| Topic: | CPZs: Let's set the record straight and give the Council due credit | |
| Posted by: | Owen Highley | |
| Date/Time: | 05/10/14 15:52:00 |
| I have been following the recent thread relating to the extended CPZ for Grove Park [the Extended Area] and think it is time to say a few words in praise of the Council. The present consultation is not a sinister Council plot: it has arisen because of a series of petitions filed by street residents and represents a serious outbreak of active democracy. Residents in the Extended Area are sick and tired of their streets being blighted by free parking for both non-resident commuters and non-resident long-term parking. They are also concerned by subsidiary problems relating to safety and environmental issues caused by over-parking. They want to regain priority in the use of their streets instead of being second-class citizens ranked below non-resident commuters. They have also seen the substantial benefits of the Park Road/east Staveley Road CPZ. The petitions were considered at the July meeting of the Chiswick Area Committee [CAC] when it was resolved to go out to consultation. The success or failure of the Petitions will now depend on the residents’ responses. As they said in Scotland ‘the people will decide’. The Council has acted impeccably on CPZs. It has published its current CPZ Policy on the Internet. When I have asked for clarification of the Policy the team in the Traffic Department has always answered my questions effectively and with courtesy. The Policy has not been invented on a whim. It reflects the fact that CPZs are a fundamental component of national and regional transport policies and both the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy and the Council’s own Local Transport Strategy. The Council can also take credit for the significant emphasis it places on consultation before CPZs are introduced. The previous thread referred to judicial review [JR]. The Council is a public body whose decisions can therefore be subjected to JR in the courts. The JR doctrine is based on the proposition that the Council’s CPZ Policy document is a promise and the Borough’s residents have a ‘legitimate expectation’ that it will carefully follow its own policies and procedures before a decision on whether or not to implement a CPZ. The Council is a prudent organization and I imagine that the last thing it would want is to waste taxpayer’s money on JR legal fees: these days even JR lawyers offer to run cases on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis. Expect, therefore, that the Council will manage the process in an impeccable manner going to considerable lengths to follow its own laid down policies and procedures. This may be frustrating for minority parties as there is little scope for them to add their own individual whistles and bells to any part of the process. In Grove Park one size does not fit all. Some streets want CPZs and others do not. I hope the Extended Area goes ahead, provided the residents signal their approval. Similarly, I hope that those streets with majorities opposing CPZs succeed in keeping their streets un-zoned. The Council’s policy is fair, flexible, user friendly and capable of supporting both positions. |