgowan School, Balgowan Road. (For Zones 2 & 3). All residents in roads on the eastern side of the Station are invited, i.e.: Malory Close, ClockHouse, Queens, Elm, Cedars Roads, etc.

Weds. 1 July 2009, Meeting start-time 19:30. Churchfields School, Churchfields Road (For Zone 1). All residents in roads on the western side of the Station are invited, i.e.: Sidney, Blandford, Churchfields, Chaffinch Roads, etc.

[Jon Clarke]

Thanks for the two dates Reg. I'm sure they'll be well attended by residents both for and against and all those wanting to learn more, even those just outside the proposed zones. I wonder, will the schemes have been set up before these meetings which are over a month away?

[RDUCE]

All I can say is the sooner the better for the CPZ - I'm looking forward to actually not having to plan any car trips,shopping, visits etc.. around the commuter time when all the car parking spaces are so crammed. In terms of the letter- not sure I understood the clarity of the points against... seemed to be a collection of panic responses rather than any constructive arguments - so to the lovely lady who didn't recieve one - don't worry you weren't missing out!

[Darin Welford]

Im all for the CPZ. Ive lived in Chaffinch Rd for the last 3 years and are fortunate that im away all day for work and most the time can park close to home on my return - my partner is not so lucky as she is in and out during the day more often than not once youve left during the day the chances of finding a space on your return are slim. I can manage with the parking issues at the moment but with baby on the way and the new flats near completion its hopefully time for change.

I attended the meeting at the library and understand the concerns and reasons for people not wanting the CPZ, but from what i could see a large amount of those opposed have crossovers so at the moment experience no real problem apart form those with one vehicle that sometimes get blocked in by commuters. Also the meeting was about trying to find a solution to the scheme that would be a compromise between all residents. It is unfair to say that from the meeting the majority are against the scheme as naturally the meeting attracted more of those against than in favour of the CPZ.

For me the CPZ will address current parking problems during the daytime for those with no crossover and also protect us from when the flats are finished and new residents come to the area requiring parking.

[F Thomas]

I couldn't agree more. The hysteria around the current proposal is unnerving. For some, the prospect of change is too much to bear.
I'm all for the CPZ but didn't attend the recent meeting in the library. Didn't fancy being shouted down/at.