CPZ - decision date and update for Zone 1 (Penge & Cator)

[Cllr John Getgood, Penge & Cator ward]

There has been a dalay in confirming the date when Cllr Smith is going to confirm his decision. We now know it will be Tuesday 14th July at a meeting starting at 7.30 in the Civic Centre. Here is the text of an email I have just sent to Penge & Cator residents in our dtatabase.


This is a blind email to people living in the Thayers Farm Rowden and Chaffinch Roads who are on our database. It is a follow up to the Zone 1 meeting held last Wednesday, 1st July.

Emotions tend to run strong on the issue of the CPZ, so I shall restrict myself to factual observations.

The Environment Portfolio Holder meeting to take the official decision is on Tuesday 14 July. It will be part of the Environment Policy Development & Scrutiny Committee which starts at 7.30 in Bromley Civic Centre. The officers' report has not been finalised yet but when it is, it can be found by following this link: http://sharepoint.bromley.gov.uk/default.aspx then call up Environment PDS Committee and download papers for the meeting on July 14th. They should be available from the evening of Thursday 9th July. As the usual deadline for submitting questions will have passed by then, I am expecting the Chairman of the PDS to allow questions to be taken on the night, without notice. Cllr Smith has reiterated that he is taking the results of the 1st consultation as indicating overall support for a scheme and will approve it.

The main purpose of the 1st July meeting was to discuss the details of scheme.

After the first meeting, in the library, I made a number of representations on points raised by residents:

to amend the scheme to allow parking across driveways. This has been conceded.
reduce the number of P&D spaces in our three roads. The only remaining P&D spaces will be in Thayers Farm Road near the junction with Beckenham Road.
to allow parking on the residential side of the Chaffinch and Rowden curve. The scheme has been amended to reflect this.
to commit to a six month review. This has been confirmed.
agreement to review conditions regarding permission for cross overs. A review of the implications of the regulations in these streets is being carried out now.


Some residents have said that the full implications of a CPZ were not clear in the first consultation. However, the results of the 2nd consultation would indicate that the outcome remains largely the same.

Results of consultations:

The results from the August/September 2008 survey were:

Chaffinch: For 32, Against 67. Thayers Farm: For 14, Against 6. Rowden: For 21, Against 13.
Total: For 67, Against 27.

Some residents asked me to find the detailed results of the May 2009 Survey. The results were:

2.) It is proposed to introduce waiting restrictions to address road safety concerns by preventing indiscriminate parking in dangerous and inappropriate places while at the same time preserving access to driveways. Do you support this?

Chaffinch Road: Yes 11, No 12. Thayers Farm Road: Yes 17, No 14. Rowden Road: Yes 22, No 4.
Total Yes 50, No 30.

3.) It is proposed to introduce formal parking bays where it is considered safe to park. This would provide parking for residents who need to park on street. Do you support this?

Chaffinch Road: Yes 10, No 12. Thayers Farm Road Yes 15, No 15. Rowden Road Yes 21, No 5.
Total Yes 46, No 32

4.) It is also proposed to introduce pay and display parking bays for commuters and visitors who wish to park close to Clock House Station during the controlled hours. Do you support this?

Chaffinch Road:Yes 6, No 16. Thayers Farm Road: Yes 14, No 17. Rowden Road: Yes 12, No 14.
Total Yes 32, No 47.

Although these questions relate to the consultation on the details of the scheme, they indicate that Rowden remains firmly in favour, Thayers Farm marginally in favour and Chaffinch Road is marginally against. There was a lower turn out in Chaffinch Road, which is surprising, considering the amount of activity by both those in favour of and those against the scheme. If you combine the house by house results for Chaffinch Road from the 2 surveys, they show a majority for the scheme with two households moving from a yes to a no.

There is no overwhelming evidence from the 2nd survey to cause the Portfolio Holder to change his stated intention. However, this is a six month trial and there will be a further survey after 6 months. Cllr Smith has given an assurance that if there is a majority against the scheme at that stage, he will withdraw it.

I am now asking Cllr Smith to consider two further amendments before his meeting.

1. I do not find the arguments for permits to be registered to cars, rather than households, persuasive. Any abuse of the system is likely to be noted by neighbours who should report it. Registering a restricted number of passes to households would reduce the pressure on visitor tickets and allow for obvious cases of injustice, such as the elderly, blind lady who relies on visits 4 times a week from a friend who acts as an unofficial carer.

2. As the first 6 months is a trial period, charges should be reduced for that period. This concession was offered when the Copers Cope CPZ was introduced.

This response is on behalf of the three councillors for Penge &Cator, though I am leading in this particular issue.

If there any issues I have not covered or if you have any further questions, please contact me.

Regards,
 
John Getgood
 
Cllr John Getgood
Penge & Cator

[Reg Adams]

Report ES09075, prepared by Paul Nevard (Traffic Engineer) on the Controlled Parking Zone proposed for nine roads around ClockHouse Station has just been released. As Cllr John Getgood indicates above, you can access this via Sharepoint on the Bromley Council website. Alternatively, you should be able to see it in *.PDF format, attached herewith, split into two files:
ES09075a – Text
ES09075b – Maps

As you can see, the report contains:
1) A brief history – why the CPZ was considered in the first place
2) Some questions & answers – similar to those given at the Public Meetings
3) Capital costs of implementation & expected operating revenue/costs
4) Funding contributions – Section 106 resources
5) Recommendations

The report will be discussed by the Environment Policy Development & Scrutiny Committee at its Meeting on 14 July, starting at 19:30. The Meeting will be held in a Committee Room at the Civic Centre and it will of course be open to the public.

If approved, the scheme should be finally implemented in September 2009. It should then be reviewed in Spring 2010, at which stage all residents in the entire area will be urged to comment on:
1) How the scheme has worked-out in practice?
2) Whether it has solved the problems it was supposed to solve?
3) What changes ought to be made?

[Paul Miller]

Reg,

Thanks for letting us know about this, but just a couple of things

1) I have been looking on the Bromley website for ages trying to get the document and nothing comes up (searching for ES09075 brings up nothing, Clockhouse CPZ brings up nothing relevant). Can something be done to make this more transparent?
2) Could you post links in your messages to source documents. You clearly know where it is and it would not be too much bother to put the link in directly. The files you have uploaded are probably fine - although I have not managed to successfully download these yet either - but you should link to the source as well.

Yours,

Paul

[Paul Miller]

Right,

I've had the quickest of glances through the documents and something really catches my eye. Perhaps I've got it wrong but it looks to me that the Council is budgetting for a net income (read "profit") of £20,400 in the first full year (2010-11), with an income of £21,600 from the residents of Zones 1-3, and in the setup year (2009-10) a net income (again "profit") of £15,200 of which £10,800 is from the residents.

Does this not seem like the requirement to pay £75 and £35 to cover costs is a nonsense?

The running costs are £13,600 in the first full year (of which only £3,600 is on enforcement - can't imagine that we are going to get many visits from the enforcment officers for that amount - it won't even pay for the petrol from Hayes I suspect!) - £10,000 of which is just recharged to the council by the way. This £10,000 is only in the first full year, I suspect, so the profit in subsequent years will rise to £30,400 pa is the estimates are correct.

Estimated income from the pay and display is £12,000 pa - why not put the charge up to £3 and generate £18,000 which will cover everything and let residents park for free and still get a profit? Knock it up to £4 and you are back to how it is now.

Given that the enforcement costs for the year are only £3,600 - how can they really justify the £75 for zone 1 compared to £35 for zone 2 and 3. Seems like a scam to me!

Paul

[C Andrew]

Hi,

Just been having a brief look at the document and haven't got through it yet. As we have been left out of the discussions and information somewhat in Churchfields Road (did attend the local meetings and been keeping updated on here), I was concerned about the Pay & Display bays on Blandford Road (my husband still couldn't see road markings properlly at the meeting.) Normal charging hours will be all day Mon - Fri but Pay & display for only two hours. Surely P& D should be all day for the charging hours - otherwise what's stopping the commuter from paying for 2 hours parking (not sure what that will cost)? It won't solve the problem - its inviting them to still park there - taking the spaces away from the residents!!

Being heavily pregnant and unable to park on a street within 30m of my house will be fun whilst I'm on maternity leave. I can't wait to trek 400m plus down Churchfields Road with a baby and shopping as I can't find a space anywhere near to home. However on the plus side I'll be at home to see the full effects of the 6 months trial taking notes and evidence to support our arguments when we come back to consultation next spring.

I'm certainly concerned about the obvious profit making of the scheme in the documnet. Reg - I take it that the charges are the same across the borough which is why they came to the £35 and £75 figure? What is the scope of reducing this? Is it something we can raise at the end of the 6 month trial? Despite the money going into a central transport pot we all know that the money will be spent on other transport projects within the borough. Can we ring fence the money to spend locally? For instance a few of us have raised suggestions for increasing parking near the Beckenham Road / Churchfields Road / Blandford Road area which would help alleviate our problems. Sorry for so many questions so late in the day - just many questions after the meeting last week when we found out a lot more information.

[Reg Adams]

Paul,

I don't have a web-link reference to the source document. I'm afraid I have only got the hard-copies of the Council Officers' Reports that are due to be discussed at next Tuesday's Environment Committee Meeting. The report on the ClockHouse CPZ is designated as ES09075 (ES for Environmental Services, followed by a 5-digit number). I put the hard-copy version of ES09075 through my scanner to convert it to a *.PDF file, then - because it is so large - split it into two. I am glad to hear you could view it, but if you have (or if any other reader has) any problems downloading it via this website, let me know, give me your E-mail address and I'll send it directly.

Can't explain why it wasn't accessible via Sharepoint. Will chase-up with the Communications Dept.

As for your comments on the financial figures, I don't know why they show positive revenue figures within brackets and negative cost figures without brackets - contrary to normal accountants' practice. But it's often that way with Environmental Service reports. Yes, you are quite right they show a "net profit" of £15.2k for the part-year (Sep 2009 to end-Mar 2010) and a "net profit" of £20.4k for the full-year to end-Mar 2011. And that is before adding-in the income (less expenses) from selling Residents' Permits & Visitors' Vouchers!

The figures for "Total cash-collection, equipment maintenance & enforcement costs" look unbelievably low (maybe by three orders of magnitude?) as shown at only £1.8k for part-year 2009/10 and £3.6k for 2010/11. Certainly needs to be queried.

Many thanks for your comments, Regards, REG


Paul Miller said:

Reg,

Thanks for letting us know about this, but just a couple of things

1) I have been looking on the Bromley website for ages trying to get the document and nothing comes up (searching for ES09075 brings up nothing, Clockhouse CPZ brings up nothing relevant). Can something be done to make this more transparent?
2) Could you post links in your messages to source documents. You clearly know where it is and it would not be too much bother to put the link in directly. The files you have uploaded are probably fine - although I have not managed to successfully download these yet either - but you should link to the source as well.

Yours,

Paul

[Reg Adams]

Hi Clare,

I just took a look again at Report ES09026, which refers to the CopersCope Area CPZ (discussed at Environment Committee Meeting, 29 Jan 2009). The Area is broken down into two sections - CopersCopeRoadNorth and 'the rest of the area'. The controlled hours are 08:00-18:30, every day (including Sat & Sun) for CopersCopeRoadNorth; weekdays only (Mon-Fri) for everywhere else. The proposed charges for Visitors Vouchers are: £30 per book of 15 (same as for ClockHouse CPZ). The proposed charges for Residents Permits are: £35 per year (if you don't have off-street parking at your property), £75 per year (if you do have off-street parking at your property). So, yes, there are different tariff-schedules for different areas.

I hope the latter stages of your pregnancy and the delivery go well. Worth mentioning that, effective June 2009, special provisions have been brought-in to permit healthcare (and other essential service) workers to park on single yellow-lines and in residents' bays within CPZs. This could be useful to your Health Visitor, visiting you and your new baby at home, but I realise it doesn't offer you much comfort when driving back and finding Churchfields Road and lower Blandford Road are tightly parked.

Best Wishes, REG



C Andrew said:

Hi,

Just been having a brief look at the document and haven't got through it yet. As we have been left out of the discussions and information somewhat in Churchfields Road (did attend the local meetings and been keeping updated on here), I was concerned about the Pay & Display bays on Blandford Road (my husband still couldn't see road markings properlly at the meeting.) Normal charging hours will be all day Mon - Fri but Pay & display for only two hours. Surely P& D should be all day for the charging hours - otherwise what's stopping the commuter from paying for 2 hours parking (not sure what that will cost)? It won't solve the problem - its inviting them to still park there - taking the spaces away from the residents!!

Being heavily pregnant and unable to park on a street within 30m of my house will be fun whilst I'm on maternity leave. I can't wait to trek 400m plus down Churchfields Road with a baby and shopping as I can't find a space anywhere near to home. However on the plus side I'll be at home to see the full effects of the 6 months trial taking notes and evidence to support our arguments when we come back to consultation next spring.

I'm certainly concerned about the obvious profit making of the scheme in the documnet. Reg - I take it that the charges are the same across the borough which is why they came to the £35 and £75 figure? What is the scope of reducing this? Is it something we can raise at the end of the 6 month trial? Despite the money going into a central transport pot we all know that the money will be spent on other transport projects within the borough. Can we ring fence the money to spend locally? For instance a few of us have raised suggestions for increasing parking near the Beckenham Road / Churchfields Road / Blandford Road area which would help alleviate our problems. Sorry for so many questions so late in the day - just many questions after the meeting last week when we found out a lot more information.

[Paul Miller]

Reg,

Thanks for the comments - there seems to be a complete lack of anything regarding this CPZ proposal on the Bromley website. Is this usual practice for schemes such as this? Would you consider the lack of publication something that would be suitable for objections to the scheme?

You mention that the financals seem suspect and that they should be commented on. Is this something that you are going to do at the meeting on the 14th? I doubt if the enforcement figures are off by three orders of magnitude though - does it really cost £3.6 Million to enforce one of these zones for a year? If so, I'm in the wrong job!

Let me know what you are intending to do at the meeting - I'm not able to attend myself, but if it is the only way of getting the scheme queried then I'll have to change my arrangements.

I'm really surprised by the way this scheme has been administered. It really looks to me as if someone in the council has a hidden agenda as is pushing this through regardless. Can I really influence council policy by asking my councillor to do something and then getting a couple of dozen people to vote for it (not that I think that this has happened here), but what other exciting things could I get the council to do on my area that easily? I think we need more police, bin collections, recycling facilities, multistorey car parks, swings and roundabouts, road sweeping, flower deliveries,... oh, I don't know what but let' ask for it and see what happens!!!

Yours,

Paul

[Cllr John Getgood, Penge & Cator ward]

Households in the Clock House Controlled Parking Zone will have reduced charges for the first six month trial period. Cllr Colin Smith, the Environment Portfolio holder agreed to my request for a 50% reduction at the meeting on Tuesday evening. As expected, Cllr Smith confirmed the introduction of the scheme in September with a review the following May.

Although some households in the Penge & Cator part of the scheme (Rowden, Chaffinch and Thayers Farm Roads) were strongly opposed, the responses to the second survey of residents confirmed a majority in favour.

The scheme had already been amended to reflect residents preferences. At the meeting on Tuesday Cllr Smith agreed to further changes or clarifications. The reduced charges recognised that at the review the Penge & Cator roads could move to a 2-hour controlled parking period, which has a reduced permit price. I asked for permits to be allocated to households rather than the cars registered to them. This would help elderly or disabled residents without cars who relied on unofficial carers. He did not offer immediate relief but did agree to consider any individual cases of hardship that I sent to him.

Cllr Smith was not sympathetic to the arguments for 2 wheels on the cross over parking where this helped traffic flow, claiming this was governed by legislation. He did though accept that the regulations which are preventing the few remaining houses in Thayers Farm and other roads introducing cross-overs were hard to justify, I have already started the process of a review of the situation with the department’s officers.

Finally, the scrutiny chairman accepted that difficulties were caused as a result of the first survey document not specifying the details of a Controlled Parking Zone and this is being referred to a communications committee for future cases.

[Jon Clarke]

So I take it the resolution was passed and that there are only 3 more working days as of today to get councillors to challenge the CPZ - Who should the residents contact and will it do any good? I thought something like this would not end up being something political, but all I see is work done and information shared on sites like this by the Liberal Democrat and Labour party councillors, and yet nothing from the ruling Conservative councillors representing (silently) their fellow residents. I guess it would not be good 'politics' to disagree or work against one's own colleagues even though an elected councillor should be the conduit of the people who voted for them and represent. They should be willing to help both those for and against. Thanks Cllr Getgood & Adams for your openess in all this. Residents either for or against should note that you have done all you can to lay the facts at our doors, unlike a party I voted for that has done its best to get all this done under the wire which was even noted by the scrutiny chairman. Not a vote winner for me.

On a last note for now here is the Government's rules on Code of Practice on Consultation - Interesting reading for sure... Does it cover what the Council did?

[Cllr John Getgood, Penge & Cator ward]

Jon Clarke said:

So I take it the resolution was passed and that there are only 3 more working days as of today to get councillors to challenge the CPZ - Who should the residents contact and will it do any good? I thought something like this would not end up being something political, but all I see is work done and information shared on sites like this by the Liberal Democrat and Labour party councillors, and yet nothing from the ruling Conservative councillors representing (silently) their fellow residents. I guess it would not be good 'politics' to disagree or work against one's own colleagues even though an elected councillor should be the conduit of the people who voted for them and represent. They should be willing to help both those for and against. Thanks Cllr Getgood & Adams for your openess in all this. Residents either for or against should note that you have done all you can to lay the facts at our doors, unlike a party I voted for that has done its best to get all this done under the wire which was even noted by the scrutiny chairman. Not a vote winner for me.

On a last note for now here is the Government's rules on Code of Practice on Consultation - Interesting reading for sure... Does it cover what the Council did?

To be fair - Cllr Sarah Phillips did attend the two public meetings. And, if you think it would help your cause, the 5-day call-in period starts once the draft minutes are distributed to members, which won't be for a couple more days. However, I am advising those in my ward who remain disappointed that their best opportunity to challenge the zone will be at the 6 month review. Interestingly, Cllr Smith also announced that he would include the 2 Kendall roads in Clock House ward in the traffic order, just in case in 6 months time the displacement effect is serious enough for them to want to be included in the scheme.