Since its introduction in 2013 in Enfield Road and surrounding roads the Council have systematically reduced the parking spaces at every opportunity while at the same time increasing the permit and parking charges. Enforcement is now being carried out on a 24 hour basis to maximise the take and screw the residents out of as much money as possible. The latest scam is to remove more parking spaces for LIME BIKES a private company and pay for their new bays with our community charge money. Their Shareholders and Directors must be dancing with delight, first you create the problem and then Hounslow pay to clean it up and at the same time you get to charge the hirer a fine for not putting the bike in the bay that Hounslow provided free of charge. So what's in it for Hounslow ? or are they simpletons I think not I thinkit gives them another chance to push there anti car agenda and at the same time screw the motorist. I will be raising a petition in my area to scrap the CPZ and I would encourage others to consider the same in their areas.
Robert Ayres ● 147d37 Comments
My first contribution to this busy topic. Pity it's so frequently polluted by Mr SH's ascerbic comments. I cannot remember him ever garnering an approving response so at least we haven't descended into Musk-style invective on this forum. Just the occasional ranter to make us sigh. Back to the subject. We voted against a CPZ twice when we lived for decades over in North Kew, the last free parking area in the whole of Kew. But in the end there were just too many people parking their weekend cars there, going on holiday or just commuters prepared to walk 10 mins to the station. So since we moved across to Brentford the N Kew residents finally gave in. They report that it's now much easier to park. I think happy CPZ decisions are where there are easily enough spaces (like our current Butts CPZ). The unhappy ones (eg round Orchard Rd?) are where the residents are the real problem, too many in narrow-fronted houses with multiple cars. Perhaps Hounslow should charge even more for 2nd and 3rd permits. And it is true that CPZs are pretty compelling around stations and in town centres. They displace parking to the next area away which makes residents there feel they have no choice, and so on. With all these new flats in Brentford with no or expensive parking, Mr Havelock is absolutely right that it is becoming very difficult for anyone who really needs a vehicle to earn a living. That's the way things seem to be going, and if you drive through areas with more provision for private parking, eg Whitton, West Brentford and Osterley, you do see a lot of parked vans.
Eric Baker ● 93d
What is happening are 'carless developments. So what happens if at some stage as a carless resident your occupation or work location or hours require a car or small van to enable one's living? You have to sell up and move? What if you lose your mobility of youth prematurely for any reason ?Cars and most road vehicles are generally getting too big. Part of a one size fits all globalisation, and it is a problem in older cities and towns not just here but in many parts of Europe. That's not helpful. Many have no more space inside than small 1970s saloon and lack versatility - which one would think a car ought to be the most important premiseCPZs were not created to be cash cows and tools for politically idealistic policies, they were to give residents and their visitors parking as near to their home.They are to deter commuters, and those non residents who leave a vehicle to ,for example, go on holiday and not park at the airport.That is where it should end. Not used for any other form of manipulation on vehicle type etc.There should be in addition safe places to park Vans and possibly restrictions of cars so large they breach the dotted bay lines and restrict the road. But sadly Govt have allowed the concept of CPZs to become a tool far removed from it's concept.
Raymond Havelock ● 105d
CPZs are introduced at request of residents via consultation. Once introduced CPZs are then managed & enforced by Council. In my personal opinion, no resident in their right mind would vote for a CPZ as this means formal parking areas, reduced number of spaces, no more parking on corners or squeezing in in a neighbourly way. Also, paying for privilege to park hopefully near, but if lucky within a few 100 metres of your property. I’m not bitter, really!, never included in a consultation for CPZ, but voted in on my street, outside my front door, 9:6 in favour - response from 52 households (but not us due to postcode lottery!!). But that said we are where we are, solution, ensure all new builds for Council tenants and/or private owners/tenants have allocated parking within the development rather than adding to number of vehicles competing for spaces within an ever decreasing CPZ.
Jennifer Goodall ● 107d
So predictable Anne. If you’ve nothing to contribute then best to get back in your box.
Simon Hayes ● 117d
Clearly the size of Alesoch’s income isn’t matched by his intelligence or ability to understand that the world doesn’t revolve around him.Funny how the most entitled and ignorant appear to be wealthy cyclists....
Simon Hayes ● 118d
All the hallmarks of a rather selfish and deeply prejudiced person who has nothing but contempt for anyone wiser or indeed older than himself. Bereft of wisdom and respect for such. Something that is nothing new but usually something that comes to one through life.Will also be an older citizen one day as will I but that does not mean having a sneering contempt.
Raymond Havelock ● 118d
Come on Nick, love, show us your tax bracket! Perhaps we should all get our tax brackets out and wave them around at each other!
Alison Robins ● 118d
Well Nick! First, I am proud to be a member of the baby boomer generation - you know, the one where you could walk the streets of London without being stabbed. Second, my post was asking a question: should we continue with the present scheme or ask for it to be scrapped in light of Hounslow ignoring the results of its own consultations, when the residents voted against plans for LTNs and no consultation at all on Lime Bike bays which is a democratic right of residents. Yes, of course I have my own preferences of what I would like to see, hence why I asked the question. I was opposed to the introduction of CPZs, however I accepted the majority view expressed in 2013 when the scheme was introduced as I respect the system of democracy . As for your comment to Simon about your tax bracket, do you realise how totally stupid a comment like that makes you look as what has it got to do with CPZs. In the meantime we peasants will keep on asking questions, as is our right, without stooping to your level.
Robert Ayres ● 118d
thank you Simon - those are the exact word I needed to use. Robert needs to wind his neck in and quit complaining about where the park his precious motor. One day you might win the lottery and make it to my tax bracket, then you can begin moaning about how your tax money is spent. Until then, wind your neck in.
Nick Alesoch ● 119d
Oh Anne. How your rapier like wit cuts us to the quick!Do try to have some order final thoughts for a change. It’s obvious that some contributors here don’t understand the underlying concept of a CPZ. I suspect you are one of them.
Simon Hayes ● 121d
'Wind your neck in, or you might just come across as self entities. Always hard for the self righteous to shut up... but do try.'Giving yourself a good talking to, are you?
Anne England ● 121d
Oh dear. Do you think Ubers aren’t privately owned vehicles parked on the road? Most houses don’t have off street parking in London.Wind your neck in, or you might just come across as self entities. Always hard for the self righteous to shut up... but do try.
Simon Hayes ● 121d
Your sense of self entitlement is next level.What gives you the right to park your private property wherever you like.If you want your own private parking space - buy a house with one.Less than 40% of people in London own a car and yet we still have to put up with self entitled owners leaving their cars in public spaces, over 90% of the time - unused.Thankfully it's mainly a boomer problem - we won't have to wait long and the problem will sort itself out.
Nick Alesoch ● 122d
Just how do you complain. Unless you have and app or state of the art gadgets?Too many. (even myself ) are finding it almost impossible to access consultations and reporting things which are only available via an app or online only.Whilst this is simpler ( or appears simpler ) in some respects, too often it turns out to be a complete palaver.Reporting something to the Police is more like an interrogation grilling and most information proffered is about the reporter not the problem. As mentioned before, issues with Lime Bikes and all the others is near impossible and if as posted here, the Council is in partnership, then should the Council not provide a means to report issues easily without the need for an app?
Raymond Havelock ● 141d
Agreed but I would encourage as many people as possible to make a formal complaint and follow it through to the ombudsman as this is blatant misappropriation of public money.
Robert Ayres ● 144d
The secrecy regarding this contract with Lime or non contract as it seems is simply outrageous but heh ho it is only the residents council tax that is being wasted I suppose, as it is year in year out with this Labour Administration and yet they still plead poverty
Paul Fisher ● 144d
Last night I attended the area forum and managed to speak and get answers from Councillor Katherine Dunne. She confirmed the following:There is No contract between the council and Lime Bikes only a memorandum of understanding, whatever that means. I asked the cost of providing these bays to which she said it was £90,000 thus far. I asked if i could see the memorandum but she declined. I said I would make an application under the freedom of information act.I have to say I am far from impressed with the cavalier waythis councillor seems to think she and her fellow councillors can spend public funds. I pointed out to her that with no contract for reimbursement from Lime Bikes she was gambling with public funds and what happens if the trial fails,do we the residents just lose the 90K plus. I am left with the impression that this administration believe they can spend our money any way they like without any accountability
Robert Ayres ● 144d
https://data.hounslow.gov.uk/dataset/parking-account/resource/93e77178-c90a-4939-bff8-2edb472a0b53?view_id=5700327b-915c-4b86-a9da-06bcf364afb8Hi please find link above. However this only shows how much they were taking up 2017. They have not published the records since then but in 2013 they had a surplus of 7.3 million. I have requested the income and expenditure accounts covering 2017 to date
Robert Ayres ● 145d
I too support the idea that we should be responsible for weeds and I'd add litter (I do the whole of Whitestile road roughly every fortnight which takes about 30 mins). It would be a very minimal burden on residents to take this on.The corollary is that for each street managing itself in this way, the council's tax take should decrease by an appropriate amount.
Andy Herrick ● 145d
Cllrs response is almost word for word the standard PR response that appears in spoon fed articles in local media.Is there a need to review a CPZ so often. Ealing does not do this unless and RA or residents petition for a review or alterations.The last CPZ review in one local area was so flawed it had to be held a second time.Moreover it was online only and not clear that paper copies and responses could be requested. But many did not get these before the consultation closed.That is where money gets wasted spent better. Same area is weed ridden with pavers becoming uneven and walls becoming loose.Personally I support the suggestion from BV ( I think ) to see residents responsible for containing weeds on the frontages of their property and helping those who cannot and LBH providing a sack to each property to dispose of the several species that are poisionous or cause skin irritations.
Raymond Havelock ● 145d
1. Surplus: The council seems to believe it has sufficient surplus to paint pedestrian crossings with a garish and ugly "rainbow" colour schemes in contradiction to the "Traffic signs manual" which can be found at Gov.uk
Andy Herrick ● 145d
4. Consultation: The Hounslow Council web site has a page for "Hounslow's Streetspace" where there are links to ward level reviews (pdf docs). My road (Whitestile) returned a 70% "strongly oppose" response (see bar chart)The "Chief Officer's Decision report" contains the rather telling statement:"48. The majority of feedback that has been receivedexpresses both objection to the schemes and cleardesire for the schemes to be removed with immediateeffect, but this would not accord with Council’s statedpolicy position, nor is it supported by traffic analysis."
Andy Herrick ● 145d
1. Surplus: Please provide evidence to support this e.g. links to relevant Hounslow Council reports.
Andy Herrick ● 145d
1. We don't have "millions in surplus", though as I said when we have a surplus it is set against the far greater deficit on subsidised public transport and disabled.2. As I told you we never normally change CPZs except as a result of a consultation. Taking a space or 2 f rom the hundreds in a CPZ on an experimental basis is not sufficient of a change to warrant a consultation exercise with delay and cost3 The cost is trivial, and we expect to make a surplus4 We don't. We certainly have never done that in Brentford in the 8 yrs I've been a councillor. I have never heard of it being done anywhere in Hounslow5 They are except as in 2. The yellows outside your house were because you wrote to me about a lorry parked there!Bottom line is that CPZs are always done in response to local demand. We don't do it for fun or for money (not that daft) but because it's demanded by residents.If you really want to have a go at this come to the forum on Wed 19/7 at the Free church
Guy Lambert ● 145d
LBH and their Councillors are brilliant at ignoring the residents and implementing whatever they want. The Yellow box junction outside West Middlesex Hospital is one of the highest earners for LBH in infringements. You have to be extremely wary here because of drivers existing the Hospital and the bus stop just beyond all designed to catch the driver out.
David Cook ● 145d
As an elected Councillor may I suggest that you respond with facts and not just wing it. I have researched the figures and Hounslow along with all the London boroughs have millions in surplus. So can I ask these questions and get a straight answer. 1 Why when you have millions in surplus is it necessary for a resident to purchase a new permit every year at an ever increasing cost? 2 Why are residents not consulted when CPZs are changed in their area Ie: Lime Bike Bays3 Why when I asked you on the telephone were you unable to tell me the cost of creating these bays for the benefit of a private company.4 Why when every ward in the borough rejected LTNs did you and your colleagues ignore the residents wishes.5 Why are residents not consulted or invited to shape the CPZ in their area for example the removal of parking spaces by inserting yellow lines and parking restrictions.
Robert Ayres ● 145d
What a load of tosh, as usual.If they were that expensive to implement they wouldn’t be put in. The initial costs aren’t significant compared to the income generated and the lines and signage, once in place, are untroubled with maintenance for years.The enforcement is the easy part, of course. Wardens patrol streets, including on mopeds, and fines issued go into the pot.Ealing makes a large amount from CPZ permit charges, including visitor ones. Perhaps Lambert could either price what he says by producing some figures or admit he’s just making stuff up again.Yes, surplus is ring fenced but not spent on maintaining roads or pavements in most areas.There was a major problem in this area with commuter and airport parking and I was happy to see a CPZ introduced to combat that, but as others point out here it’s been abused by the authorities as a convenient tax raiser from vehicle owners (not just cars, of course). Ealing compounds its disregard for residents by whoring out all zones to zipcar, with no consultation with residents or notice of the introduction of the scheme. Conveniently that company benefits from council policy, to the detriment of CPZ permit holders who often can’t park anywhere near their homes.And before lambert gets on his high horse (careful you don’t topple off old chap) the inconsistency in such policy is glaring. You either say all cars are bad and stop everything rather than give favours to car hire companies, or you go back to the common sense approach of freedom of choice.That’s the trouble with you Labour types. You just can’t help but think everything you do, say or think is the right thing.
Simon Hayes ● 146d
I'm happier than I thought I'd be about the CPZ. Firstly, I can park somewhere vaguely close to my front door. Secondly, because I have a Band A car, my permit doesn't cost me anything. Which is nice.
Mark Gormley ● 146d
CPZs are certainly not money spinners as some people think. For a start they are quite expensive to implement in terms of officers times sorting out designs consultation etc as well as signage road painting etc. They are usually reviewed every now and then sometimes very frequently which adds to the cost. I'm not sure how much fees and fines compare what's the cost of enforcement but you're probably be surprised to hear but I frequently get residents ringing me saying there needs to be more enforcement because people have parked in my road who I don't want there.It's not my special area but I do understand that income from parking whether it be fines or fees is ring fenced to transport related cost. By far the biggest cost is subsidising public transport for people with freedom pass etc and disabled people. I believe this cost is greatly more then what we make in income.As for Lime my understanding is that they pay some of the income they make to the council where it is formally approved as it has been just recently in Hounslow. Too early to tell what the impact is: no doubt not positive for us in the short term given the cost of setting it up but certainly we expect net income in due course. I believe there was a presentation about lime at the Chiswick area forum last week and I think there will be another one at the Brentford area forum tomorrow at the free church
Guy Lambert ● 146d
That has always been the premise. I went to packed meetings in Ealing and Brentford when the first CPZs came in. Some of which are far more draconian than necessary to this day. Councillors of the time without exception all stressed that any surplus from fines, pay parking and permits would all be returned to improvements in the zones in the form of enhanced pavements, potholes and improvements via residents associations etc.None of that ever happened. Now it is a pure cash cow and in Ealing the rub is commuters can now park for free in CPZs all day if they use an electric vehicle charger. So locals already paying for a permit cannot get near them.Plus the loss of CPZ spaces to external high paying permits, ev charging and bike huts now infers there are too many residential cars.It was far worse before the CPZs from commuters and those from developments with limited parking having to park elsewhere. But it is the abuse of a service for residents that is offensive.Ands what do we have now? Tatty weed strewn streets, potholes and uneven pavements. So where does that CPZ money actually go?
Raymond Havelock ● 146d
If there is a revenue surplus from these schemes (parking fines, permits, lime bay fines etc) I would expect it to be spent on road and pavement maintenance. Question for Guy L: Is there a surplus? If so how is it spent?
Andy Herrick ● 146d
CPZs aren’t supposed to be revenue streams for councils. The case law is very clear on that issue but it’s something most local authorities ignore and the courts turn a blind eye. Sure, there can be a ‘surplus’ but hiking permit charges to unreasonable levels isn’t really acceptable. Yet they get away with it.
Simon Hayes ● 146d
CPZs are supposed to benefit residents and deter commuters. Nothing more.But hawking the streets to third parties and deciding who can and cannot have a car and whether it suits policy or not is a control mad authorities gone haywire.It is worrying that it is mostly Labour controlled authorities with this vendetta attitude and only interested in it's working people when elections are due.
Raymond Havelock ● 146d
Please, please NO - don't get rid of the CPZ! I remember the bad old days before the CPZ when you didn't go out in your car if you could possibly avoid it because you wouldn't be able to park when you got back. We also suspected that this area was used as airport parking - conveniently close to the Piccadilly Line.Removal of bays, Lime Bikes, enforcement and increased charges are separate issues. I'm pretty sure Lime Bikes, removal of bays and enforcement (tickets for 2 wheels on the pavement in parts of Enfield Road) would take place irrespective of whether there's a CPZ.
Alison Robins ● 147d