Forum Topic

BRS CPZ

Notices have gone up on lampposts about a proposed change which would keep the morning and event day Saturday restrictions, but ditch the evening ones. Here it is on the council websitehttps://www.hounslow.gov.uk/downloads/file/11693/proposed-amendment-to-brook-road-south-brentford-stadium-event-day-controlled-parking-zone-operational-times-tmo-p054-25This seems to be a departure from previous consultations and I'm pretty sure this would mean I'd never be able to park in the evenings- it's already quite difficult at the weekend.

Mark Gormley ● 22d29 Comments

Yes, I wasn't concentrating there!

Anne England ● 2d

It was always a ridiculous blockage. Whenever there is a traffic incident on Windmill road there is no escape and all local roadscget gummed up. Yes LBH do everything to suit their agenda whether supported by residents or not.

Elizabeth Price ● 2d

Come off it Cllr Lambert. You have been wholeheartedly in favour of LTNs since day one. We expect nothing less from a paid up member of the London Cycling Csmpaign. The quotes are verbatim from your posts. If you don’t agree with what you’ve said then why say it in the first place?You are simply desperate for any vote you can get next year. Quite why you want to continue as a councillor when by your own admission you can’t hear anything said in meetings is something you should address.Behind your bonhomie lurks a pretty unsavoury character. You can take the boy out of Labour, etc.

Simon Hayes ● 2d

You seem to be confusing an LTN with a CPZ, Anne. The former restricts traffic, the latter restricts parking. I don’t expect they held  three consultations on introducing an LTN, since they would stick one in regardless of objections. A CPZ consultation will see a restriction implemented if there’s a majority in favour. The only instance where a consultation result is treated as a referendum.

Simon Hayes ● 2d

As usual you like abuse and that is based on nonsense. Read the quotes you used!

Guy Lambert ● 3d

'The facts are LTNs were introduced across the borough against the wishes o the majority of residents ...' - well where I live, the first two consultations (years apart) resulted in a No vote and the LTN was not introduced. On the third time of voting, a majority voted for the introduction. As I remember, two local streets opted not to join but soon changed their minds when they had the only all day parking in the area.

Anne England ● 3d

How the likes of Enfield and Whitestile were not CPZ's on Saturdays when BFC were at GP is a mystery.It's obvious to anyone that all TW8 postcodes should have a 9-10, 3-4 and 6-8 CPZ Monday=Sunday given BFC play at all random times now. But don't park at the bottom of LRNorth if you want a full set of windows after a match.Then change it when they get relegated.

Simon Wycombe ● 3d

Yes I have a business and unlike you I learnt to add up.Hounslow Council made nearly £6 million from parking fines alone in 2024. Specific figures for the total revenue generated by the entire Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) scheme (including permits and charges, not just fines) for a specific year are not publicly itemized in the search results, though various figures "between £7 million and £10 million have been bandied around" in the past for overall parking revenue.As for excluding resident from PCN's passing through the Challis Road LTN as all parking permits are renewed online it is an easy task to exclude the fine on locals by simply crosschecking information held on the data baseYou state there is significant cost in maintaining a log of residents I take it you have not heard of AI. The facts are LTNs were introduced across this borough against the wishes of the majority of residents as you well know as you were a member of the Labour council who introduced them and at that time as I recall you were all for them.  All these measures are nothing more than a money making scams which show that you and your fellow councillors don't give a monkeys about the local people you claim to represent who are struggling to survive due to the incompetent lying Labour government and party of which you were lately a member until of course you turned green was it something youate.

Robert Ayres ● 6d

Cllr lambert might need to refresh his memory about the support he gave to the implementation of the Whitestile LTN over the years. He’s certainly been very enthusiastic about the closures and happy to ignore the wishes of the majority of residents. Anyone would think there’s an election coming up!Posted by: Guy LambertDate: 23/12/20I have had very little feedback on the changes in Whitestile and Challis roads, mostly favourable, and the only two feedbacks I have had about Green Dragon lane were from residents, one of whom said it was the best thing the council had ever done and the other that she had actually been in tears of joy when she heard about it.Posted by: Guy LambertDate/Time: 05/04/21 19:29:00I don't understand why the fire service have yet to cotton on that - after 6 to 9 months - certain routes that were historically available are not any more. They were consulted on the Hounslow schemes before they were put in so they have known about them for nearly 12 months. It is perfectly possible to get to any address in Whitestile Road as the other fire engine (which I believe came from Ealing) managed.

Simon Hayes ● 7d

You have an astonishingly poor understanding of economics if you really believe a CPZ is a money making activity, which is disappointing in someone who is a business owner or manager. A car like mine which would be in Band 5 (and well over average) would cost £100 pa.As it happens I think the arrangement of the LTN in Challis/Eastbourne was misconceived from the start and said so at the time it was implemented and have continued repeating my concerns regularly, including a couple of weeks ago when people in Whitestile asked for it to be suspended whilst Thames Water were digging up the Windmill junction.I am happy to raise that formally again if you wish. Of course there is a significant cost in maintaining a log of residents, their vehicles, when their vehicles are changed or temporarily replaced by rentals etc and the inevitable requests for various visitore - carers, relatives, plumbers - to be added to the exemptions. The CPZ was before I was elected but I understand there was great problems in WHitestile when it initially voted against a CPZ and got a lot of parking from Ealing and Enfield Road etc residents parked in Whitestile to avoid paying CPZ charges, which at maximum level are less than half you would pay for service charges on a private parking space (rental where I live is about £100 per month)

Guy Lambert ● 8d

Guy we all know its about making money. When the CPZ was put in Enfield Road it was only after the council kept sending out consultations even after we said no twice along with the people in Whitestile Rd, in the end nobody could be bothered to respond and even then it only passed by one vote.At the area forum, I asked if the LTN in Challis Road could be moved or the residents be exempt from PCN's for driving through it as residents have either go all around on the A4or up Windmill along Little Ealing and back down South Ealing Road to get home. As usual I have never had a response from you or your fellow Councillors about this suggestion.  I understand you have turned Green would you call all this extra traffic movement eco friendly ?  or is it the loss of money from PCN's that matters more than the environment.

Robert Ayres ● 8d

"They are also irregularly placed - nothing at the Eastern end of Braemar Road, for example."Why would that be? Who would benefit from the proposed change?

Alex Shpinkov ● 8d

I'm proposing a simple yes/no questionnaire Guy, not a six or seven question survey with a multitude of options, as was the case with the informal consultation. I know we are going through the statutory review and I hope that illicits a clear view from a majority of those within the CPZ - I'm just approaching this from a position that we need to make it as easy as possible for people to have their say.

Craig Owen ● 16d

Cllr Lambert clearly doesn’t patrol the streets on match days. The Brentford restrictions work to keep those pesky drivers off Hounslow streets but they simply park over the border in Ealing, as they have done for years. Maybe the restrictions should be removed so the Brentford residents can enjoy the parking melees associated with the football club of which they are so proud!As for the trend for people moving away from private cars, no doubt the leader of the Greens on Hounslow council will start by ditching his own polluting machine well ahead of next year’s election. Or is that a step too far for this principled man of the people (and avid history rewriter)?Meanwhile Cllr Lambert should be aware that his new Party’s leader, Zac Polanski, is on a watch list compiled by former Greens who view him as a dangerous charlatan and not a Green at all. Just fancy that!https://concernedgreens.uk/watchlist/zack-polanski/why-zack-polanski-is-not-a-green/

Simon Hayes ● 16d

So really Craig you are proposing they repeat what they did two years ago (because what you propose is precisely what was done).It was actually quite a large response as these things go. In fact I already advocated to repeat the original consultation but it will be better, quicker and avoid wasteful expense for encouraging comprehensive responses to the statutory review from those who now are expressing a view.From what I see now there is a lot of opinion for 'no change', at least in the short term.My provisional view is to do exactly that, and a plan to review again in a few years when Griffin Park is complete and other (hopefully) imminent developments on the Police station and Charlton House developments have progressed. All of these will put more strain on parking unless the trend for people to move away from having private cars accelerates.

Guy Lambert ● 16d

Exactly! We have a CPZ that works perfectly fine and has done for years. I have some reasonable questions that require answers…Why is statistically weak evidence relied on for a statutory consultation? In whose interest is it to change the CPZ rules? Why are precious public funds being spent on a consultation that is clearly not in the best interests of residents and parking permit holders?Locals must make their voice heard or we’ll regress to the chaotic parking that sparked the need for a CPZ in the first place.

R Destcroix ● 17d

If it ain't broke, don't try too fix it.It works fine, One hour mid morning and one mid evening has stopped commuters and long term parking by non residents.The policy to not have parking and no car developments was underpinned by the fact that those residents will not be allowed a permit in the zone.If that is changed then it will add hundreds of vehicles to limited streets.But fundamentally expose the planning permission as fraudulent deception.Developments ought to have adequate parking incorporated. Developers know that and will get their way round it even if it stuff up the entire existing local community.Where are the rest of the councillors on this?

Raymond Havelock ● 17d

I believe the best course of action is for officers to write to everybody impacted in the CPZ boundary with a clear choice between retaining the existing hours or agreeing to the change. The low numbers of respondents to the non-statutory consultation did not indicate a clear majority within the CPZ wanting change in the first place. Not everybody sees those notices on lampposts, but they did at least alert a wider group of people on social media. I expect this consultation will have a higher response rate than the previous one, in any event!

Craig Owen ● 17d

I have serious concerns about the basis for the current statutory consultation, and believe the evidence suggests it should be reconsidered. Below is the link to the council’s report dated 28 November 2023, which underpins the consultation now being carried out a year later:https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s190605/Brook%20Road%20South%20controlled%20parking%20zone%20review%20outcome%20of%20review%20consultation_v1.pdfKey points from the 2023 review consultation • The consultation (10 January–10 February 2023) was sent to 827 properties and received 129 responses (16%)—a weak sample for major operational changes. • Only 70 respondents (≈8% of all addressed households) said the current hours are inappropriate. • Just 50 respondents (≈6%) preferred shorter weekday hours, the only group whose views support removing evening restrictions. • The report’s narrative recommends further consultation before altering hours, yet the decision summary appears to favour implementing shorter hours immediately—an internal inconsistency. • With such limited support, it is reasonable to question whether further consultation represents an effective use of public funds.Impact assessment from the council’s own report • Potential benefit of reducing hours: easier visitor parking and possible support for local footfall. • Stated risks: • Increased non-resident commuter parking associated with Brentford Station. • Reduced residential parking availability and greater competition for spaces.The report’s own analysis therefore emphasises risks for residents, while potential benefits primarily relate to non-resident parking demand.Concerns about the statutory consultation process • The decision box on pages 1–2 reads as if a move to Monday–Friday, 10am–Noon is already being approved, despite the report recommending further engagement. • I received the statutory consultation notice on 19 November, although the letter (dated 14 November) states the consultation began on 7 November. • The consultation closes on 8 December, giving limited time for residents who only recently received postal notification. Many residents do not routinely check the council website.Background from the reportThe original 2022 consultation was invalidated because two roads did not receive documents and the online survey contained an error, requiring a full re-consultation in 2023.

R Destcroix ● 17d

I have serious concerns about the basis for the current statutory consultation, and believe the evidence suggests it should be reconsidered. Below is the link to the council’s report dated 28 November 2023, which underpins the consultation now being carried out a year later:https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s190605/Brook%20Road%20South%20controlled%20parking%20zone%20review%20outcome%20of%20review%20consultation_v1.pdfKey points from the 2023 review consultation • The consultation (10 January–10 February 2023) was sent to 827 properties and received 129 responses (16%)—a weak sample for major operational changes. • Only 70 respondents (≈8% of all addressed households) said the current hours are inappropriate. • Just 50 respondents (≈6%) preferred shorter weekday hours, the only group whose views support removing evening restrictions. • The report’s narrative recommends further consultation before altering hours, yet the decision summary appears to favour implementing shorter hours immediately—an internal inconsistency. • With such limited support, it is reasonable to question whether further consultation represents an effective use of public funds.Impact assessment from the council’s own report • Potential benefit of reducing hours: easier visitor parking and possible support for local footfall. • Stated risks: • Increased non-resident commuter parking associated with Brentford Station. • Reduced residential parking availability and greater competition for spaces.The report’s own analysis therefore emphasises risks for residents, while potential benefits primarily relate to non-resident parking demand.Concerns about the statutory consultation process • The decision box on pages 1–2 reads as if a move to Monday–Friday, 10am–Noon is already being approved, despite the report recommending further engagement. • I received the statutory consultation notice on 19 November, although the letter (dated 14 November) states the consultation began on 7 November. • The consultation closes on 8 December, giving limited time for residents who only recently received postal notification. Many residents do not routinely check the council website.Background from the reportThe original 2022 consultation was invalidated because two roads did not receive documents and the online survey contained an error, requiring a full re-consultation in 2023.

R Destcroix ● 17d

I have been in contact with officers about this, because the plan has not been well managed thus far.I have a comprehensive response from the officer leading this, as follows:"Thank you for your email and for forwarding the comments you have received from residents. I appreciate you taking the time to review the earlier consultation results and to set out your concerns clearly.Firstly, I completely understand your position regarding the age of the earlier review consultation [It was started in November 2023 and concluded in January 2024!] and the context at the time it was undertaken. As you have highlighted, local circumstances have changed significantly since then — particularly as residents have now become accustomed to life after the closure of Griffin Park.While the informal consultation provided mixed feedback, including some support for shorter weekday hours, I fully recognise the point you raise: using that older feedback in isolation would not be appropriate without understanding current resident sentiment. That is precisely why the statutory consultation is essential and why the proposal is not in any way predetermined.The volume and strength of objections received so far indicate that residents do not support reducing the operational hours. This will be reflected transparently in the consultation analysis and recommendation. If the overall feedback continues along the same lines, the appropriate outcome would be either to retain the existing hours or to consider a fresh informal consultation at a later date if the Council wished to explore alternatives.I would also like to assure you that the misattribution of the earlier consultation to the wrong ward councillors was an oversight, [they sent it to the councillors for Syon and Brentford Dock, not me] and I apologise sincerely for the confusion this caused.Letters to residents have now been issued and should be received by Monday 17 November, and residents have been informed that the statutory consultation will remain open until 8 December, ensuring adequate time to respond given the early appearance of the on-street notice.I will ensure that you are provided with:1. A clear breakdown of all statutory responses once the consultation closes, and2. The draft officer report prior to any final decision being taken.Please rest assured that no changes will be taken forward unless there is demonstrable support from residents within the BRS CPZ — and at present, that support is clearly not emerging."So residents, do please make sure your views are presented to officers and I promise I will examine the findings thoroughly. If there is great disagreement I will look to call a public meeting to further debate. To be quite clear, this change was news to me. I may (or may not, given the misallocation) have heard about this consultation 2 tyears ago but if I had, I have quite forgotten it. In addition, the officers omitted to alert me to the current statutory consultation, for which the relevant director has apologised. Something else which I haven't highlighted: the current development of Griffin Park is quite likely to exacerbate parking stresses in the BRS area and that needs to be considered. And my own view of the current arrangements was that having an evening restriction to deal with weekday football matches was out of date (though of course the football still attracts parking in the area to some extent as Cathy notes)

Guy Lambert ● 18d

Perhaps the developers have leant on the council now they’ve realised that these massive car free developments can be less attractive to potential buyers. Scrapping evening and weekend restrictions would make it easier for the estate agents to flog the overpriced boxes without resorting to outright lies.Perhaps put an FOI request in to the council to find out the reason behind the proposed changes.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

I was also surprised to see these notices.  They are also irregularly placed - nothing at the Eastern end of Braemar Road, for example.  I've lived in Brentford for all the CPZ consultations and always received a letter seeking views.This current proposal seems very odd.  With the new developments, and especially Griffin Park in the heart of the BRS CPZ, parking for essential visitors (like carers) and residents will be virtually impossible.  The evening parking period is a key one and parking even in one's own road would be difficult. I agree that weekend parking is busier than it has been for some time.  For the recent evening Liverpool football match, every space was taken. If our whole community wants a change, I accept any different decision but we should be consulted in fair and legal way.  And given a reason as to why the Council is driving this change rather than us, the residents who are affected.

Cathy Jones ● 18d

You're right, Paul.It was at the very start of my career as a councillor, was not in my ward, and to me seemed an obvious road to restrict. I know it remains controversial on social media, and probably will be in 50 years, like closing the road across the north side of Trafalgar Square.

Guy Lambert ● 19d

I seem to recall you voted to close Church St in Isleworth despite 73% of residents against it in the consultation but if I am wrong then I apologise in advance

Paul Fisher ● 19d

Whitestile Road is currently blocked at both ends due to emergency works by Thames Water and the LTN roadblock – this is causing considerable disruption, inconvenience and danger, made worse by the restrictions on the A4 and other local road closures. A neighbour on the corner of Whitestile and Enfield Roads, next to the roadblock, had his wall demolished earlier today. Where was our tireless advocate’s support for residents when we voted OVERWHELMINGLY to reject the closure of our road. Or do you only support your constituents when it suits your agenda?

Graham Thorpe ● 20d

No it won't. With one exception (where the immediately affected street was in favour of the proposal but surrounding streets were against) I have always prioritised the residents' expressed preference.That is not always what is expressed on social media by people who misrepresent their own opinions as being widespread.

Guy Lambert ● 21d

"but I can assure you I will not agree to any change unless I am provided evidence that the change is supported by residents"that will be a first!

Marcia King ● 21d

There certainly hasn't been any attempt to consult anyone in this house, informal or otherwise. In addition, I haven't seen a notice about it INSIDE the CPZ- only stuck on posts around the edges. Is there a reason for the proposed change?

Mark Gormley ● 21d

I am in correspondence with various residents, Ruth Cadbury and the council lead officer about the proposed BRS changes.These consultations are normally in two phases - an informal questionnaire to poll opinion and a statutory consultation before formal changes.Normally as  ward councillor I am informed of the start and outcome of the informal consultation. I cannot find any evidence of that and I was not informed of the statutory consutation (which I should also be told about). The Officer has agreed there has been an error with the latter and I am still investigating what happened with the informal one. It is said there is support for a change of times, but everybody that has informed me is against the change. The first I heard of this was from residents (and Ruth) after notices were put up.I should get more next week, but I can assure you I will not agree to any change unless I am provided evidence that the change is supported by residents.

Guy Lambert ● 21d

There are a number of legal notices mentioning Brook Road South, Brentford High Street, Twickenham Road, St John’s Road and some Chiswick roads, in this weeks Herald. (Dated 14th November ).

Sarah Felstead ● 21d