Forum Topic

Controlled Parking Zone in Linkfield Road

The council are consulting residents in the Linkfield Road area about introducing a CPZ.  This is for part of Linkfield Road & some surrounding roads.I'm afraid I don't have all the details to hand as I no longer live in Linkfield Road & haven't seen the documentation, but my mother asked if I could post something on this forum for her, so I'm doing this from memory...The council want to charge £60 (or £65?) per annum.  Anyway, that's for the first year - a friend's CPZ charge in a neighbouring borough got substantially increased for the 2nd & subsequent years!  Once it's in they seem to do what they want!She attended a meeting about it yesterday evening. My mother is against it.  She believes that CPZs are just a revenue generating scheme for councils.  As a pensioner, she will be getting an increase of £3 something per week in her pension & the council want to take £1 something of it so she can park in the road outside her house! (& with no guarantee of a space either.  In fact, the council want to introduce some yellow lines to the road, so existing parking spaces will be reduced).There aren't any parking problems during the day on week days anyway.  There is more of a problem in the evenings & at weekends, which is when the CPZ wouldn't be in force anyway!Another reason a CPZ is being put forward is to ease congestion in Linkfield Road due to it's narrowness, as when two or more vehicles meet it is very difficult for them to pass each other.  The current works in St John's Road & the crazy diversion scheme put in place have only made this situation worse. Again, presumably, these yellow lines would not be in force in the evenings/weekends, so do not present a solution.  For many years now we believe Linkfield Road should be made one way.  Now that Amhurst Gardens has been made one way (due to the St John's Road works diversion) & from what we understand, is to remain one way, it adds weight to the argument that Linkfield Road should be a one way street in the opposite direction to Amhurst. I couldn't find anything on Linkfield Road CPZ when I Googled, but I did find some contact details for Hounslow regarding CPZs which might be helpful if anyone wishes to contact the council about this or any other proposed CPZ:Traffic SectionCivic CentreLampton RoadHounslowTW3 4DNTel: 020 8583 2000E-mail: traffic@hounslow.gov.uk

Lynn Clark ● 6643d27 Comments

JonathanThe honest answer to your question is that we called the meeting because we believed that we had not enjoyed the level of co-operation, nor had there been the co-ordination between the various parties involved, which we felt we were entitled to expect as ward councillors.This frankly is a hangover from the last administration, which had an entirely different understanding of the concept of consultation.  Officers and their departments are getting used to the new culture, but it is going to take time to permeate completely through the whole organisation and some get the message more easily - and more willingly - than others.It occurred to us that if we are going to be expected to take political responsibility for things which were happening in our own wards, then we would appreciate an input into what was going on and at the very least to be given some information about what officers were doing.  It is disconcerting for a councillor to find out about a CPZ consultation in his own ward from a poster displayed in a shop window.  Therefore we decided we would seize ownership of the process.I hope you'll be able to get along on Monday and give us your views.

Phil Andrews ● 6637d

Dear Phil,Thank you very much for your swift and helpful response. You are indeed correct in your assumption that I live in Syon ward and I have since emailed the relevant councillors.I have never thought of myself as a conspiracy theorist, then I met the council officers at the consultation meeting!!While I'm here, might I ask you what precipitated this meeting?Thank you again for the speedy and informed response.

Jonathan Snape ● 6637d

JonathanI'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.Regarding "early indications suggesting the result may not go in the council's favour".  I have often been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but seldom a conspirator.  There is no "council's favour" as far as the ward councillors are concerned.  If people don't want what is being proposed, it won't happen.  The purpose of the meeting is to give people a chance to ask questions of officers and councillors, and for us to form a better view ourselves of what local people want.  The meeting has been organised by councillors, not by the officers who are consulting over the proposals.  They are two entirely different and separate processes, and nothing which happens at the meeting will interfere with the voting process which accompanied the consultation.  I hope this puts your mind at rest.With regard to your itemised questions: a) I am guessing from the timing involved that you are in Syon ward.  This being the case your ward councillors are Caroline Andrews, Shirley Fisher and Jon Hardy.  If I am wrong and you are in Isleworth ward the councillors are Paul Fisher, Dr. Genevieve Hibbs and myself.The relevant Executive Lead Member is Councillor Barbara Reid.b) We have tried to kill many birds with one stone (if my vegetarian daughter will permit me to use such a term) by using this meeting to discuss several issues which are relevant to Isleworth at the present.  Sadly there are some who would disagree with you that the proposed St. John's CPZ is the main issue.  I guess it is all a question of where you live and what affects you most.There will be a number of agenda items under which we will take each issue separately.  These will include the proposed South Street CPZ, the Worple Road 20 m.p.h. scheme, the Old Isleworth 20 m.p.h. scheme, and the St. John's Road bridge, as well as of course the St. John's CPZ.  There will be an opportunity to discuss each of these issues separately and we'll do our very best to organise it so as to ensure that each of them receives due attention.Hope this helps.

Phil Andrews ● 6637d

Well,clearly someone has been listening. We received a flyer through the letterbox last night telling us about the meeting.  What strikes me as odd, however, is that during part of the conusltation exercise at the St John's Centre last Saturday, it was clear that there is a great deal of opposition to this proposal and the answer such objections received was "well vote 'no' then". Why therefore is there a need to have another meeting? Democracy is at work, with the voting underway, are early indications suggesting the result may not go in the council's favour?Two further and quick questions for Phil:a) Who is the best councillor / representative to contact for some further information regarding the CPZ (I tried the traffic department but still await a reply more than a week later, and there appear to be 3 councillors for our ward)?b) You mention "other traffic issues to be dicussed". Could you allay my fear that we are about to have a meeting where the main and most pressing issue is side-lined by such "other issues"?Thank you in advance

Jonathan Snape ● 6637d

LOL.  Yes, I think we will take your advice next time - or just organise the meetings at longer notice.  However I think one has to accept that there are those who will criticise regardless of how much one tries to do to help.  I'm afraid it comes with the territory.

Phil Andrews ● 6638d

Phil, are you after a sainthood? I wouldn't be able to have your patience.It is very difficult to inform the public of anything these days without a significant amount of cost. One suggestion I would make is that in any postings or leaflets you point out that the notice period is short and ask anybody reading it to pass on the information. That way the information goes 'viral' and lost more people get to hear about it than the initial readers.Not sure how Jim works out that 1 in a 1,000 people read the Brentford forum. That would suggest that only 35 or so people actually look at it. There must be at least 500 or so people a week and the site newsletter goes to over a thousand which in household terms would be about 5% of the population. The problem in this specific instance is that the tendency would be for most of these to be specifically Brentford residents and the proportion would be lower in the Linkfield Road area.

Justin Harris ● 6638d

"Tom's message at 1pm today quizzing Phil's announcement of a 'Public Meeting' seem to me to be reasonably fair...and calmish.  Phil then uncharacteristically responded over- zealously using the term "Mr Angry"!JimTom's comments were indeed fair, and they were also most welcome.  We in the Community Group promote the concept of participation, but we don't pretend to have got it entirely right.  I am grateful for Tom's observations and we will certainly take them on board, hopefully with a view to making sure that we get it right next time.I still remain shocked by the ferocity of Tom's attack.  Because Tom knows me, and because we have worked well and constructively together in the past, I am very disappointed that he should think for one moment that I would have anything to do with the organisation of a meeting which had any kind of cynical intent.  I stood for election to rid Isleworth of this kind of thing.I hope that Tom will be free to attend the meeting on Monday, short notice notwithstanding, and I look forward to answering to the best of my ability any questions which he might wish to raise.

Phil Andrews ● 6639d

Another forum flare up starts again!!Tom's message at 1pm today quizzing Phil's announcement of a "Public Meeting" seem to me to be reasonably fair...and calmish.  Phil then uncharacteristically responded over- zealously using the term "Mr Angry"!Well there may be a history of such exchanges..but on this occasion I feel that Cllr Phil should have responded more amicably..and less like a counter attack!  Well that's my view.If Phil had perhaps used words like.."we have hastily arranged an Open Meeting to discuss a flurry of correspondence on local traffic matters and apologies for the short notice..and pass the word around please" or something like that..then perhaps the spat wouldn't have escalated.7 days does seem like short notice for calling a Public Meeting..but it's a Emergency matter and if an explanation is given..then there certainly should no ridiculous outbursts from residents.A question is..how can meetings like that be publised if every citizen in the Isleworth ward is to be welcome?  1)This Brentford Forum is only read by one in one thousand people (yes 1 in 1000!) in the area.2)Should people be watching the TW8 Forum for their news?3)Or the ICG website (defunct?)4)Local Council Notice Boards?5) A ICG Newsletter to each letterbox.6) Ad in the local Press?7) Ad in HM Magazine?8) Shop window ads...etc..etc etc.How are such meetings to be widely publised. It doesn't strike me as being easy to call an urgent meeting to which all are invited.Anyway..a silly splat I reckon..and it could have been avoided with more careful wording..I believe..from  Phil, whose postings I normally find tip-top and skillfully written!

Jim Lawes ● 6639d

It was indeed meant in jest but my point was that if Tom took it otherwise then he is entitled to an apology.  This forum is for conveying information and exchanging views and ideas, not personal attacks.The point I was trying to make about the meeting is that it is "extra" to the process, and that as such any inference that it has been organised with a view to keeping people away is self-evidently silly.  I accept Tom's point about notice and we'll take steps to ensure that future meetings are better advertised, however in this instance this meeting had primarily been intended as a service to those many people who wrote to us with their concerns about the proposed CPZ around South Street, and we then thought it would make sense to open it out to incorporate all the other traffic and parking issues which are live in Isleworth at the present time.  As it is not a formal council meeting we have had to use our own time and resources to get information out to the best of our ability, and the timeline has been tight.In other words it was well-intentioned but "can do better".I remain disappointed that Tom should think that we have called this meeting with some sinister intent.  The easiest thing for us to have done would have been to do nothing.

Phil Andrews ● 6639d

Its good that you can apologise Councillor Andrews but IMHO on this occasion it is beyond the call of duty. Anybody can see you were engaging in banter and I think Mr. Beaton needs to stop taking himself so seriously and maybe get out more. I think any meeting which helps get information across and informs the public is a good thing and I hope its a success.

Angi Hanson ● 6639d

The Chair and Vice-Chair know no more than I do on the issues as the Executive has chosen to make these decisions without reference to the Area Committee. I can remember when ALL Key Site 1 matters were referred to the Area Committee to allow issues such as public consultation to be addressed. That was in the days of transparency.Perhaps you could persuade your Executive colleagues to let us know what's going on before YOU decide what's good for the area?

John Connelly ● 6639d

JOhn, From where I am I think Isleworth has already been well and truly *@%**@

Vanessa Smith ● 6639d

JohnThis meeting has been organised by Councillors Paul Fisher and Jon Hardy in their capacities as Chair and Vice Chair respectively of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee.  I will be supporting it and helping them to promote it in my capacity as a ward councillor for Isleworth.  In other words completely outside of my role as a member of the Executive.None of us are ward councillors for Hounslow Central.  If you believe that Hounslow Central's councillors should organise a similar meeting in their ward to seek or convey information about the development to which you refer I would suggest you speak to them.  They are, I believe, representatives of the Labour Party.

Phil Andrews ● 6639d

TomMy first paragraph was written in jest and it was certainly not my intention to insult.  We obviously don't share the same sense of humour and I apologise if I offended you.

Phil Andrews ● 6639d

It's a pity that there is a commitment to consult the community on matters affecting Isleworth but not on major matters affecting Hounslow. The present Council executive has made major decisions affecting community facilities in Hounslow without any public consultation. Details of Phase 2 of Key Site 1 in Hounslow Town Centre are being decided soon by the Executive. No local consultation appears to be planned unlike in previous years.Is it a case of "look after our own in Isleworth and #!?* the rest of them"?

John Connelly ● 6639d

Cut the crap about "knowing you personally" and the patronising waffle surrounding it.  You clearly consider yourself the last word in character judgement.  This is a public forum and I suggest that when engaging in debate here you confine your remarks to what has actually been written.  I have made a perfectly serious point which deserves a better answer, not a personal attack.Devoting your longest paragraph to an argument about this sort of meeting not being a statutory requirement seems to me odd, to say the least.  Having decided to have it you should give a sensible notice period and take steps to publicise it (indeed, if it were a statutory requirement you would almost certainly have to give much more notice of it).  You are entirely right when you say that "...there are a lot of issues involving traffic in Isleworth right now which local people should have the right and means to discuss" and you have not explained how holding a meeting which most people don't know about will achieve that.In the circumstances your final sentence, which says "The belief that our community has a right to participate is fundamental to us as community councillors and for that we most certainly do not apologise." seems so much hot air.

Tom Beaton ● 6639d

TomI have the good fortune of knowing you personally and I know what a likeable chap you really are, but had this not been the case I think from your internet persona I would have you down as a perpetual Mr. Angry whom I would seek to avoid on dark nights!!!Seriously though, the meeting has been organised at short notice by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Area Committee, with the support and assistance of the ward councillors for Isleworth and Syon, precisely because we feel there are a lot of issues involving traffic in Isleworth right now which local people should have the right and means to discuss.Holding such a meeting is not a statutory requirement, it is in fact quite unusual and reflects our determination as community councillors to engage with the community which elected us as much as possible on issues about which there appears to be some strength of feeling.  Indeed we were advised by officers against organising such a meeting, their preference being for a cosy chat with councillors without a public presence of any kind (i.e. the old administration's way of doing business), but we were determined to proceed with it nevertheless.Yes, I accept that the notice period could have been better but we felt there was sufficient urgency about many of these matters to justify getting them resolved sooner rather than later.  We recognise that the down side of this is that there will be some who cannot attend and for that I apologise.  However to suggest that the motive for such a meeting is "cynical" is unfair and ludicrously wide of the mark.The belief that our community has a right to participate is fundamental to us as community councillors and for that we most certainly do not apologise.

Phil Andrews ● 6639d

When did they call this meeting and why do they consider less than a week is sufficient notice (and thats just for those of us who happen to have come across a reference to it).  Most people in the area will only know about it after it has taken place.I try not to be cynical about local politicians, but if you are serious about having a public meeting one of the prerequisites is that you take steps well in advance to publicise it.  Otherwise it seems only to fulfil the function of enabling you to claim afterwards that you had a public meeting.

Tom Beaton ● 6639d

Yes, it does look rather a mess!  Hope they can stick to the 8 week deadline.

Lynn Clark ● 6639d

Don't worry it's all under control!!  The notice board at the site says work will finish in May 2007..that's in 8 weeks time.Pictures taken on Monday ..36 hours ago.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOh dear!

Jim Lawes ● 6640d

Great, thanks for letting us know Phil.  I will pass the info. on to my mum.

Lynn Clark ● 6640d

The Chair and Vice Chair of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee have called a Public Meeting to discuss all traffic and parking issues around Isleworth.It will take place at Isleworth Public Hall on Monday, 2nd April 2007.  Doors open 7.00 pm for 7.15 pm start.Councillors and officers will be available to take questions, and we hope that as many local people as possible will be able to attend.

Phil Andrews ● 6640d

I have been told by a family member that there is now no end date for the St John's Road works, as the people concerned have said they will not commit to when they can finish the work?(P.S. sorry about the text that has now turned green in my original posting!)

Lynn Clark ● 6640d

I asked this on another thread sometime ago - apparently the works to the bridge are going to run into June! Are we surprised? There was some old nonsense about finding unexpected utility services that weren't expected - as if, just another excuse for a cock-up I feel. Meanwhile here in our part of Isleworth we are coming out in lots of bumps to enforce a 20 mile an hour speed limit, not to mention the increase in engine emissions everytime you stop to go over the bump and then accelerate off, God save us from spaced out traffic engineers, people who inhabit other planets or what...... The Sunday Times had a bit about their new "vision" for streets of the future, it always worries me when people start talking visions, more so in the case of people who deal with traffic.

Vanessa Smith ● 6640d

Replying to my own posting, I looked up the stuff from the original timescale posting :<<>>>Mid May for 6 months according to the CouncilUntil Feb 2007 according to TfLIsn't it April next week ?

Tim Henderson ● 6642d

Speaking about the St. John's Road diversion, does anyone know how it is getting on ? Isn't time up ?And if the one way systems may become permanent, shouldn't there be another consultation ?

Tim Henderson ● 6643d

Lynn,Yes Linkfield Road is an impassable sort of Road..and I rarely venture down there for fear of getting stuck/trapped.A CPZ is likely to reduce the number of parking places drastically..and there seems no space in front of the terraced houses for drive-ins.So, a one-way system would seem to be a good option..but bumps might be very necessary o control the speed of those racing cars!!  But bumps are a nuisance and reduce motoring enjoyment.

Jim Lawes ● 6643d