BeckenhamTown.us

Biggest & best independent local community forum, directory, marketplace, events

The headlines are that the following roads will be included in the CPZ: Blandford Road (1-83 & 2-84); Cedars Road; Chaffinch Road; ClockHouse Road (to the Hampden Road junction); Elm Road; Queens Road; Rowden Road; Sidney Road; and ThayersFarm Road.

The following roads will be excluded from the CPZ: Acacia Road, Beckenham Road, Belmont Road, Betts Close, Blandford Avenue, Churchfields Road, Croydon Road, Durban Road, Gowland Place, Hampden Avenue, Hampden Road, Hayne Road, Kendall Avenue, Kendall Road, Malory Close, Westfield Road and YewTree Road.

There were about 760 valid votes cast in response to Bromley Council's recent consultation survey on a Controlled Parking Zone in this area. Overall, that represents a turn-out in excess of 50%. Based on the votes, the territory for the CPZ to be introduced has been defined. Where the majority of residents in a particular road voted in favour of a CPZ, that road will be included within the designated CPZ. The converse applies in those roads where the majority of respondents voted against having a CPZ in their road. The scope of the CPZ scheme will be reviewed six months after its introduction. During the review, residents and businesses in roads within the designated CPZ will be invited to comment on the extent to which the CPZ has achieved the outcomes they anticipated. Also by the time the review takes place, residents and businesses will have had time to assess the possible knock-on effects from parking displaced from roads within the CPZ.

A letter is being circulated to all residents within the original consultation area, providing further details. The next stage will be formal approval of the CPZ scheme at a future PortfolioHolder's Meeting (probably 26 Nov 2008 or 15 Jan 2009). These Meetings, like most Council Meetings, are held at The Civic Centre and the public is warmly invited to attend.

Many thanks to everyone who voted. It's good to know that Democracy is alive and well here.

Views: 506

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

We and others are still waiting weeks later for replies to emails and letters sent to the council questioning aspects of their last circular detailing the CPZ and what they are proposing. Any one else not got a reply?

Don't forget the public meetings which I'm sure only a few of you know about http://www.beckenhamtown.us/events. The first is 24th June for proposed Zones 2 & 3.

I was told that the council felt that legally they were better sending out the details of these after the Euro Election Polls yesterday, so expect a circular hopefully soon, but in the meantime I'll leaflet where I can to spread the word for 'us' residents. Open to all.
All,

My only gripe is with the theory behind some roads being deselected from the CPZ.

I live on Kendall Road which is not included in the scheme. In essence I understand why roads were de-selected when residents in that area voted against, but you only have to take a look at a map to see how ridiculous it is for our road.

1. Kendall road is effectively a cul-de-sac smack in the middle of the proposed CPZ.
2. All surrounding roads are within the scheme.
3. It is fairly obvious that commuters will simply avoid the CPZ by parking in Kendall Road
4. If there is no parking available we will have to travel around a mile from our home to find a parking space

We have a 6 month old daughter and I'm sure many of you parents know how long walks from the car to home in this situation can be very tiresome.

Essentially I understand the reasoning for the CPZ. I'm neither for or against it in general, but I'm certainly against being corralled into our road with all the leftover commuters and nowhere else to go.

Even if I believed a review would be carried out and implemented 6 months after CPZ inception - that's still a long time and a lot of walking.

Councilor Colin Smith - Did no-one consider this particular situation? Especially given a large number of residents petitioned the results at the end of last year?

I understand you're not going to change your mind, but surely you can restore some element of integrity by providing a suggestion that you considered and then disregarded this issue....
Hi Rupert, the whole scheme will cause displacement and problems whether one or all roads were in this. The whole mess comes from the Council agreeing to architects and developers plans and allowing multiple housing to be built within an already built up area where parking was scarce, knowing that any flats built would not have adequate parking facilities, therefore making a need to create by whatever means a CPZ and then just move the problem onto another ward under the council's control. The fall back situation is that they'll say the developers, like the hospital, gave them money to create and pay for the set up of CPZs, but that just shows the developers paid off the council to get planning permission, the house builders don't care about the long term effect, they want to realise their sales, make a profit and move on. The council should be so ashamed. Creating housing, hospitals, shops, leisure facilities all need adequate parking space provided in plans, if that means more multistory, basement parking or whatever due to teh lack of surface space then so be it. We live in a culture dominated by the car. It isn't going away, no matter how much one stick one's head in the sand.

I'd also be rather peeved to know that the developer who sold me a new flat by Clock House Station also sold my right to a CPZ permit, by forfeiting my right, paying off the council to get planning permission and therefore I would now have to scrabble for whatever parking spaces I could find locally.

It's a shambles really, the more you dig, the more you find.
Rupert,

Your worst fears about displacement - all those left-over commuters being corralled into Kendall Road & Kendall Avenue (and maybe Betts Close too?) and filling up all the available kerbside parking-space - might be realised. Then again, they probably won't be. The problem is that no-one can accurately forecast exactly what the impact of introducing controlled-parking into certain roads really is going to be. (That said, the impact of having £35 or £75 extracted from one's pocket to pay for a resident's permit and another £30 to pay for each book of 15 visitor's vouchers is fairly predictable.)

The really important thing is to make sure that the whole thing is reviewed after it has been up-and-running after six months, with the very real prospect of making additive or subtractive changes in response to majority views. I believe the PortfolioHolder might authorise changes after an even shorter time-scale, but probably only if it was blindingly obvious that a totally catastrophic situation had developed.

Anyway, just to add some data for perspective: there are 64 separate households in Kendall Road plus 19 in Kendall Avenue. That is 83 altogether. Responses to the Aug/Sep 2008 survey were: 13 "for" a CPZ (in those roads) versus 24 "against." The petition (or rather the collection of individually signed more-or-less standard letters) that I saw carried 21 signatures of people living in Kendall Road or Kendall Avenue and verified as such on the latest Electoral Roll. As is the way with petitions, of course, you don't collect the signatures of the people who oppose what you are petitioning for.

One other thing: it's not quite true to say all surrounding roads self-selected to be in the CPZ. Churchfields Road didn't and therefore isn't.

As it happens, there are petitions or campaigns in the opposite direction in Sidney Road. Here, the Aug/Sep 2008 survey ended up with a majority of residents in favour of having a CPZ in Sidney Road, but the petitioners & campaigners want that result overturned.


Rupert Lion said:
All,

My only gripe is with the theory behind some roads being deselected from the CPZ.

I live on Kendall Road which is not included in the scheme. In essence I understand why roads were de-selected when residents in that area voted against, but you only have to take a look at a map to see how ridiculous it is for our road.

1. Kendall road is effectively a cul-de-sac smack in the middle of the proposed CPZ.
2. All surrounding roads are within the scheme.
3. It is fairly obvious that commuters will simply avoid the CPZ by parking in Kendall Road
4. If there is no parking available we will have to travel around a mile from our home to find a parking space

We have a 6 month old daughter and I'm sure many of you parents know how long walks from the car to home in this situation can be very tiresome.

Essentially I understand the reasoning for the CPZ. I'm neither for or against it in general, but I'm certainly against being corralled into our road with all the leftover commuters and nowhere else to go.

Even if I believed a review would be carried out and implemented 6 months after CPZ inception - that's still a long time and a lot of walking.

Councilor Colin Smith - Did no-one consider this particular situation? Especially given a large number of residents petitioned the results at the end of last year?

I understand you're not going to change your mind, but surely you can restore some element of integrity by providing a suggestion that you considered and then disregarded this issue....
Reg,

Thanks for your reply.

How interesting to hear the opposite concerns for the residents in Sidney Road. The ridiculous thing is that we clearly all want the same thing: to be able to park with as little disruption as possible, whether from displaced commuters or from yellow lines and pay & display bays.

Certainly from my conversations with neighbours the best solution would still be to have no CPZ in Sidney or the Kendall Roads. If the residents of Sidney are campaigning to remove the CPZ I think the residents of Kendall would be very happy to follow suit. As noted before the only concern is not being in step with Sidney Road and thus displacement causing problems. Let's be honest, we're one road separated by name only - its makes sense to treat us as such.

Also interesting to note that the results of surveys are hardly "landslides".

I take the point about the 6 month review, but you can imagine most people aren't convinced by this - last year's August review has still not seen lines painted, if it takes 10 months (at least) from consultation to action then surely the lead time from initial inception of the CPZ to (potentially) a new set of lines on Kendall Road could go up towards 18 months. Or maybe this isn't the case...

One point on displacement though - surely displacement ceases to occur when controlled zones reach to the point where commuters will no longer be prepared to walk from? This way displacement is of commuters out of the area altogether and not into adjacent streets. Surely urban planners must have a model / view on where this breaking point is and apply it to situations like this?

I'll also leave you with a final point - have you ever tried to find a parking space on Churchfields? It's extremely difficult and will only get harder....

Thanks, Rupert

Reg Adams said:
Rupert,

Your worst fears about displacement - all those left-over commuters being corralled into Kendall Road & Kendall Avenue (and maybe Betts Close too?) and filling up all the available kerbside parking-space - might be realised. Then again, they probably won't be. The problem is that no-one can accurately forecast exactly what the impact of introducing controlled-parking into certain roads really is going to be. (That said, the impact of having £35 or £75 extracted from one's pocket to pay for a resident's permit and another £30 to pay for each book of 15 visitor's vouchers is fairly predictable.)

The really important thing is to make sure that the whole thing is reviewed after it has been up-and-running after six months, with the very real prospect of making additive or subtractive changes in response to majority views. I believe the PortfolioHolder might authorise changes after an even shorter time-scale, but probably only if it was blindingly obvious that a totally catastrophic situation had developed.

Anyway, just to add some data for perspective: there are 64 separate households in Kendall Road plus 19 in Kendall Avenue. That is 83 altogether. Responses to the Aug/Sep 2008 survey were: 13 "for" a CPZ (in those roads) versus 24 "against." The petition (or rather the collection of individually signed more-or-less standard letters) that I saw carried 21 signatures of people living in Kendall Road or Kendall Avenue and verified as such on the latest Electoral Roll. As is the way with petitions, of course, you don't collect the signatures of the people who oppose what you are petitioning for.

One other thing: it's not quite true to say all surrounding roads self-selected to be in the CPZ. Churchfields Road didn't and therefore isn't.

As it happens, there are petitions or campaigns in the opposite direction in Sidney Road. Here, the Aug/Sep 2008 survey ended up with a majority of residents in favour of having a CPZ in Sidney Road, but the petitioners & campaigners want that result overturned.


Rupert Lion said:
All,

My only gripe is with the theory behind some roads being deselected from the CPZ.

I live on Kendall Road which is not included in the scheme. In essence I understand why roads were de-selected when residents in that area voted against, but you only have to take a look at a map to see how ridiculous it is for our road.

1. Kendall road is effectively a cul-de-sac smack in the middle of the proposed CPZ.
2. All surrounding roads are within the scheme.
3. It is fairly obvious that commuters will simply avoid the CPZ by parking in Kendall Road
4. If there is no parking available we will have to travel around a mile from our home to find a parking space

We have a 6 month old daughter and I'm sure many of you parents know how long walks from the car to home in this situation can be very tiresome.

Essentially I understand the reasoning for the CPZ. I'm neither for or against it in general, but I'm certainly against being corralled into our road with all the leftover commuters and nowhere else to go.

Even if I believed a review would be carried out and implemented 6 months after CPZ inception - that's still a long time and a lot of walking.

Councilor Colin Smith - Did no-one consider this particular situation? Especially given a large number of residents petitioned the results at the end of last year?

I understand you're not going to change your mind, but surely you can restore some element of integrity by providing a suggestion that you considered and then disregarded this issue....
Balgowan School - CPZ Meeting Public Meeting Zones 2 & 3

This probably is the only place you'll find or know about what went on at the meeting, and even the whole CPZ issue. What is very sad, amazing and more disturbing is that matters that affect over 1000 households within the proposed scheme and many more just outside, not just now but for years to come, a very much residential neighbourly community are not made either public on council websites, reported much in the local press or anywhere else.

A lot of pertinent questions were asked of the Traffic Manager Paul Nedvard and Councillor Colin Smith, in charge of the proposed CPZ questions last night and whilst many were batted away or not answered fully, the real increduality of it all was that in many cases they didn't know the answers to important questions I'll go through below.

I think residents should be wary of council circulars in the future and ask for better worded and fully transparent fact filled leaflets or whatever before any bylaw or whatever is created. Last night showed either the council have a mandate to put in a CPZ whatever way they can by stealth and untold facts or they are complete amateurs and not worthy to do the job they have been selected to do. I think they should treat us with more respect and common sense.

Meeting started 7.30ish - Chair: Head of West Beckenham Residents Association, also, Paul Nedvard Council Traffic Management, Cllr Colin Smith - Conservative (Hayes cllr in charge of putting this through), Cllr Reg Adams - Lib Dem (Clock House ward Cllr), Sarah Phillips - Conservative (Clock House ward Cllr).

Attendance: over 180 people from both in and outside CPZ zone 2 & 3.

Reg Adams went through the history of the CPZ within the area, the votes, etc. Paul Nedvard then showed everyone the new map they are going ahead with which on recollection as no copies were distributed showed that the parking zones would be continuous bays even across cross-over/driveway entrances. This would mean car owners could park over their crossover as had been requested, but if a car without a permit was seen by a traffic warden between 10-12noon then it would be ticketed. The first question that arose from this was if the continuous parking zone replaces the currently open crossovers (where by law no car can park and limit the ingress and egress for a resident) would that take precedent over the traffic law about limiting ingress/egress. Could anyone with a permit during that time, or anyone else after the limited CPZ time be able to park in front of someones driveway 'legaly'? Which law would take priority?

We should remember that the council and its traffic managers should by right be conversant with previous schemes, both local and national, be able to access the required data and knowledge and before committing to a scheme know 'all' the answers. This is a scheme of course that is wide ranging, costly, another form of tax and even curbs human rights of everyone especially those who are old, infirm, disabled, work locally or from home.

They didn't know the answer.

The Pay & Display meters, not mentioned in the initial consultation paper, and added in the second were shown to have stayed the same in number, but they will be dual use, so if a resident has a permit they can park in them anytime. From what Paul Nedvard reported the non-residents could turn up at any time pay the £2 charge and leave their car all day every day as long as they displayed a daily ticket. The council were asked whether the residents' permit fees only were covering the scheme Cllr Smith said yes. (It has allegedly been rumoured that the Beacon put up £30k and a developer of new flats on the other side of Clock House Station has put up £10k, whilst accepting that any owners of the new flats will not be in the CPZ, this was not disclosed in Cllr Smith's answer). He was then asked what happens to the money, more importantly the profit of the Pay & Display and Fines money if the scheme is to be non-profit making. Would the money return to aid the residents it affects. He answered it goes in to the council traffic management pot and is used for all borough citizens. So it's a revenue generating source then! (Isn't that what council tax is supposed to fund amongst other things?)

There was a large outcry from residents who lived outside the initial consulted area, angry that they were given no notice of the proposal of the CPZ scheme. And they have a right to be angry, why no public notices, nothing on the council website? The CPZ will cause displacement and they will be affected. No dialogue had been entered into with them, even out of common courtesy. The actual school we all sat in was not contacted, fears over where teachers will now be able to park in time to teach, more cars on those surrounding streets at school morning times and the issue of health and safety for local children and more streets becoming rat runs as commuters cruise around to find more limited spaces had not been thought of or more importantly cared about by those dead set on implementing a scheme.

When asked what percentage of displacement occurs when such schemes have been put into place in the past Paul Nedvard replied it was impossible to call and give a figure. The devil is in the detail. Notice how he didn't answer the question. There must be traffic surveys that give this detail and be known to them. Reading up on so many other CPZ schemes all over the country it would seem they all fail to mention this in their initial circulars and of course the movement of cars to unaffected roads gives them an opportunity to implement a CPZ to the surrounding areas. Call it what you will but stealth tax is what it is.

Again lack of foresight, knowledge and incompitance was shown by the council when asked by a supporter of the scheme does his company car, not registered at his address like so many others in similar positions, qualify for a permit. The rules are that to obtain a permit your car must be registered to someone at your address. So what was the answer? They didn't know!

They said that the scheme would be marked out and start in September. Although there are processes with which it can be stopped Cllr Smith said he was going to sign it off. They are implementing a scheme they don't know the detail, legality, and social effects of. Don't you think they should? Shouldn't we?

One lady who needs visitors everyday, without offstreet parking and no car, was told that she should use the limited 30 tickets day-permits available - a cost of £60 which would last her around 2 and half months. After that the visiting help would need to find a Pay & Display (if available, as commuters could park in them from 7.30am and stay all day) and then that would be another £2 a day, works out at around £400 a year more there too. In essence the council told her to get a car, even though she doesn't drive', it would be better!

In fact limiting residents to only a handful of permit day-tickets effectively is an abuse of their human rights. They should be able to obtain more. The council says they limit the number in case anyone abuses it, but that's tantamount to saying everyone is a criminal at worst and untrustworthy. Thank you councillors! Those who work shift, care for the elderly or infirm, run small businesses, child minding facilities are honest upright citizens and are an important make up of our neighbourhoods. They are penalised why? If residents are forced to pay for day-permits for visitors etc by the council, then they should have the legal right to unlimited tickets. Anything else is an abuse of civil liberties

The majority of attendees were not for the scheme, but their were a large number who had expressed a preference for a CPZ. I was going to say voted for, but what most people were unhappy about was the fact that the consultation was never worded or it implied that they were voting or whether it was a street by street or area wide vote. In fact although there were many more questions and the meeting went on for 2 and half hours, the most telling moment happened at the end when asked if the council were satisfied that they had 'legaly' complied within the rules of engagement in such matters of procuring a vote to implement a scheme they replied yes and that they could not see a judicial review making any difference. A gentleman appeared from the back, withdrew some papers and asked Cllr Colin Smith if that was so true then the rules he had with him (and I wish I had a copy of them here) stated along the lines that any such scheme or vote must be made publicly available, set out clearly its points, what action would be taken after a 'vote' was carried out and new introductions and ammendments (like the ommission of pay & display) cannot be submitted after the event. At that point Cllr Smith, talked over him to try and stop him, he said he would and could not answer, it was a legal matter and at that point the Chair, the lady from West Beckenham Residents Association abruptly closed the meeting. Only 30 of those remaining saw this. The confidence of the council looked a little watery eyed and I fear legal action might well be a route some residents will take at which point I'm sure the council will call into question how they conduct themselves when dealing with their constituents.

It is the residents who should draw up plans, exchange ideas, work out between neighbours the best cause of action, set the rules. They are the ones who are mindful of any actions they may take will cover a far wider area. They have to live there, work there, enjoy the community Beckenham seems to afford its residents.

The night was'nt as boisterous as past public meetings and I thank Balgowan School and all those who set it up. What worries me though is that a council can use such tactics or incompetance to make laws. But then it's all just politics isn't it. As usual you and I are played like pawns. We'll at least here you get a chance to know what went on and discuss, you can't get it anywhere else.

Do me a favour invite a neighbour to use the site, and know what's going on and affecting them now and in the future.
Jon,

Thanks for this - I was at the meeting ai the library recently and unfortunatelycould not make it last night. I'll be going to the next one though!

Looks like it was an interesting meeting. On the legal front do you know where these rules are published - if we can get a link and send them over to the council then perhaps things might get moving somewhat. We all know that there is a hidden agenda here - the council are not doing it for the residents' benefit, they very rarely do. I wonder what their game is in reality?

I do wish that they would get their act together and get their facts sorted out, there is nothing more frustrating than asking fairly simple, straightforward questions and not getting a proper answer (some might argue that you never get a proper answer from politicians - and Cllr Smith et al are, you have to remember, rank amateurs at politics (that is why they are still in local government) so the answers you get are probably not even clever ones that disguise that they haven't answered the question).

I'm still of the opinion that we should also go through the complaints procedure for the council and then over to the ombudsman - but we'll need to have those rules to make it stick.

Might see you next week.

Paul
I believe the rules you asked about are coming on here or at least the link to where they are a little later. The gentleman who brought them out has a note of this site. Anyone who wants to contact me direct jclarke at ic24.net is my email.

I'll be there next Wednesday, reporting as ever.
I have been looking at how other CPZ's have been considered by Bromley. I was concerned to find this document on the Bromley Council site that confirms that £30000 was paid by the Beacon developers for the implementation of a CPZ:
http://sharepoint.bromley.gov.uk/Public%20PDF/06-ENVPH-3006.pdf
This is the relevant part ( from 2005 by the way):
1.
SUMMARY
1.1 Beckenham Hospital is the third major hospital site to be redeveloped in the Borough over
the last three / four years. Parking for patients, their visitors and staff at all the hospital
sites is limited and as a result indiscriminate parking in residential streets near the
hospitals has created a number of problems. As part of the planning permission for the
redevelopment of Beckenham Hospital, the developer has agreed to pay £30,000, as part
of the Section 106 agreement, to the Council to implement a residents parking scheme in
the area.

This was omitted from Cllr Smith's answers it seems.

Mark Edwards

Jon Clarke said:
Balgowan School - CPZ Meeting Public Meeting Zones 2 & 3

This probably is the only place you'll find or know about what went on at the meeting, and even the whole CPZ issue. What is very sad, amazing and more disturbing is that matters that affect over 1000 households within the proposed scheme and many more just outside, not just now but for years to come, a very much residential neighbourly community are not made either public on council websites, reported much in the local press or anywhere else.

A lot of pertinent questions were asked of the Traffic Manager Paul Nedvard and Councillor Colin Smith, in charge of the proposed CPZ questions last night and whilst many were batted away or not answered fully, the real increduality of it all was that in many cases they didn't know the answers to important questions I'll go through below.

I think residents should be wary of council circulars in the future and ask for better worded and fully transparent fact filled leaflets or whatever before any bylaw or whatever is created. Last night showed either the council have a mandate to put in a CPZ whatever way they can by stealth and untold facts or they are complete amateurs and not worthy to do the job they have been selected to do. I think they should treat us with more respect and common sense.

Meeting started 7.30ish - Chair: Head of West Beckenham Residents Association, also, Paul Nedvard Council Traffic Management, Cllr Colin Smith - Conservative (Hayes cllr in charge of putting this through), Cllr Reg Adams - Lib Dem (Clock House ward Cllr), Sarah Phillips - Conservative (Clock House ward Cllr).

Attendance: over 180 people from both in and outside CPZ zone 2 & 3.

Reg Adams went through the history of the CPZ within the area, the votes, etc. Paul Nedvard then showed everyone the new map they are going ahead with which on recollection as no copies were distributed showed that the parking zones would be continuous bays even across cross-over/driveway entrances. This would mean car owners could park over their crossover as had been requested, but if a car without a permit was seen by a traffic warden between 10-12noon then it would be ticketed. The first question that arose from this was if the continuous parking zone replaces the currently open crossovers (where by law no car can park and limit the ingress and egress for a resident) would that take precedent over the traffic law about limiting ingress/egress. Could anyone with a permit during that time, or anyone else after the limited CPZ time be able to park in front of someones driveway 'legaly'? Which law would take priority?

We should remember that the council and its traffic managers should by right be conversant with previous schemes, both local and national, be able to access the required data and knowledge and before committing to a scheme know 'all' the answers. This is a scheme of course that is wide ranging, costly, another form of tax and even curbs human rights of everyone especially those who are old, infirm, disabled, work locally or from home.

They didn't know the answer.

The Pay & Display meters, not mentioned in the initial consultation paper, and added in the second were shown to have stayed the same in number, but they will be dual use, so if a resident has a permit they can park in them anytime. From what Paul Nedvard reported the non-residents could turn up at any time pay the £2 charge and leave their car all day every day as long as they displayed a daily ticket. The council were asked whether the residents' permit fees only were covering the scheme Cllr Smith said yes. (It has allegedly been rumoured that the Beacon put up £30k and a developer of new flats on the other side of Clock House Station has put up £10k, whilst accepting that any owners of the new flats will not be in the CPZ, this was not disclosed in Cllr Smith's answer). He was then asked what happens to the money, more importantly the profit of the Pay & Display and Fines money if the scheme is to be non-profit making. Would the money return to aid the residents it affects. He answered it goes in to the council traffic management pot and is used for all borough citizens. So it's a revenue generating source then! (Isn't that what council tax is supposed to fund amongst other things?)

There was a large outcry from residents who lived outside the initial consulted area, angry that they were given no notice of the proposal of the CPZ scheme. And they have a right to be angry, why no public notices, nothing on the council website? The CPZ will cause displacement and they will be affected. No dialogue had been entered into with them, even out of common courtesy. The actual school we all sat in was not contacted, fears over where teachers will now be able to park in time to teach, more cars on those surrounding streets at school morning times and the issue of health and safety for local children and more streets becoming rat runs as commuters cruise around to find more limited spaces had not been thought of or more importantly cared about by those dead set on implementing a scheme.

When asked what percentage of displacement occurs when such schemes have been put into place in the past Paul Nedvard replied it was impossible to call and give a figure. The devil is in the detail. Notice how he didn't answer the question. There must be traffic surveys that give this detail and be known to them. Reading up on so many other CPZ schemes all over the country it would seem they all fail to mention this in their initial circulars and of course the movement of cars to unaffected roads gives them an opportunity to implement a CPZ to the surrounding areas. Call it what you will but stealth tax is what it is.

Again lack of foresight, knowledge and incompitance was shown by the council when asked by a supporter of the scheme does his company car, not registered at his address like so many others in similar positions, qualify for a permit. The rules are that to obtain a permit your car must be registered to someone at your address. So what was the answer? They didn't know!

They said that the scheme would be marked out and start in September. Although there are processes with which it can be stopped Cllr Smith said he was going to sign it off. They are implementing a scheme they don't know the detail, legality, and social effects of. Don't you think they should? Shouldn't we?

One lady who needs visitors everyday, without offstreet parking and no car, was told that she should use the limited 30 tickets day-permits available - a cost of £60 which would last her around 2 and half months. After that the visiting help would need to find a Pay & Display (if available, as commuters could park in them from 7.30am and stay all day) and then that would be another £2 a day, works out at around £400 a year more there too. In essence the council told her to get a car, even though she doesn't drive', it would be better!

In fact limiting residents to only a handful of permit day-tickets effectively is an abuse of their human rights. They should be able to obtain more. The council says they limit the number in case anyone abuses it, but that's tantamount to saying everyone is a criminal at worst and untrustworthy. Thank you councillors! Those who work shift, care for the elderly or infirm, run small businesses, child minding facilities are honest upright citizens and are an important make up of our neighbourhoods. They are penalised why? If residents are forced to pay for day-permits for visitors etc by the council, then they should have the legal right to unlimited tickets. Anything else is an abuse of civil liberties

The majority of attendees were not for the scheme, but their were a large number who had expressed a preference for a CPZ. I was going to say voted for, but what most people were unhappy about was the fact that the consultation was never worded or it implied that they were voting or whether it was a street by street or area wide vote. In fact although there were many more questions and the meeting went on for 2 and half hours, the most telling moment happened at the end when asked if the council were satisfied that they had 'legaly' complied within the rules of engagement in such matters of procuring a vote to implement a scheme they replied yes and that they could not see a judicial review making any difference. A gentleman appeared from the back, withdrew some papers and asked Cllr Colin Smith if that was so true then the rules he had with him (and I wish I had a copy of them here) stated along the lines that any such scheme or vote must be made publicly available, set out clearly its points, what action would be taken after a 'vote' was carried out and new introductions and ammendments (like the ommission of pay & display) cannot be submitted after the event. At that point Cllr Smith, talked over him to try and stop him, he said he would and could not answer, it was a legal matter and at that point the Chair, the lady from West Beckenham Residents Association abruptly closed the meeting. Only 30 of those remaining saw this. The confidence of the council looked a little watery eyed and I fear legal action might well be a route some residents will take at which point I'm sure the council will call into question how they conduct themselves when dealing with their constituents.

It is the residents who should draw up plans, exchange ideas, work out between neighbours the best cause of action, set the rules. They are the ones who are mindful of any actions they may take will cover a far wider area. They have to live there, work there, enjoy the community Beckenham seems to afford its residents.

The night was'nt as boisterous as past public meetings and I thank Balgowan School and all those who set it up. What worries me though is that a council can use such tactics or incompetance to make laws. But then it's all just politics isn't it. As usual you and I are played like pawns. We'll at least here you get a chance to know what went on and discuss, you can't get it anywhere else.

Do me a favour invite a neighbour to use the site, and know what's going on and affecting them now and in the future.
Now come on if you were offered 30k, probably provisional up to a certain date, you'd do all you can to get a CPZ set up as fast as possible wouldn't you....
Kind of strange that it slipped his mind though - might it not be worth bringing up next week? £30k is not far off the total cost of setting the thing up so with pay and display and fines to collect perhaps it could be free to the residents!
Possible 10k also from property developer it is said was stumped up to aid its planning permission, by Clock House station.

All these monies from parties with an interest....

Reply to Discussion

RSS

List in our Local Directory

Local Services

- Accountancy & Bookkeeping

- Advertising Services

- Architects & Designers

- Arts & Illustrators

- Bars, Pubs, Clubs

- Beauty & Health Salon/Mobile/Home Parties

- Boutiques & Personal Shoppers

- Bridal & Wedding

- Builders & Decorators

- Business Services

- Cake & Bakers

- Carpenters

- Car Sales, Dealers & Parts

- Cleaning Services

- Computer Services

- Counselling & Psychotherapy

- Crafts

- Dentists

- DJ & Music Services

- Drainage & Guttering

- Dressmakers & Seamstresses

- Driving Schools & Instructors

- Electricians

- Emergency Services

- Entertainment & Days Out

- Estate & Letting Agents

- Family, Parents, Children, Baby

- Financial Services

- Fire Security Locksmiths Alarms

- Flooring

- Food & Drink

- Foreign Exchange

- Funerals & Undertakers

- Garages & Mechanics

- Gardeners & Fencers

- Glaziers, Windows, Glass

- Hairdressers

- Health, Hospitals, Doctors, Dentists

- Home Improvements

- House Clearance

- Hypnotherapy

- Jobs, HR & Recruitment

- Keep Fit, Gym & Dance

- Kitchens Bathrooms & Fitters

- Management Agents

- Mobility Services

- Money Transfer & Loans

- Mortgage Brokers/Advice

- Nannies & Baby Sitters

- Party Services, Halls/Venues, Entertainers

- Pest Control/Exterminators

- Plumbers & Boiler Engineers

- Photographers

- Plasterers

Printers & Copiers

- Religion

- Removals

- Restaurants

- Restorers

- SHOPS - Local & Online

- Slimming & Weightloss

- Sports

- Solicitors

- Surveyors

- Takeaways

- Taxi, Mini Cab, Chauffeur & Car Hire

- Teachers and Tutors

- Topiary & Hedges

- Utilities

- Vets and Pets

- Video & Film Services

- Voluntary Services

- WIFI places

If there is a category that you'd like just ask Jon the owner for it :-)

CREATE YOUR OWN UNIQUE PROFILE PHOTO WITH 

@FACES2ONE iOS FREE APP

Beckenham's best social community website for residents in Beckenham & Bromley neighbourhoods to talk, share discussions, events, info, news

© 2019   Created by JC.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Your SEO optimized title page contents