Today's most viewed
| RICHMOND NEWS |  | | | | | | | | BRENTFORD NEWS | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
Residents are asked to reconsider CPZ refusal
People who voted against a scheme which would see residents pay to park outside their homes are being asked to put forward their views for a second time.
A controlled parking zone (CPZ) is being proposed in St Margarets which in South Bridge Road, Brook Road, Chertsey Road, Godstone Road, Hill View Road, Kenley Road, Moor Mead Road, Orchard Road, St Margarets Grove, Sidney Road, South Western Road and Winchester Road.
David Clark, a lawyer living in South Western Road, has written to the council a number of times wanting to know why residents were being asked to comment on it again, when the first stage of the consultation in May and June last year showed people were against the schem e in his road.
He said: "As far as I am aware, the residents in both my road and St Margarets Grove voted virtually unanimously to reject the council's proposals.
"I want to know why this whole process has started again. The council says these schemes only start in response to demand, but I want to know where that demand came from."
Cabinet member for traffic, transport and parking, Councillor David Trigg explained though people had voted against the CPZ in their street, their roads are still being considered as part of the scheme because neighbours in adjacent streets wanted one there, and it could have a knock-on effect. He said more than 900 consultation packs were sent out last week and CPZs only come in where there was demand.
A spokesman for Richmond Council said: "CPZs bring many benefits for residents as they prevent all-day commuter parking, improve vehicle access especially for the emergency services and refuse vehicles, reduce the number of abandoned vehicles and generally improve parking conditions."
Residents have until Friday, May 23, to register their views by writing to the manager for highways and transport at the Civic Centre, York House, Twickenham, TW1 3BZ.
There is also an exhibition of the proposals in Twickenham Library, Garfield Road. It will be staffed by council officers on Saturday, May 10, between 10am and 2pm and Wednesday, May 14, between 4pm and 8pm.
8:14am Monday 12th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Jill, London on 10:18pm Mon 12 May 08
More proof positive of the bullying nature of Richmond's Liberal council. They don't like the answer they got - why they'll keep wasting council taxpayers' money until they get the answer they seek. Otherwise they'll just impose their will. This undemocratic tactic was used by the unlamented former Mayor of London Livingstone - and look what happened to him when the electorate 'spoke'.
More proof positive of the bullying nature of Richmond's Liberal council. They don't like the answer they got - why they'll keep wasting council taxpayers' money until they get the answer they seek. Otherwise they'll just impose their will. This undemocratic tactic was used by the unlamented former Mayor of London Livingstone - and look what happened to him when the electorate 'spoke'.
Posted by: George, Twiceknham on 10:21am Tue 13 May 08
Jill G is talking nonsense. All that is happening is that some roads voted by up to 80% in favour of going into a CPZ and are being granted their wish. Other nearby roads are being asked, in the light of this, if they wish to change their mind.
Jill G is talking nonsense. All that is happening is that some roads voted by up to 80% in favour of going into a CPZ and are being granted their wish. Other nearby roads are being asked, in the light of this, if they wish to change their mind.
Posted by: Jill, London on 10:16pm Tue 13 May 08
George just parrots Cllr’s Trigg’s comments in this article, and accuses me of “talking nonsense”.
Others “talking nonsense” – using George’s logic – include the original complainant mentioned in this article – “David Clark, a lawyer living in South Western Road”. And “St Margaret’s Parking Association's CPZ Meeting” as they wish “to counter the council’s proposed CPZ”. Moreover, on the St Margaret’s website where I found this information is somebody else complaining about the bullying nature of Richmond’s Lib Dem council: “I have neighbours who felt they were being bullied and intimidated into voting pro CPZ by the second question on the survey form”.
George just parrots Cllr’s Trigg’s comments in this article, and accuses me of “talking nonsense”.
Others “talking nonsense” – using George’s logic – include the original complainant mentioned in this article – “David Clark, a lawyer living in South Western Road”. And “St Margaret’s Parking Association's CPZ Meeting” as they wish “to counter the council’s proposed CPZ”. Moreover, on the St Margaret’s website where I found this information is somebody else complaining about the bullying nature of Richmond’s Lib Dem council: “I have neighbours who felt they were being bullied and intimidated into voting pro CPZ by the second question on the survey form”.
Posted by: George, Twickenham on 3:26pm Wed 14 May 08
Lawyers can talk as much nonsense as anyone else; sometimes they are even paid to do it. How can a question be bullying? It is just as I said before; a question asking what if the other road decides in favour?
Lawyers can talk as much nonsense as anyone else; sometimes they are even paid to do it. How can a question be bullying? It is just as I said before; a question asking what if the other road decides in favour?
Posted by: Tom on 5:19pm Wed 14 May 08
I'm surprised that Jill hasn't suggested that this is all the fault of the Marxists, the Socialists, the Bolsheviks, the Trotskyists or whichever Reds have the misfortune to be hiding under her candlewick this week
I'm surprised that Jill hasn't suggested that this is all the fault of the Marxists, the Socialists, the Bolsheviks, the Trotskyists or whichever Reds have the misfortune to be hiding under her candlewick this week
Posted by: Jill, London on 11:31pm Wed 14 May 08
George – I suggest you read the latest RT&T print edition – it’s full of letters complaining about Richmond’s Lib Dem council – and CPZs.
Julie Hill says: “The contemptuous way in which his [that is Stephen Knight who failed miserably to gain the SW London Assembly seat] LBRUTish regime behaves towards residents of the borough is appalling.” And she continues about: ”unwanted controlled parking zones. It is no wonder that action groups are springing up all over the borough”.
I have already mentioned “St Margaret’s Parking Association's CPZ Meeting”. And another letter is from Brian Holder “Leader of the roads and transport group, The Teddington Society” regarding the recent CPZs in Teddington where “Teddington’s residents have never been consulted” and “that the newly introduced CPZ consultation procedures approved by the cabinet in July 2006 would be by-passed”. This led to “a blunder of monumental proportions” – which to paraphrase for brevity – a public meeting wasn’t advertised, and residents weren’t invited.
Tom – the fault – in this thread - lies with Richmond’s Lib Dem Council. You have added nothing to this thread except for demonstrating – once again – your penchant for personal abuse – at the level of a primary school playground – instead of debate.
George – I suggest you read the latest RT&T print edition – it’s full of letters complaining about Richmond’s Lib Dem council – and CPZs.
Julie Hill says: “The contemptuous way in which his LBRUTish regime behaves towards residents of the borough is appalling.” And she continues about: ”unwanted controlled parking zones. It is no wonder that action groups are springing up all over the borough”.
I have already mentioned “St Margaret’s Parking Association's CPZ Meeting”. And another letter is from Brian Holder “Leader of the roads and transport group, The Teddington Society” regarding the recent CPZs in Teddington where “Teddington’s residents have never been consulted” and “that the newly introduced CPZ consultation procedures approved by the cabinet in July 2006 would be by-passed”. This led to “a blunder of monumental proportions” – which to paraphrase for brevity – a public meeting wasn’t advertised, and residents weren’t invited.
Tom – the fault – in this thread - lies with Richmond’s Lib Dem Council. You have added nothing to this thread except for demonstrating – once again – your penchant for personal abuse – at the level of a primary school playground – instead of debate.
Posted by: Jill, London on 11:33pm Wed 14 May 08
George – I suggest you read the latest RT&T print edition – it’s full of letters complaining about Richmond’s Lib Dem council – and CPZs.
Julie Hill says: “The contemptuous way in which his [that is Stephen Knight who failed miserably to gain the SW London Assembly seat] LBRUTish regime behaves towards residents of the borough is appalling.” And she continues about: ”unwanted controlled parking zones. It is no wonder that action groups are springing up all over the borough”.
I have already mentioned “St Margaret’s Parking Association's CPZ Meeting”. And another letter is from Brian Holder “Leader of the roads and transport group, The Teddington Society” regarding the recent CPZs in Teddington where “Teddington’s residents have never been consulted” and “that the newly introduced CPZ consultation procedures approved by the cabinet in July 2006 would be by-passed”. This led to “a blunder of monumental proportions” – which to paraphrase for brevity – a public meeting wasn’t advertised, and residents weren’t invited.
Tom – the fault – in this thread - lies with Richmond’s Lib Dem Council. You have added nothing to this thread except for demonstrating – once again – your penchant for personal abuse – at the level of a primary school playground – instead of debate.
George – I suggest you read the latest RT&T print edition – it’s full of letters complaining about Richmond’s Lib Dem council – and CPZs.
Julie Hill says: “The contemptuous way in which his LBRUTish regime behaves towards residents of the borough is appalling.” And she continues about: ”unwanted controlled parking zones. It is no wonder that action groups are springing up all over the borough”.
I have already mentioned “St Margaret’s Parking Association's CPZ Meeting”. And another letter is from Brian Holder “Leader of the roads and transport group, The Teddington Society” regarding the recent CPZs in Teddington where “Teddington’s residents have never been consulted” and “that the newly introduced CPZ consultation procedures approved by the cabinet in July 2006 would be by-passed”. This led to “a blunder of monumental proportions” – which to paraphrase for brevity – a public meeting wasn’t advertised, and residents weren’t invited.
Tom – the fault – in this thread - lies with Richmond’s Lib Dem Council. You have added nothing to this thread except for demonstrating – once again – your penchant for personal abuse – at the level of a primary school playground – instead of debate.
Posted by: Tom on 11:05am Thu 15 May 08
Just a thought Jill. If you were asked a question about parking zones and voted 'No' and then, at a later date, some of the streets next to you voted to have a CPZ which would then have a knock on effect on parking in your roads wouldn't you welcome the opportunity to reconsider your original answer?
Just a thought Jill. If you were asked a question about parking zones and voted 'No' and then, at a later date, some of the streets next to you voted to have a CPZ which would then have a knock on effect on parking in your roads wouldn't you welcome the opportunity to reconsider your original answer?
Posted by: Jill, London on 12:23am today
Nice try, Tom – but I’m not giving my personal comments. The overall point I’ve made concerns residents complaining about the cavalier attitude by the Lib Dem council – now dubbed “LBRuTish” – regarding unwanted CPZs.
Nice try, Tom – but I’m not giving my personal comments. The overall point I’ve made concerns residents complaining about the cavalier attitude by the Lib Dem council – now dubbed “LBRuTish” – regarding unwanted CPZs.
Posted by: George, Twickenham on 12:21pm today
Which just goes to show that your comments were totally unjustified in the first place.
Which just goes to show that your comments were totally unjustified in the first place.
Posted by: George, Twickenham on 12:24pm today
Incidentally there is more than one view on the subject in St Margarets. I assume this is the site you mean http://www.stmgrts.o
rg.uk/archives/2008/
05/letter_why_we_nee
d_a_cpz.html
Incidentally there is more than one view on the subject in St Margarets. I assume this is the site you mean http://www.stmgrts.o
rg.uk/archives/2008/
05/letter_why_we_nee
d_a_cpz.html
Posted by: Tom on 1:48pm today
So you're complaining for the sake of complaining Jill? Thought so.
So you're complaining for the sake of complaining Jill? Thought so.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
