| Topic: | Re:To Brendan | |
| Posted by: | Andy Murray | |
| Date/Time: | 23/10/15 17:29:00 |
| Dear Brendan, You've seen my historical posts, of which there have been many, and I think you were at St Michael's in January where I was the only person allowed to speak formally against the motion, which was to retain the Park / Staveley CPZ, a CPZ that was not needed and isn't used by the majority of Park / Staveley residents. 3 persons in favour of retaining it were allowed to speak and I wasn't given the time to rebut their statements - although I did get the longest positive response of the evening from the attendees, who did go on to make many of the points I would have made. My position remains: - I stand up for the quality of life Grove Park residents. I accept that for some it is to guarantee a parking space outside their door, but for others a CPZ doesn't compensate for the loss of civic amenity as listed below. That's what they think, but others disagree - fair enough on both sides. However there are now 85 separate parking bays and white lines and posts with notices in Park & Staveley Roads, which, in my personal opinion, is a blight. - If most GP residents want a CPZ, they should have one. - They shouldn't, however, be coerced into having one by skewed consultations and any opposing voices being institutionally ignored. - GP north of the railway line is interconnected, so displacement from one part into another part does affect the whole area. - A CPZ is a very blunt instrument and, while, say, a 2-hour restriction would banish commuters (which I know does affect you - and me), there are many residents who don't want the wardens, cost, street scenery, conflict with neighbours and bureaucracy that results. - A CPZ inevitably (and laudably from a safety point of view) restricts the amount of spaces to park, so it MAY be the case that some streets' parking will be worse, because residents own so many cars that fewer, residents-only spaces mean that they can't park at all. We don't know the latter, since no car-owning survey has been done and the question wasn't posed on the most recent Consultation. - Possibly because of the above, a CPZ might be fairest if applied across all streets (at least those north of the railway line, rather than the salami-slicing favoured by the LBoFH Traffic Dept. You would probably benefit from such an approach, and if it did come in, it would be sooner than if, say, a CPZ were applied only to Elmwood eastwards in the short term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, parking in your street and my street HAS got worse in the last 2 years. The commuters I have spoken to work at Chiswick Business Park, so I suspect there is intel available there, directing parkers to our leafy streets, much to our annoyance. But we didn't need a CPZ in 2004, and 2010, and 2012, which is when other debates raged. We might very well need one now (see above) and probably will IF the BFC stadium ever gets built, but: - it has only ever been the sole solution proposed by the LBofH Traffic Dept, who have admitted that they are predisposed to listen to people who want them, however, few, and ignore protests from those who don't. No proper parking survey has ever been done or alternative solutions proposed. - I'd still rather have a proper analysis of car usage / ownership and actual proof of commuter activity rather than the anecdotal evidence proffered so far. - And I'd like some consideration for those deemed to have 'private roads', such as dwellers in Sutton Court and Chiswick Village, who weren't included in the consultation, yet have insufficient spaces for themselves, and do park in the surrounding streets, which will be denied them because they wouldn't be eligible to buy a permit under a CPZ scheme. If you can convince all your fellow GP residents to vote for a CPZ, that's fine by me. I merely say that we should be very careful what we wish for. Best, Andy |