Forum

I'm interested that there does not appear to have been any discussion of the proposed extension of the AP CPZ - it may be that people are outside the area, or are already in the CPZ, but there is a plan to extend it into Outram and Clyde Roads, Princes Avenue and along Victoria Road and Alexandra Park Road. However, not the whole of these roads - some genius at the council (possibly related to the one who wants the barriers at the station) has come up with the idea of only doing parts of the roads! We will therefore have the scenario of those in the catchment area parking a few yards down the road and displacing everyone else. We live a few yards outside the area and knew nothing of this until we were checking on our neighbours' house whilst they are away and found the letter and map - they are the last house in the zone.

I don't know if we just got missed or if there was a deliberate policy of only informing households in the extended CPZ. If you live in one of the affected roads you might want to check up on this. Interestingly the map shows how everyone "voted" - not sure about how this sits in the Data Protection/privacy debate. There was a 21.5% response rate - and it looks like most people voted no.

You need to be a member of Alexandra Park Neighbours to add comments!

Join Alexandra Park Neighbours

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • The consultation process to extend the CPZ started around 2 years ago – it’s taken a long time for the council to communicate the outcome. There was a public meeting (at Alexandra Park library) followed by a consultation document. A response rate of 21.5% is quite high (and possibly higher than the previous consultation when the current CPZ was introduced). The council people knew from the original consultation that any CPZ proposal raises strong views for and against, and so they were very clear (at the meeting and in the consultation document) that the council would consider splitting roads on a road by road basis to reflect the response of residents in each road. So that’s what’s happened. Some extension of the CPZ was predictable, as is a further displacement effect but the proposed implementation reflects how residents responded. The impact of the CPZ on the roads just outside the current zone isn’t only caused by commuters; parking congestion starts on Sunday evenings – we know that some residents within the CPZ choose not to pay the charge (perhaps for second cars) and move their cars into the ‘free’ roads nearby (and those cars often don’t move again until the weekend while roads within the CPZ remain surprisingly clear). A lower charge might encourage more people within the CPZ to register and pay up rather than take up spaces in neighbouring roads but that somehow seems unlikely.

    • I suspect that the council have dithered with this due to the consultation being largely negative - I had assumed it had been quietly forgotten about! This solution is just going create a huge amount of worry - and risks turning neighbours against each other. I am also concerned about the sheer expense of it all - presumably in a year or so's time they will be back with another "consultation". If the aim was to save parking spaces for residents this could easily be done by giving every household a free permit for the first vehicle and fund it from a charge for second or third vehicles. What isn't clear is what you do if you are one or two houses down from the CPZ. Are you allowed to voluntarily join it to enable you to be able to park where you have been for the past 30+ years? The proposed scheme actually rules out the shuffling process that goes on as people park a few yards down or up the road or just around the corner. 

      As you may be able to tell - I am somewhat miffed about this, but largely to do with the general incompetence of the council and their decision making process, and their lack of communication. In some ways it would be easier if every road was 100% CPZ, Unpopular but everyone is in the same boat. 

    • Hi Tim

      I understand why you're miffed and that feelings run high on anything to do with a CPZ. I’m a resident and not a council spokesperson… I attended the 3 public meetings before the original CPZ was introduced and the public meeting about a proposed extension, and feel that the council has been reasonably transparent throughout the process. They’ve dragged their heels about communicating the outcome of a process they initiated around 2 years ago presumably because it wasn’t high priority. If they replicate how they’ve implemented the current CPZ, you’re either in or out based on where the boundary is drawn; there’s no voluntary opt-in if you live just beyond the boundary. This has been particularly difficult for people who live very close to Alexandra Avenue where the current CPZ ends – only 6 properties in the road and around 28 spaces but the council hasn't let anyone else buy a permit to park in a road that’s necessarily empty much of the day. The original CPZ arose from a petition started by residents of Alexandra Park Road and Palace Gates Road who were bearing the brunt of commuter parking. The council is required to consult after a trial period (6 months, I think) – this confirmed that the CPZ would remain. The displacement impact then triggered the proposed extension consultation for those bearing the brunt not just of commuter parking but also of non-CPZ payers. You’re right that the extension is likely to inflame neighbour relations; but the proposal did state that roads could be split based on the consultation response and the boundary has been drawn where residents said ‘no' to a CPZ. Hard to blame the council for incompetence and lack of communication when the impact of an extension was predictable yet residents still voted no. The council will have to consult after the trial implementation period but that’s only to confirm or remove the CPZ extension. They said last time that there wouldn’t be another consultation about any further extension.  

    • We are also just outside the CPZ and in voting in the consultation had no idea of the out turn and thus potential boundaries. I have real concerns about the concept of a majority based on opt in rather than defining a constituency or area and then consulting and determining application throughout that area. So if in the whole area a majority was in favour , that seems democratic to me. This consultation was conducted in a manner which did not allow people a realistic prospect of knowing the effect of a yes or no for them.
      As a result we now have the worst solution. Literally a beggar my neighbour solution. In the circumstances I do think that it's almost inevitable that the CPZ area will have to be extended. It might be better to reconsult those of us outside the new CPZ quickly on the basis of the new ( some would say gerrymandered reality ) and allow us to opt in. Otherwise we will experience transference of all those avoiding the new CPZ. I suspect the works involved in implementation will be cheaper if done once rather than twice.
      By the way I think people living in the area are delightful, great neighbours and had every right to vote either way. My plea is for a rational ,well planned approach to parking. Parking is also a subject hovering at the very lowest areas of my concerns.
    • Consulting covered a defined area. The problem (for the council and for residents) is that a CPZ is divisive and support/ opposition varies from road to road and parts of roads, depending on proximity to the current CPZ.  I don’t have the consultation letter and questionnaire that went out but I have a draft that was emailed for comment (to people who attended the public meeting, not sure if it was circulated more widely). Key phrase is, " Please note:  The feedback from the consultation area will not be considered as a whole but on a road by road basis. If there is support from a particular section of a road rather than the entire road we may consider the introduction of controls in those sections where there is support.“ This point was also made at the public meeting (October 2014, 60 or so people attended from various roads within and outside the CPZ and strong views for and against a CPZ extension were expressed). The current CPZ has been in place since July 2013 – consultation/ implementation of this proposed extension has taken 3 years so I wouldn’t expect the council to be speedy on any re-consultation and further extension. For the sake of neighbour relations, let’s hope that people who voted for the CPZ pay for permits (for all their cars) and the displacement effect won’t be as bad as that created by the current CPZ.

  • Crescent Road too. The rather peculiar area of the extension seems to be an attempt to draw a line around where respondents were generally less favourable. Unsurprisingly, those closest to where parking was displaced from the CPZ introduced a few years ago were more favourable! So expect more of the 'creeping death' approach and another consultation at some point, a few minutes further walk to the station is not going to put off commuter parkers.

    Agree about data protection issues - seems highly irregular.

    • I meant to put Crescent Road, and Dagmar as well, but I think they are completely covered. I fully expect us to be fully covered eventually - it does seem to be the most cack-handed way of going about it. Interestingly we have no evidence of commuters wher we are - perhaps we will start to see them.

This reply was deleted.

Advertisements

Click on an advert for more info.