Forum Topic

How LBH manipulates us

This just takes the biscuit.Residents in Grosvenor Road have today received a letter from Hounslows Regeneration Development and Environment dept informing them that they will be included along with Ealing road in the proposed creeping CPZ.The letter comes complete with a detailed map.However the letter claims that inclusion is due to petitions being received in favour of inclusion.Indeed a petition is being compiled but is by no means complete and has not yet been submitted.So how does a fully detailed plan get circulated on a monday without any mandate from residents?It just underlines that the whole method setting street against street with this creeping CPZ is clearly a planned agenda to impose the overpriced scheme on all of us and the consultation is simple a pretence.Maybe our councillors or officers can answer this.Just how does a CPZ plan get completed before the number of streets included is known.Do they also know next saturdays football results or the lottery numbers too?

Raymond Havelock ● 4369d26 Comments

ooops, posted this on the wrong thread (was supposed to be in relation to the Brook Road South CPZ).  Sorry.

Darren Cushway ● 4325d

I received a reply from Matt Harmer.My concerns were specifically about Mafeking Ave, which in my opinion will be impacted by the CPZ proposal more severely than the other streets (as it will simply become and giant car park, per Whitestile Road when their CPZ was introduced). He said that he was surprised about the decision by Mafeking residents during consultation, He was aware that there is a petition to reduce the hours and said that we need to consult on the decision.  I was impressed that he replied. Thanks Matt.Meanwhile, I have no idea why someone in the council can’t just use common sense to resolve all this?

Darren Cushway ● 4325d

It's up to her but she uses her maiden name. She hates this forum stuff! Not for her at all. But I know she reads it as she lets me know whenever i'm away and not online!

Raymond Havelock ● 4325d

I guess we'll never know then, unless Mrs H wishes to share.

Guy Lambert ● 4325d

Sorry for late reply. That is a matter for her. According to a letter from our MP.  Councillors and MPs  are not allowed to disclose contacts to third parties including party workers.

Raymond Havelock ● 4326d

Absolutely right. It is just a creeping council disease called "Screw the residents cos they're here to stay"

Ian Silver ● 4326d

Well, let's face it, first you cause a problem with over development. Then you introduce CPZs in as many streets as possible knowing full well this will cause a problem in the streets that don't have a CPZ. Having now caused chaos in the streets that don't have a CPZ you hold a ballot asking everyone would they like one. Oh, and just to be safe you get to count the votes and tell everyone the outcome. Well call me a cynic if you like but just watch your hard earned money being sucked in by this Council who will tell you they have to spend all this extra money on the roads and footpaths but what happens to the interest this money earns Take a look at the roads in Brentford - its not being spent here.

Robert Ayres ● 4326d

Raymond - which councillor did your wife contact?

Guy Lambert ● 4361d

Someone asked if local councillors have been contacted.Well, my wife has done so and 3 weeks later still no response.She has had a very good reply from a council officer, who also points out that the charges, permit restrictions and the incredible cost for carers permits are all down to councillors and their 'policy'.Anyone else had any sort of response?

Raymond Havelock ● 4361d

I agree Alex.It is inevitable and it is is a shame that the problem has been caused by complete failure by the local authorities and politicians past and present who have put party policies above local concerns and it's residents.The problem now is to ensure that we all as residents have some degree of control.We do not want to be conned or renaged on like residents in Ealing have where permits have increased by 300% in 3 years and hard negotiated terms and conditions agreed and retified by the the then conservative administration were torn up by the following Labour administration.Noe it is in the hands of Serco who are pressuring Ealing and no doubt Hounslow and Brent for very significant increases in permits, visitor permits and car parking fees.Clearly CPZs are profitable ( which they are not supposed to be) as the likes of Serco would not be interested.LBH, Serco, Almex and others all do very well out of operating parking schemes but residents pay way over the odds for permits and visitor permits.Yet the frontline staff are paid poorly and are bullied and under huge pressure to meet 'secret quotas'. All well documented but to date unaddressed issues.We need written in stone assurances that the costs will not be continually reviewed and increased, that residents have the right to demand a review and disbandment or alteration of the scheme by consultation should circumstances change or the zone not work well enough.We do not want an unanswerable regime like Hounslow's Housing Planning and Regeneration who are pushing bizarre charges onto council rents plus a £2 and charging VAT on items that are VAT exempt in other boroughs.But any questions queries or challenges are met with a wall of silence.Residents need a say on the type of scheme, it's charges and it's policies.Ealing had a panel of non political residents on each CPZ zone to advise the officers on the areas only they know best. This worked very well until Labour came along and walked all over this very democratic method.I not that the silence from local councillors, potential councillors and other parties has been rather silent.In fact I  noticed that the last and only circular ( from Labour) headlined Local Issues only addressed energy costs. Hardly a local issue, it affects the entire nation.This is a local issue, and if we have to have it we have to make sure it is the best possible scheme for the benefit of the majority of residents and is protected from those who wish to extract as much revenue from residents as they can find ways to do.

Anthony Waller ● 4361d

Well, one of the issues is that different roads are affected by non-residents more than others. The residents of streets that are affected most support CPZ, residents of other streets don’t. The majority is originally with the latter. The only way to help residents of the most affected streets allegedly is to implement CPZ just for them. As you rightfully pointed out, this moves the problem further – to streets that did not suffer too bad before. Their residents, who originally opposed CPZ, now start to (reluctantly) support it. And the ball keeps rolling.This is exactly what is going on in Griffin Park: it started from Hamilton Road. Now there is support from the streets close to Hamilton Road and the new developments of GWQ. The residents from more remote streets are still opposing CPZ.This logic really means that eventually there is no alternative to CPZ. Sooner or later…

Alex Shpinkov ● 4361d

...which is exactly the point I've been trying to make.It is simply nuts to do CPZs in this way. And the CPZ solution being offered is costing residents not the perpetrators of the problem.The problem simply gets moved to the next road and the next road and on and on.Hounslow know this and know that this is a very good way of forcing all streets into a CPZ . By using Divide and Rule as the tactic. So ultimately the only answer can be yes.One example of how far this can roll is Ascott Avenue near Gunnersbury Park which is by foot nearly a mile from three tube stations.This road is now almost impassable during the day.  A few years ago pre CPZ it was empty.It's less of a problem as the non CPZ section is also clear of houses but it is now a congestion hotspot and shows just how far commuters will walk.The problem here in St Paul's/Griffin Park is a mix of commuters, local workers, long term parkers for LHR and new high density developments with a mix of inadequate parking and unaffordable parking clauses, which is an issue that needs to be dealt with by governments in how these developments get away with such things. In North Brentford, it differs a little but it is more one source, GSK.It might be remembered that the biggest parking issue here during the day is caused by GSK who have a much smaller range of parking facilities -65% less than the had when they were on the Beecham House site and also occupied several other Brentford sites.It was John Prescott and the then 'New Labour' who denied them an adequate sized car park at Boston Manor and thus shifted the problem straight into residents of North and Central Brentford overnight. And with politics being politics, the then Labour council simply rolled over and purred rather than put a case based on logic and pragmatism.All they were interested in was section 106 money which brought a welcome station refurbishment some fancy lamposts for Boston Manor road and a fantastic 16 min fast train to WaterlooWithin a decade, the hugely popular and only fast train to central London is a distant memory and the fancy lamp posts are about to be replaced by the sub standard reject columns supplied as part of a rather iffy PFI deal.Really GSK ought to be financing and subsidising residents permits and claiming it against tax - like they do for most other expenditure.Some councils have become very tough about this, like Greenwich who insist on 2 spaces per 1, 2and 3 apartments and 1 space per studio apartment.So if they can do it why not here?

Anthony Waller ● 4362d

Whitestile Road residents have been sent another CPZ consultation following a previous "No" vote last year. This resulted in Whitestile being excluded from the North Brentford CPZ, which provides part time restrictions on Enfield Road, Avenue Road, Grove Road and Eastbourne. As a consequnce Whitestile - which has always been problematic for parking - is now the sole, unofficial spillover car park for GSK and other local businesses. It is impossible to find a parking space on our street during working hours, which is a problem for young families and people working from home. This is why I will be voting Yes for CPZ, regardless of the arguments against it!

Mary A O'Hanlon ● 4362d

I reluctantly work from home much of the time now. The streets are not deserted but they are not full either.To say I can park outside my house every time would not be the case either.But in the same street?  Yes. But it is not as easy as it was. More or less to the day that the Hamilton Road scheme started, it became much busier.But the problem for the vast majority of residents is in the evening and at night.If you run a business from ypur home you are (or will be) liable to pay for a business parking permit. If you are employed and your employer designates you for working from home and claim the tax rebates for this or pay you for the use of your home they are responsible for your permit as business use.All this information is now being compiled by the councils revenue contractors in Halifax.Some boroughs now charge business rates as well if you work from home.

Anthony Waller ● 4366d

Apologies if this is a repeat but my original response seems to have gone astray.The roads around Griffin Park are definitely not empty during the day. I work from home part of the week and if I have to move the car during the day it can be very difficult to re-park it even in mid-afternoon - nearly 20 minutes the other day.  Please do not be quite so dismissive about those of us who are here during the day, we are also trying to earn a bob or two, but without the luxury of a works car park.

Caroline Hawkins ● 4367d

I would second that Caroline. There are no empty streets during the day, you are lucky to find a place to park in your street in daytime.

Alex Shpinkov ● 4367d

"Empty streets during the day when most are out at work benefits just a very few"I can assure you there are almost no empty streets during the day - except of course Hamilton Road.  I work from home part of the week and if you move your car during the day you can expect a struggle to re-park it.  The search for a parking space took me 20 minutes last week, not good when I am supposed to be at my desk.

Caroline Hawkins ● 4367d

Ferry Quays has one space per household.I don't know where you get your story that 45% is not occupied full time. That's not my experience living here but perhaps you have proper research (as apparently you do about what councillors think, apparently without talking to them)

Guy Lambert ● 4367d

The councillors have made thier views very clear. They will stay out of it. Choosing instead to liase with officers instead.Ferry Keys does have decent parking partly because 45% of the place is not occupied full time.Other developments have a 1.5 car per household. Some less than that but they make charges to park on top of the lease for it. Most cannot afford it so park elsewhere. Some also forbid light vans..For houses, the requirement is for 2 cars to be contained within the boundary, but for apartments the figure becomes a fraction which is far harder to realise physically.

Anthony Waller ● 4367d

"Have you actually contacted an existing councillor?"I'll take that as a no, then.Incidentally, I don't know what the parking ratios are in new developments but it's quite notable in Ferry Quays that a good proportion (15-20%?) of the parking provided here is not used.

Guy Lambert ● 4368d

Just come home and seen the map and the letter. Very strange as I was talking to someone just yesterday and heard of a few petitions.Amazing how fast some things happen whilst it takes two years to fix a gate on the children's playground !!!I do agree that there ought to be some way of preventing overnight parking from  residents of the new developments, this does seem to be starting to happen and it won't be fair if permit paying residents still cannot get parked because the spaces are taken by non permit residents from outside of the block.The way though, that this is being driven through is not good. It was always bad to set street against street and not ensure that the street that screamed for a CPZ actually pay for permits and park in their own street which far too many do not. Eh Les? !!Part of that though, is policy which is down to councillors, like the ridiculous charges for carers, and visitors permits which ought to be free or at least at very low cost, as should be permits for the over 75's.All of this is within the remit of councillors but as ever they sit on the fence and say nothing, irrespective of party colours.And they wonder why so few bother to vote.

Anthony Waller ● 4368d

The trouble is that our councillors have sat on the fence on this issue and let things fester.They should have objected to a street by street system and not allowed residents who live in a permit street to avoid purchasing a permit by parking their car or in many cases their second car in non permit streets thereby escalating the problem.A full zone with the right hours is probably the only way this will benefit the majority of residents.Everyone living in the Griffin Park/St Pauls rec area knows it is in the evening and night that it is impossible to park easily if at all within reasonable distance of one's home. With nearly 4000 new arrivals in the next 9 months with minimal parking for just a fraction of that figure, parking 'over the road will be their key option.Overnight parking from outside the 'zone' will leave those paying for permits with a bigger problem than now and they (we) will all be paying while they won't.So one of the hours needs to be in the evening.Empty streets during the day when most are out at work benefits just a very few.If we must have a CPZ then it needs to benefit the maximum amount of residents who reside within it's boundary.

Raymond Havelock ● 4368d

Have you actually contacted an existing councillor?CPZs make emotions fly (I was told by a resident that I was mentally subnormal for opposing one in Chiswick when I lived there!) and I suspect they are a tricky issue for councillors.At least make your views known and find out where the cllr stands on the issue.

Guy Lambert ● 4368d

I meant enough councillors to have weight on the council.. probably more than 10.. so then the main parties would have to listen. Seeing as this won't actually happen, I guess I'll either have to make the best of it, or move house.

Mark Gormley ● 4368d

"and elect enough councillors to establish a big enough anti-CPZ group on the council to have some influence."Nice thought but main party Councillors will turn their backs on you, once elected, if you ask them to go against the 'party line'

Steve Taylor ● 4368d

New Road got letters with the survey results. 13 in favour of CPZ, 12 (including me) against- so we get one. I guess the only way to stop them is to gather together and elect enough councillors to establish a big enough anti-CPZ group on the council to have some influence. Not ranting on a forum.What I'd like to know is whether the permits will be on a road-by-road basis, or if there will be a sort of Griffin Park zone. A permit which will only allow me to park in this street won't actually be a lot of use, as there is only space on one side.

Mark Gormley ● 4369d