| Topic: | Re:CPZ meeting 26/01/11 | |
| Posted by: | Stephen Plush | |
| Date/Time: | 28/01/11 01:46:00 |
| Whilst unable to attend Wednesday night, I went along to to the information session on Friday after discovering online that round 2 of the CPZ had commenced (yes another that received nothing in the post!) Mohsen Nekouzad (MN)and colleagues attempted to answer my questions, unfortunately with limited success The quote below is taken directly from Hounslow Website "The results showed there was support among the respondents for a scheme in a number of roads" I'm not sure how Fauconberg Road was listed as a proposed P&D. - it falls outside of the main problem areas at the station and by kew bridge and over 60% of the respondents to rnd 1 on Fauconberg road checked the box to state they did not support the CPZ. According to Mohsen Nekouzad, the shop keepers on Fauconberg Road were not really consulted in rnd1, however; 1. MN went on to state that the response from Fauconberg Shopkeepers had been poor in Rnd1 - this is not the same as "not consulted" and the lack or response would suggest minimal support from the shop keepers 2. Apparently the residents on the south side of Fauconeberg Rd wouldn't be affected because only the north side was proposed - MN wouldn't comment about those that live in the flats above the shops or the ripple effect 3. MN couldn't justify the Fauconberg Rd proposal when it was pointed out that even if all the shop keepers voted yes there would still be less than 50% supporting a CPZ on Fauconberg road 4. MN and co refused to answer "Do shop keepers votes count for more than residents" MN and co made further attempts to justify the Fauconberg Road P&D; 1. Elderly resdents to far from Fauconberg road may choose to drive there if if there was a P&D. - What about the elderly residents that may have to park to far away away from their homes due to the displacement effect? Sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul... 2. Apparently the Head of the Parking Enforcement office indicated that their parking officers do no work CPZ's on Bank holidays hence little risk to those that "forget" to move their cars form the P&D bays on Monday morning of a Bank Holiday - with 18 million in cuts on their way I can't see that being the standard approach for to long! - For those of you in the East and West areas proposed, I would hope you don't get caught on the technically that allows for a PCN to be issued because your permit can't quite be seen clearly - think snow, grotty windows... 3. (As quoted by a colleague of MN) The proposed CPZ's are aimed at helping the local residents and will most likely operate at a loss - I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that - unless someone from the council would like to publish the associated revenue projections for Grove Park, supporting evidence of other loss making CPZs... |