Friendly Neighbourhood Info, News, Events, Groups & Discussions
Mar/Apl2005 CPZSurvey (ElmRoad, etc.): Not really such a shock-horror story!
"Latest news" (Shome mishtake? - Ed.) refers to the CPZ Survey of March/April 2005, as if the Council went against the wishes of the majority at that time. That's not how it was! In nine of the ten ClockHouse Ward roads surveyed (Balgowan, Beckenham, Belmont, Cedars, Croydon, Durban, Hampden Ave., Hayne and Westfield) the majority of respondents stated they didn't want a CPZ on the terms offered. Only in Elm Road was there a majority in favour (8 versus 5). The traffic engineers recommended that a scheme should not be introduced for this one road in isolation and that the scheme should not proceed in any of the other roads. I supported those recommendations, as follows:
Cllr REG ADAMS on BeckenhamHospitalArea Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)
Item 6, Environment PFH Meeting, 30 June 2005
1) First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Mike Hammond for an excellently devised survey and a very comprehensive analysis of the responses.
2) The consultation letter (which formed the basis of the survey) was sent to about 500 households and the responses came back during March 2005. The area surveyed included nine roads in CH Ward (on the western side of the main Croydon Road) and two roads in KEP Ward (on the eastern side of Croydon Road). The letter stated the following four key points:
2.1) Beckenham Hospital is being redeveloped.
2.2) Health Trust is providing some money towards a possible parking scheme in nearby roads.
2.3) One option is for a CPZ, with yellow lines & parking bays marked out at the sides of the road; permit-holders can park anywhere in the zone; possibly combine pay-and-display with residents' parking; in order for the scheme to be self-financing, permits would cost £25 per vehicle per year (lunchtime restriction); £ 60 per vehicle (all day, 08:00-18:30 restriction); £ 200 for businesses.
2.4) A CPZ will only be introduced if it is supported by the residents. If it is supported, residents will be consulted on the detailed proposals before implementation.
3) The results differ markedly from the eastern (KEP) side to the western (CH) side.
3.1) In the KEP roads - Faversham & Shaftesbury, there was an 86% response. Overwhelming majority (40 vs 4) want a CPZ. Of those 40, about three-quarters (31) specifically favour an all-day CPZ.
3.2) In the CH roads, only Elm Road showed a majority in favour (8 vs 5 - on a 36% turnout). Croydon Road & Balgowan Road were balanced (as many for as against - on 33% and 40% turnouts). In all the other roads, the clear majority of respondents were against having a CPZ in their road. Opposition was especially strong in Belmont Road & Hampden Avenue. But there was also a substantial majority for not having a CPZ in Cedars, Durban, Hayne & Westfield Roads.
4) I must admit I was a little surprised about this outcome. So, I arranged to look through all the 185 responses from residents in CH roads. Opponents were quite articulate with reasons:
4.1) Objections to principle of paying £ 60 per vehicle and even then not being guaranteed a space.
4.2) Complications of arranging permits for visitors, tradesmen, care-workers, etc.
4.3) Parking capacity is significantly reduced if you can only use marked-out bays.
4.4) Associated street furniture & yellow lines are ugly.
4.5) Stronger pressure must be put on the hospital to cater for their staff & visitors' parking.
It was quite clear that even those residents who acknowledged there is a parking problem (exacerbated at the beginning & end of the schoolday by Balgowan parents) did not believe that a CPZ would help to improve the situation.
In CH roads, it's more than likely that the 59% who didn't respond were not sufficiently motivated to respond because they don't see there's a problem.
5.1) I can see that the unexpected strong antipathy to the CPZ presents a dilemma for the PFH and for the traffic engineers. But it would be unwise to impose a scheme on unwilling residents, particularly since the consultation letter said that a scheme would only be implemented if had public support.
5.2) Of course, it's the PFH's prerogative to ignore the public consultation findings altogether and to say that as a Council "We know what's best for you" - the NannyState approach.
5.3) But that makes a mockery of the public consultation exercise. The majority of the residents said they don't want a CPZ in this area, so it really would be autocratic to say "We know what's best for you, regardless of what you might think!" Incidentally, it would also be demoralising to the staff (including Mr Hammond) if the message to them was that this well-conducted survey was just a pointless exercise.
5.4) As a LibDem Ward Cllr, I always listen to and respect the views of my constituents. Particularly in CH Ward, because the residents here are on the whole pretty bright, reasonable, socially-minded people who care about their environment and are quite capable of weighing up the pros & cons of an argument and determining what suits them best.
5.5) The Recommendations in the Report ELS-05132 are, I think, the best way to proceed. Essentially, there should be a two-stage implementation:
a) Adopt a CPZ for Faversham & Shaftesbury Roads
b) Review the impact of parking in the other roads once the Hospital is up & running. If problems materialise then - after further public consultation - we can examine the feasibility of an extension to the CPZ, using the balance of funds available from the Section 106 agreement.
6) Finally, let me say that this would be a good platform for the PFH, with my full support, to make it plain to the Hospital Authorities that they have a duty to the general public to organise their on-site parking properly. That means:
6.1) Only allowing on-site parking for people with a genuine reason for being at the Hospital Centre. Parking spaces on the hospital site are not for people who want to take their dogs for a walk in Croydon Road Rec. and they are not for people who want to do a bit of shopping in the High Street.
6.2) Adopting a payment system that will actually encourage (not deter) genuine visitors to park on-site. Many hospitals in this region have a pay-in-advance system, yet outpatients often have no idea of how long they are going be there for their diagnosis or treatment, so rather than risk going beyond their allotted pre-paid time on the meter or going beyond the two hours maximum, they park somewhere else, e.g. in neighbouring residential roads. What is needed is a pay-on-exit system (as at the SwanHill CarPark in central Bromley or at the Marks & Spencer CarPark in Beckenham).
Cllr REG ADAMS on BeckenhamHospitalArea Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)
Item 6, Environment PFH Meeting, 30 June 2005
1) First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Mike Hammond for an excellently devised survey and a very comprehensive analysis of the responses.
2) The consultation letter (which formed the basis of the survey) was sent to about 500 households and the responses came back during March 2005. The area surveyed included nine roads in CH Ward (on the western side of the main Croydon Road) and two roads in KEP Ward (on the eastern side of Croydon Road). The letter stated the following four key points:
2.1) Beckenham Hospital is being redeveloped.
2.2) Health Trust is providing some money towards a possible parking scheme in nearby roads.
2.3) One option is for a CPZ, with yellow lines & parking bays marked out at the sides of the road; permit-holders can park anywhere in the zone; possibly combine pay-and-display with residents' parking; in order for the scheme to be self-financing, permits would cost £25 per vehicle per year (lunchtime restriction); £ 60 per vehicle (all day, 08:00-18:30 restriction); £ 200 for businesses.
2.4) A CPZ will only be introduced if it is supported by the residents. If it is supported, residents will be consulted on the detailed proposals before implementation.
3) The results differ markedly from the eastern (KEP) side to the western (CH) side.
3.1) In the KEP roads - Faversham & Shaftesbury, there was an 86% response. Overwhelming majority (40 vs 4) want a CPZ. Of those 40, about three-quarters (31) specifically favour an all-day CPZ.
3.2) In the CH roads, only Elm Road showed a majority in favour (8 vs 5 - on a 36% turnout). Croydon Road & Balgowan Road were balanced (as many for as against - on 33% and 40% turnouts). In all the other roads, the clear majority of respondents were against having a CPZ in their road. Opposition was especially strong in Belmont Road & Hampden Avenue. But there was also a substantial majority for not having a CPZ in Cedars, Durban, Hayne & Westfield Roads.
4) I must admit I was a little surprised about this outcome. So, I arranged to look through all the 185 responses from residents in CH roads. Opponents were quite articulate with reasons:
4.1) Objections to principle of paying £ 60 per vehicle and even then not being guaranteed a space.
4.2) Complications of arranging permits for visitors, tradesmen, care-workers, etc.
4.3) Parking capacity is significantly reduced if you can only use marked-out bays.
4.4) Associated street furniture & yellow lines are ugly.
4.5) Stronger pressure must be put on the hospital to cater for their staff & visitors' parking.
It was quite clear that even those residents who acknowledged there is a parking problem (exacerbated at the beginning & end of the schoolday by Balgowan parents) did not believe that a CPZ would help to improve the situation.
In CH roads, it's more than likely that the 59% who didn't respond were not sufficiently motivated to respond because they don't see there's a problem.
5.1) I can see that the unexpected strong antipathy to the CPZ presents a dilemma for the PFH and for the traffic engineers. But it would be unwise to impose a scheme on unwilling residents, particularly since the consultation letter said that a scheme would only be implemented if had public support.
5.2) Of course, it's the PFH's prerogative to ignore the public consultation findings altogether and to say that as a Council "We know what's best for you" - the NannyState approach.
5.3) But that makes a mockery of the public consultation exercise. The majority of the residents said they don't want a CPZ in this area, so it really would be autocratic to say "We know what's best for you, regardless of what you might think!" Incidentally, it would also be demoralising to the staff (including Mr Hammond) if the message to them was that this well-conducted survey was just a pointless exercise.
5.4) As a LibDem Ward Cllr, I always listen to and respect the views of my constituents. Particularly in CH Ward, because the residents here are on the whole pretty bright, reasonable, socially-minded people who care about their environment and are quite capable of weighing up the pros & cons of an argument and determining what suits them best.
5.5) The Recommendations in the Report ELS-05132 are, I think, the best way to proceed. Essentially, there should be a two-stage implementation:
a) Adopt a CPZ for Faversham & Shaftesbury Roads
b) Review the impact of parking in the other roads once the Hospital is up & running. If problems materialise then - after further public consultation - we can examine the feasibility of an extension to the CPZ, using the balance of funds available from the Section 106 agreement.
6) Finally, let me say that this would be a good platform for the PFH, with my full support, to make it plain to the Hospital Authorities that they have a duty to the general public to organise their on-site parking properly. That means:
6.1) Only allowing on-site parking for people with a genuine reason for being at the Hospital Centre. Parking spaces on the hospital site are not for people who want to take their dogs for a walk in Croydon Road Rec. and they are not for people who want to do a bit of shopping in the High Street.
6.2) Adopting a payment system that will actually encourage (not deter) genuine visitors to park on-site. Many hospitals in this region have a pay-in-advance system, yet outpatients often have no idea of how long they are going be there for their diagnosis or treatment, so rather than risk going beyond their allotted pre-paid time on the meter or going beyond the two hours maximum, they park somewhere else, e.g. in neighbouring residential roads. What is needed is a pay-on-exit system (as at the SwanHill CarPark in central Bromley or at the Marks & Spencer CarPark in Beckenham).
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Clarke on -
Thank you Reg, Latest News is anything people find; I meant it to be, as well as just happened.
Anyway interesting news above. The most interesting thing about it is that the 2005 consultation seemed to have been far more open informing residents about all the things the 2008 one didn't, like Pay & Display, payment per car not household, parking spaces severely restricted if marked out bays are created and not guaranteeing a parking space outside one's home. Question is why did the council not put all this in the initial 'informal' consultation paper this time? Looks like they needed this to go through this time.
The other thing is, I've been a resident here for 7 years in this street and we don't ever remember a 2005 consultation paper appearing.
And finally, if the 2005 total response was taken as a whole, why not in 2008? If we go on the 2005 rules then there would be no CPZ in Zone 2 & 3 this time either as the toal votes for all surrounding roads was against and not for a new scheme. In 2005 it was decided single roads would not be singled out, and this time they are being, even though the make up of those roads is different every hundred yards. This affects the whole and larger area so putting in CPZ in just a few roads will affect many more families across many roads, the ripples being felt wide with commuter cars being just displaced street after street radiating away from the CPZ.
It does look like the council is trying to get in a CPZ in any way it can, a wedge with which it can slowly widen and then in time roll out across every road. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but it does get more interesting the more one learns about it all.
-
Permalink Reply by Reg Adams on -
Out of interest, a few people have asked me what were the voting results from the April 2005 CPZ Survey of the roads around Beckenham Beacon/Hospital. I summarised the picture in 3.2 (above): the full tally is attached herewith as a *.PDF - as you can see, there was a fairly representative turn-out in Durban, Belmont, Hayne (South), Westfield, Cedars, Faversham and Shaftesbury, rather less so elsewhere.
As always with these surveys, it puzzles and saddens me that a significant percentage of people don't vote at all. Is it because they don't care one way or the other? Is it because they are fatalists and believe that "che sarà, sarà"? Is it because they believe it's all been stitched-up, there's no point trying to influence the outcome; all you can do is moan about whatever happens afterwards? Or is it because Life's pretty good on the whole and altogether too short to worry about on-street parking problems?
Trying to answer your questions:
1) ClockHouse Road was not part of territory covered by that April 2005 Survey. That probably explains why you don't remember it.
2) I don't think there were 'a priori' rules about how to evaluate the survey results last time. Whereas, for the Aug/Sep 2008 survey, I strongly advocated using the road-by-road analysis, so that: if a majority in Road A voted "For" a CPZ, this would raise the likelihood of Road A being ultimately included in the CPZ and if a majority in Road B voted "Against" a CPZ, the converse would apply. The PortfolioHolder (Cllr Colin Smith) agreed. The reason I take this view is precisely because there are different circumstances in each of the 27 roads originally surveyed. The people who live in a particular road know best of all what those particular circumstances are. And clearly, even within a particular road, the opinions people have about whether or not a CPZ is going to be a good thing are strongly held and differ very sharply. (Just look at the tone of the comments from contributors to this website, both for and against a CPZ!). Rather than have some "ivory-tower expert" decide what should be done for the whole area (as some people have suggested), I believe it is better to determine the outcome for each road on the basis of the residents' common-sense majority view in that road. So, I don't set much store by the argument that the way of evaluating the results in 2005 set a precedent for how it should be done in 2008.
3) I'm not much into conspiracy theories either, but I guess they can sometimes be interesting to look at, so long as you don't get too spooked by them! As for the idea that the Council is trying to put in a CPZ any way it can, well, why should it? O.K., the cynics will say it's a way for the Council to raise extra revenue. But, we are always being reassured that parking-schemes are essentially cost-neutral (i.e. the Council only raises as much revenue from the scheme as it needs to spend on installing and operating the scheme). Maybe the Council puts up ideas for CPZs, road safety, etc. in order to provide work for the traffic engineers? Or maybe it's for the joy of being seen to be doing something, spending money that has been put up by the Hospital authorities, property developers, Transport for London (TfL) - ostensibly for the benefit of our local residents, dealing with the ongoing problems of competing for on-street parking space against commuters, visitors to The Spa, the Hospital, etc., etc.? But, the bottom line is that a significant number of local residents feel that they have very serious problems about finding an on-street parking space somewhere near to where they live. Will the CPZ help to alleviate those problems? I honestly don't know. But it's worth a try - with the proviso that if the CPZ ends up creating more problems than it solves, then that will be recognised at the review stage and the rotten parts of it (or maybe the entire thing, if necessary) will be dismantled. And if the problems created affect other roads further away from the Station (e.g. displacement of commuter parking), then those problems will also be recognised at the review stage, so that residents in those roads might vote again, with the prospect of possibly extending the CPZ. - Attachments:
-
-
CPZVotes2005Apl.pdf, 11 KB
-
Videos
-
-
-
-
-
Local Talent - CHIDI
Added by BeckenhamTown.us
Jobs In Beckenham
NetRetro - Childhood Relived
© 2010 Created by Jon Clarke
Powered by 
.
