Forum Topic

Sorry but comparing your rationale to that of the previous poster I wonder if you are in the same dimension.So we are to have a six day 09-30 to 17-30 CPZ because of Holidaymakers?What?A 1 hour a week scheme would be enough to see them away.How will a CPZ that stops between 17-30 and 09-30 stop people from outside the zone . Stop them parking? How?  Do pray tell.  If they, like most people come home between 6 and 7 and leave for work between 7 and 9, how will this CPZ stop them?If they leave after 09.30 and return home before 17.30 then they are not working a 40 hour week. They will like most of us come home at 6 or 7 and be gone well before 09.30A 1 hour scheme in Hamilton road proves beyond doubt that it deters all day commuters.What on earth is wrong with having visitors?  Do you have visitors?  It's what people do in normal life.Virtually all boroughs now adopt a 1 or 2 hour scheme.They are much cheaper to operate as staffing can be utilised across a range of differing zones. It means that they can be enforced effectively during their active hours.There is nothing complex about a two hour zone. It works and works very well which is why it is now the norm form most CPZs.Unless you have a fixation about people having visitors, or carers or child minders.Incidently. Most 2 hour zones in almost all outer London Boroughs are much cheaper for a permit. Ealing 2 hour zones are 50% cheaper than their few remaining full zones.Not in this borough though.

Raymond Havelock ● 4326d

«It's pretty much the same everywhere round here and the proposed CPZ will not make that any different.»Once again I have to disagree with this. As I wrote above, here is who the main non-resident parkers are, and how I think will happen, reducing competition for parking:1. Holiday makers: CPZ will stop them2. Residents of new developments (and others living outside the proposed CPZ but preferring to park around Griffin Park) who park not just between 5:30pm and 9:30 am: CPZ will stop them.3. Residents of new developments (and others living outside the proposed CPZ but preferring to park around Griffin Park) who park only between 5:30pm and 9:30 am: They will need to make sure they leave before 9:30am and come no earlier than 5:30pm... They will need to find where to park on Saturdays... So even for them, I think some will seek alternatives, so CPZ will partially stop them; however, I do appreciate that there will be a certain number of such parkers (although less than now) who will continue to be parked within the CPZ during the night hours. How many of this category will continue parking during the night is unclear, but don’t think 100%.4. Commuters and day time visitors (One car is regularly noticed parking in Braemar Road in the morning, then the driver gets a bike from the car and cycles away. In the afternoon he returns, loads his bike in the car and drives away). CPZ will stop this day time parking. As for the complex 2-hour CPZ versus the current 6 day full-time proposal… I personally do not see much benefit in the complex option. It will be just more difficult to administer.

Alex Shpinkov ● 4326d

To answer Caroline's question and probably a few others. No. There is no special agenda for Grosvenor road that is any different to that of the other streets.It happens all the time, often with impatient drivers reversing at speed back out. There a few walls in Brook Road that bear testimony to that!The problems with parking differ slightly from one end of the proposed Zone eg. the Hamilton Road end, to the other. Fundamentally, the problems are the same.In Grosvenor road we get later all day commuters but relatively few. We get local workers. We get social workers and Brentford FC community  people.Most park for a few hours during the day.It varies a bit. Some days it's choccer and some days, rarely, almost deserted.At night it is a different story. I work nights a lot so come home late. When I work nights I use the car because of the lack of public transport.Over the last 10 years I have spent up to 40 mins looking to park and have spent around 45 days a year staying at my parents instead.If you are not home by 7pm here then it's difficult.It's pretty much the same everywhere round here and the proposed CPZ will not make that any different.No proper survey has been carried out on whom parks where. A lot is supposition and hearsay.  There is though, an element of truth in a few examples.The only survey I have heard of was carried out by L.B. Hounslow in support of the building on the garage sites in Brook road and Lateward road.Quite unbelievably, a council officer claimed that there was an abundance of parking in the area at night and in particular Lateward road.I later found that the survey was conducted at 5pm in the winter. Dark, so it must be night time!Some of the problems mentioned are parking by residents from outside the neighbourhood.Mafeking Ave is currently totally against any CPZ and it's not difficult to see why.They are like most dwellings around here, with limited width. But unlike most other streets, Mafeking has a lot of maisionettes so a far higher proportion of cars per house - not per household. Naturally, they know that even with a permit, residents still won't be able to guarantee parking in their street.  Thus feeling that they would be paying for something they won't get.Quite where they will park in future in daytime is anyone's guess but they will still be able to park anywhere in the zone after 5.30But they are part of the neigbourhood so is it fair to grumble about them parking in adjoining streets?In the last few weeks, things have changed. In Albany Road, Brook Road and Grosvenor, there are far more vehicular movements and parking than normal.Last week I discovered why.  I've posted pictures below which I hope work.The Albany Parade car park now has a tough and expensive parking regime. Consequently, it is now deserted all day, every day. Another act of wisdom.It has a free half hour but no clear signage. It must be with a machine issued ticket. I spoke with all the businesses, some have lost nearly 70% of trade in just 3 weeks. They have lobbied MPs and Councillors and even the Mayor for just 2 simple changes. One hour free and clear signage, stating such.Much of the longer term parking, which is local workers, and residents visitors are now parking in the next streets for free and the sharp increase in movements are those who do still use the shops and cafes. Not the best utilisation for a car park in a crowded vicinity. Any business though, that involves a short wait, like getting keys cut in the hardware shop etc. have been walloped, and nearby residents now have a lot of extra traffic movements in residential streets.All wholly unnecessary and probably now losing revenue.Was this orchestrated to push residents into a CPZ?  Is it beneficial to residents and small local businesses? So whilst residents in Grosvenor road have mobilised, it is not against the CPZ per say. We have recognised that the problem is not going to get better for all the streets, not just this one.But it's pretty clear that this has just not been fully thought out and not enough has been done to address the real problems. A big stick is not needed. Just a more inclusive pragmatic solution.Aspects of the design of the zone are a huge improvement on the last version of 10 years ago. Getting the timing right and making the CPZ as least invasive to residents whilst bringing the benefit is almost within grasp. But not with the hours councillors voted through without question.The reaction is against a set of hours that will cause a lot of damage socially, especially to those who do not have a car, are elderly and housebound and rely on visits. We believe very strongly that a two hour scheme, the majority choice by the whole of the consulted area is far better than the 6 day full hours pushed through without debate and questions unanswered. Careful choice of those 2 hours can have a far better impact and benefit for all residents within the zone in a much fairer way whether one has a vehicle or not.The council did not really attempt to provide any rationale for their selection of hours and not surprisingly, whilst most opted for a two hour scheme, there was no guidance on which hour and why. What we do know is that the hour scheme in Hamilton road has had the desired effect and indicates that that 1 hour alone can be vey effective.I looked at several CPZ schemes in several boroughs with similar terraced streets. Some were so draconian that the streets are clear of vehicles but socially it has suffered.But some had good two hours schemes.After some discussion we have proposed that the second hour is from 18.30 to 19.30.This is to give residents a fair chance to park in their own streets and will also deter away fans for weekday matches.Personally, One does not move here without accepting that there is a football club as a neighbour, but clearly it is a big bugbear for many.We also think that saturdays only need a 1 hour ban on matchdays. Who else would park here on a non matchday saturday? friends, relations and residents visitors.  Otherwise it comes out of your pockets, are you going to charge your visitors to park?So we think the decision is wrong. Only 37% of all households responded, yet all will be financially penalised and affected one way or another.That is not really a mandate to do anything, but for those who did, it should be the fine tuning and honor the majority who wanted a 2 hour scheme.The best option did not get presented and considered which is why we have started a petition and urge all local residents to have a think and voice their concerns.The petition is online at the following link:http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/grosvenorcpzpetitionWe also have an email and welcome suggestions, help and will try to answer and concerns or questions. We really are trying to this by residents for all residents. email is BrentfordparkingTW8@gmx.co.ukThank you[IMG]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w258/ropeyalternator/albanycarpark2_zps57d4a893.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w258/ropeyalternator/AlbanyCarparkonsaturdaynoon_zpseac792d4.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w258/ropeyalternator/albanycarparkfarce_zps7ad2ac1f.jpg[/IMG]

Mark Kehoe ● 4326d

Because this has not really been discussed and a proper public meeting for affected and possibly affected residents not held. One was held in the past by former councillor Val Lamey and when all was revealed in detail it was overwhelmingly rejected. In part because of too many restrictions and inflexibility.There are improvements in the detail. What is wrong are the hours.This has been rushed without proper detail, the majority is divided on technicalities but not on basic choice - that of two hours.  The problem is which two hours and it cannot take the brains of ~Hounslow to work out the best two hours surely?The proposal by Grosvenor road residents seems to have addressed that and after it being explained to me last night I see how their proposed times could be universally benificial for the whole zone.  It is to be commended.Mafeking ave chose to opt out but like the other original opt out roads, did not expect this full 6 day zone.They already have the worst problem being that they have 2 vehicles per building - not  per household and thus have less space than other streets to park already .Most cars are the length of a house width and most houses in Mafeking are, in fact, maisionettes. Thus more residents vehicles than road spaceAnd as a local has researched this a bit more, it is more likely that it is Mafeking Ave residents who park in surrounding streets because of their existing level of resident overcrowding.If Mafeking Ave come into the CPZ ( which is probably inevitable ) they will have the right as they do now to park wherever they can. ie in other streets .

Anthony Waller ● 4329d

Too few charging points for electric cars within London ? - there seems to be plenty spread around the capital but it is rare to actually see an electric car being charged at the points.  For example I've never seen a car being charged at either the charging point within Brentford Fountain Leisure Centre car park, or within the car park serving Albany Parade.In my view the problem with electric vehicles at the moment is that the technology isn't up to speed with the availability of charging points, once electric vehicles can travel further distances on a single charge etc. I expect more drivers to change over.I also think if push came to shove the vast majority of the population within London could cope without a car of their own, especially in this age of car clubs, vehicle sharing schemes and such like.  Admittedly I wouldn't personally want to be without a car, but in the past I've managed perfectly well for a couple of months when I've been without a car, and bar the occasional inconvenience I find public transport within the capital very good at all times of the day and night (perhaps because I was brought up in the middle of nowhere).  I know plenty of people of all ages who cope perfectly well without a car in London (and equally know of some people who have to be dragged out of their cars kicking and screaming before using public transport).Furthermore I've never lived anywhere where I cannot park my car off-street, as that has always been one of my essential criteria when choosing a place to live.  My Mrs. often points out a house and says "I'd like to live there" and my immediate response is "where would I park the car ?".Equally one of my biggest moans at Holland Gardens is that it was built at a time when cycle parking standards weren't as high/necessary as they are now, which deters residents from buying/using cycles as they have to store them within their own flats, which also leads to unsightly/cluttered balconies etc.  Fortunately cycle parking standards within new developments are now far higher than 10-15 years ago.The fact car owners pay road fund tax and insurance doesn't correlate to any kind of 'right' to being able to park so I don't quite get that point.

Adam Beamish ● 4332d

Alex, You do not know any more than anyone else does as no survey has been carried out to see who parks what where, when or why.Ten years ago there was a survey and the loss of over 80 places in the the CPZ and I do still have the official drawings left a shortfall of 46 qualifying permit holders without a space.The present design shows marked spaces. So what if you have a van or 4WD that is overlength?  What if you have a Smartcar?  It won't work. In any case it is breach of Conservation area criteria which recommends minimal markings and street furnishings.In fact parking here has been less difficult than it was 10 years ago, probably because public transport has improved so much in that time. But you are right in that it is starting to get worse and it is probably from new developments but more likely still commuters who increasingly do flexi hours and those who travel and leave cars for days on end, who cannot park near stations. Then again why shouldn't they. What do you do if you have to travel on business or commute?No-one not even LBH know how many cars/vans are owned by residents.What do you mean by " Currently there is a certain number of cars (including residents who will remain eligible to park within CPZ, " isn't that stating the obvious?We do know that far fewer households in Hamilton road have purchased permits than have cars. I know personally one household with two cars and neither vehicles have a permit, primarily because they are always at work during the enforcement time.You are right in that a full zone will redress this. Things will revert to how they were.However, six days a week 9.30 to 5.30 is way over the top and hugely restrictive to all residents not just car owners.It is also costly to all residents not just car owners.A two hour scheme with carefully chosen timings could be equally if not more effective and Saturdays only need matchdays.The vast majority voted for a two hour scheme but chose differing hours.That should have been filtered down to the optimum two hours and not going with the minority.

Anthony Waller ● 4332d

I often read comments, both on this forum and with planning application representations, regarding insufficient off street parking provision within new developments, and based on my own personal experience it's not something I agree with.At Holland Gardens there's effectively 1 parking space per flat, and in 12 years of living there I have never once see the car park which serves my building full, regardless of the time of day or night, and some of the flats are occupied by people without cars so the spaces are permanently vacant.  Visitor parking provision at the entrance (3 spaces) is pathetic, but this only leads to occasional, short-term silly parking within the development itself, and if I ever have anyone staying for any length of time with a car they can usually park that car within one of the unused spaces within the underground car park.Ultimately it all comes down to personal choice, and to me common sense dictates that if you are looking to move in somewhere and you must have a car, then you are not going to choose somewhere which doesn't have off-street parking.  As Alex says, if the area within/near to a development is part of a CPZ, and residents of the development can't apply for/obtain an on-street permit (as is par for the course now whenever a new development is approved), then regardless of the hours of operation of that CPZ it makes people think twice about whether or not to move in, because effectively many aspects of their day to day life will be controlled by the parking restrictions.

Adam Beamish ● 4332d

As I can see the majority on this forum disagree with my view on the CPZ benefits; however I’ve seen very few arguments supporting this disagreement. In fact, I think I’ve seen only two:The argument that there is just not enough parking capacity to accommodate all residents needs. This does not stand: Currently there is a certain number of cars (including residents who will remain eligible to park within CPZ, and others, who will have to look for alternatives), and the parking capacity. At the end of the day, all cars get parked somewhere. So we have to admit that currently there is at least a tight equilibrium, where the number of cars does not exceed the parking capacity. Once a CPZ is introduced, the number of cars in need of parking will reduce, but the parking capacity will remain (the argument that once the parking bays are marked, the parking capacity will reduce, doesn’t stand – one can check the proposed drawing and the actual implementation in Hamilton Road. The loss of parking capacity is due to the way some people park, and the marked bays may in fact encourage some drivers to improve their parking habits).The argument about the residents of Hamilton Road who elect not to pay for the second car, but park in adjacent streets. This does not stand either: Their second car is and will still be parked within the same Griffin Park area. Once they have to pay for the parking permit, they will be able to park in Hamilton Road or other road within the CPZ. It may worsen the Hamilton Road parking, but improve the adjacent road, as the second car will be just move within the CPZ. This second car does not change the number of cars competing for parking around Griffin Park.And, finally, to reiterate the point of the reduced competition for parking once CPZ is introduced, here is who the main non-resident parkers are, and what I think will happen:1. Holiday makers: CPZ will stop them2. Residents of new developments (and others living outside the proposed CPZ but preferring to park around Griffin Park) who park not just between 5:30pm and 9:30 am: CPZ will stop them.3. Residents of new developments (and others living outside the proposed CPZ but preferring to park around Griffin Park) who park only between 5:30pm and 9:30 am: They will need to make sure they leave before 9:30am and come no earlier than 5:30pm... They will need to find where to park on Saturdays... So even for them, I think some will seek alternatives, so CPZ will partially stop them; however, I do appreciate that there will be a certain number of such parkers (although less than now) who will continue to be parked within the CPZ during the night hours. How many of this category will continue parking during the night is unclear, but don’t think 100%.4. Commuters and day time visitors (One car is regularly noticed parking in Braemar Road in the morning, then the driver gets a bike from the car and cycles away. In the afternoon he returns, loads his bike in the car and drives away). CPZ will stop this day time parking.

Alex Shpinkov ● 4333d

Have to agree,I cannot see how this scheme will achieve anything but a no go zone for visitors to residents.It will punish residents far more than the permit for their cars. It will cost a small fortune in visitors permits and surcharges for deliveries and tradesmen.Yet it will still be a free for all after 5.30.So residents inside the zone will pay heavily and residents outside will still have somewhere to park for free overnight.The two hour scheme with carefully selected timings for the latter part of the day will be equally effective in deterring the all day parking, but could also be far more effective in deterring non resident overnighters.One of those hours could be 6.30 -7.30.And all day saturday? Surely one hour on matchdays is more than sufficient.Do we really want to ban having visitors?Do we not all park at sometime in other residential streets when we visit?Are we not the problem to other residents districts at some time or other?What was apparent at the council meeting is that in both CPZs on the table, is the complete lack of initiative in dealing with the root causes.West Middlesex Hospital is to take on a vast increase in patients from the reductions at other hospitals.Patients are driven to hospitals collected and visited. There are no planned bus services to cover the changes on location for patients.Many treatments no longer require a stay in hospital but do require a responsible person meet, accompany and drive the patient home.So, no plans for adequate parking facilities at the Hospital.The money hospital parking charges make goes mainly to operating contract holders. It could contribute for a large underground car park with decent capacity.But common sense says an adequate car park for the hospital is really the solution and quite possible.The same goes for Brentford.  The root of the problems are commuters who no longer drive into London but use the much improved public transport.But quite unlike other countries, no park and ride facilities exist. The stations have no adequate or affordable parking.In other countries, commuter car parks straddle railway cuttings, easy and cheap and using space that cannot be used for anything else.Planning policy needs to be amended to not allow developments with inadequate parking but also to not be allowed to rip it's occupants off with over the top charges - and this includes so called responsible Housing Association landlords like A2Dominion who are quite appalling in their stewardship.Even now, the same problems are still being further fuelled.The Go -Ahead without question for the Brentford Football Club new site has even less parking facilities than exist at present.Not one person has answered the question. Where will away fans who travel long distances actually park?  Where are all the spaces that council officers identified actually located.If that were the case, we would not have a problem here for sure and a CPZ would be totally unnecessary.

Anthony Waller ● 4335d