|
|
The
CPZ!
It happened in Hayes. It happened in Longford. It happened
in Northwood Hills. It was going to happen in Ruislip.
It is happening in Hearthrow, Harlington and
Rickmansworth.
If
a council can get away with it it
will happen.
Those who want control need something. They do not want
a CPZ. Literally thousands of Hillingdon's
residents have so far made this clear. Never accept
imposition. You have a choice.
|
We
have overturned it. So can you. Read, Understand,
Protest! |
|
(Click
here for the above story)
|
Distrust and outrage towards the council in Northwood
Hills has come about after issuing a proposal called:
|
The Northwood
Hills Town Controlled Parking Scheme
|
| Webmaster's
foreword: This
website protest is not only the view of it's author but is
part of the Northwood Hills Campaign Against Parking Scheme.
A group of over 45 representatives from roads within the
proposal and working on behalf of the residents in those
roads and other roads that cannot choose their own representative.
It does not seek to abolish all control for the few specific
roads that need it but to stop the roads that clearly do not
need control from having it imposed. The voting results so
far show that the majority of residents in this town do not
want this scheme. The few roads that are genuinely suffering
from non resident parking pressure do not have to settle for
this poorly thought out scheme. There are alternatives.
Windsor Close and Briarwood Drive results show that they
have already voted "NO". Roads such
as these would be the first to require parking assistance
but even they still do not want this CPZ. The photographs
are examples of roads that definitely do not need any
scheme. We are not trying to deny a solution to those roads that do.
Residents of Tolcarne and similar roads suffer unique
problems and should not be grouped with the other 90 or so
roads included in the proposal. We want the council to speak
to those residents with problems and come up with a
satisfactory solution to help address their needs. Above
all, we believe the best solution to parking problems around
the immediate high street area and to encourage trade for
our local businesses, is to give this town back a car park. Thank
you. |
The
councils proposal. Short summary. (Click
here to view the full proposal)
The council will tell you that this scheme is to stop
non-residents from parking in your street.
They will tell you that cars in narrow streets are causing obstruction
to the emergency services.
They suggests that due to the introduction of congestion
charging, your roads could now be full of commuters cars who
will be using your roads as a sort of public car park and then
will walk to the tube station making residential parking
difficult.
They tell you that surveys have been carried out in the
proposed roads to proving this scheme is necessary.
They tell you that they have consulted residents throughout
the area who would like the council to implement this
proposal.
They ask you to return your vote before the effects of
congestion charging are shown (before the 3rd of February
2003) so that you will never notice if
there would have been a problem in your street.
Because of what they tell
you above, they will ask you to pay to park outside your own
house. Your friends, family and helpers will have to be planned and paid for in
advance by writing to the council for vouchers priced at
£5 for 10. If you do not you risk a £60 fine. Permits will cost
residents £20 for their first vehicle, £30
for their second, £50 for their 3rd and £100 for the
4th.
(These charges will inevitably rise over time)
The lists of charges
and inconveniences to the resident is long. Once it is with
you it will be with you for life and will only ever increase
in cost.
|
The
residents of Northwood Hills are not so gullible. They
know their own area, they know their own streets and
they know what this scheme is really about.
££££££
REVENUE ££££££
|
|
|
|
Just look above at how many
roads are included in this scheme and notice the
location of the tube station.
It would take thousands of cars to fill
these roads.
Their drivers would have to be very fit to make the
daily walk to and from the tube station.
It is unproven that a congestion
charge will cause commuters to park in your road.
Why can't we wait and see if a problem is caused by
the congestion charge?
|
Commuters would have
to pay more to park here than to drive in and pay the
congestion charge: Congestion charge £5. Return tube
ticket to Zone 1 = £7.40 (click here).
It doesn't make economic
sense!
(Commuters would
drive to Pinner, where there are at least 3 car
parks and a tube station that is one zone nearer
to London, costing less.) |
Do non-residents cause a
problem in your road?
Were you ever consulted about this proposal?
Have you seen the results of any
surveys?
(Unless
the survey team followed every driver that gets out of
their car to their ultimate destination, how can any
survey prove if they are a commuter or a resident? How
and where were these surveys carried out?)
Where are the statistics that prove these roads
obstruct the emergency services more than any other
road in the country?
Traffic Services admit that the
majority of roads in the scheme were never surveyed
and were not even in the original proposal.
The councillors simply decided to expand the
scheme!
IT IS
CLEAR TO THE RESIDENTS OF NORTHWOOD HILLS THAT THIS
SCHEME IS ABOUT REVENUE AND THAT IT IS ONLY THE
RESIDENTS THEMSELVES THAT WILL PAY THE CHARGES.
A NEW RESIDENTS TAX FOR NORTHWOOD HILLS.
A TAX FROM A COUNCIL THAT ALREADY CHARGES YOU ONE OF
THE HIGHEST COUNCIL TAX RATES IN THE COUNTRY.
|
The fact that the majority of roads (if not all within the
proposal) obviously do not need controlled parking, the
incredible ineptitude of the delivery of this proposal to
those concerned, the
misinformation and conjecture the proposal contains
and the timing of it's issue, have all led to the
present state of anger and distrust towards our elected
councillors and committees of Northwood Hills.
This proposal was
delivered to only a small number of the roads
included within the proposal area. There are approximately
90 roads included in the proposal.
This left hundreds of residents in complete ignorance of the
scheme.
Considering that the council have stated
that if
a resident does not return their voting form, it will be
counted as a "yes" vote in favour of the scheme,
some might say that this was a tactical
move. (Cllr Heywood has since confirmed that this will no
longer be the case).
|
TAKE
A LOOK AT THIS ROAD. UNBELIEVABLE ISN'T IT?
THIS ROAD IS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE CONTROLLED PARKING
PROPOSAL. |
|
Views of Winchester
Rd.
Wednesday 29th Jan. 2003, 11:46am |
Non
residents, neither shoppers or commuters ever park here.
This road is always deserted during the day.
This nice road with no parking problems whatsoever may
soon be painted with parking bays and patrolled by wardens.
Yellow lines will be painted across
driveways. Even the residents own cars
will not be able to park across their
own drive during the hours of the
proposal.
The residents will have to pay to park here.
Their friends will have to be planned and paid for in
advance by writing to the council for vouchers priced at
£5 for 10.
If they do not then visitors will have to drive to the
nearest pay and display machine to avoid a £60 fine.
If a resident fails to display their permit or allow it
to lapse then they will pay the same penalty.
In addition to having to pay for vouchers, their
permits will cost them £20 for their first vehicle, £30
for their second, £50 for their 3rd and £100 for the
4th.
(These charges will inevitably rise over time)
Even after all this.... anybody
can still park outside your house. |
 |
All members of a household are residents in their own
right. So why should they pay different amounts?
Think about it. Isn't this scheme supposed to penalise
the non-residents?
The warden patrolling this road, would have been paid
for by the residents. Yet the warden will only be
checking cars of the residents and their friends.
This road will not be able to opt out
of the scheme as the rules for the voting will not allow
it if the majority of roads, or neighbouring roads, vote
in favour of the scheme.
Even if you have a driveway or do
not even own a car, your friends, visitors, trades people
and helpers will all have to be paid and planned for
to avoid a fine. |
Here are
some more of the roads that the council say will benefit from this
scheme.
Just look at how few cars are parked here.
(All taken on 30th Jan. 2003 11:am-12:pm)
There are plenty more......Click
Here |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
| CranbourneRd
(more...) |
Rochester
Rd (more...) |
 |
 |
| Norwich
Rd towards Joel Street (more...) |
Norwich/Winchester
Junction (more...) |
 |
.jpg) |
| Norwich/Cranbourne
Junction (more...) |
York
Rd (more...) |
THIS
SCHEME DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOU A
PARKING SPACE
Do
not forget that this is not
a residents parking scheme.
It is a controlled
parking scheme.
You will not be guaranteed
a place to park outside your
house. Anybody can park
outside your house that has a
voucher or a ticket from the
pay and display machine. All
that has happened is that you
have paid for your tickets in
advance.
|
Northwood
Hills will have been
effectively
turned into one
big public car park |
Example:
Windsor Close, the majority of
Tolcarne Drive and Briarwood
Drive (any road in the
proposal). These will simply be
parts of the "car
park" with non-residents
able to buy all day tickets
from the pay and display
machines. Shoppers, commuters
and anybody else could now park
in these roads by displaying a
ticket or voucher. Usually the place
for this type of arrangement
is in a car park, just
like the one in Colchester
Road, now closed by the
council. The resident would
have no more or less right to park
in their own road than the
non-resident but they would
now be paying.
Do not forget that the narrow
roads proposal removes
half the parking spaces in a
road.
There will also be fewer places
for you to park due to the
fact that yellow lines will be
placed in front of your own
driveway. They will extend one
metre either side of your
driveway.
Even your own car will not be
allowed to park across your
own drive during the hours of
the scheme.
If
control is required in a
specific road, there are
alternatives to this
scheme.
Roads
within bus routes
"Parking bays in
roads that are part of bus
routes are normally located to
safeguard two-way traffic
flow" (exact details have
not been given by council).
What does this mean to
residents in these roads? No
parking near bus stops? No
parking at all? |
The council parking surveys prove nothing, even in busy roads
Northwood
Hills is an area that has mainly quiet roads. Very few roads
have parking problems. As can been seen from the photos above,
during the day there are hardly any parked cars at all.
In roads where there are many parked cars, these are owned by
the residents. Why should they pay to park outside of their
own houses just because their road looks busy. It is not
necessarily suffering from non-resident problems.
Residents are happy to cooperate with each other to park their
own cars in their own roads.
Even in roads that are known to suffer from commuters parking,
residents have said at meetings, that they would rather have things
the way they are than suffer the costs and inconvenience of
this scheme.
Have you ever seen a survey or
its results? Can
they predict the future?
Once again:
Unless
the survey team followed every driver that gets out of their
car to their ultimate destination, how can any survey prove if
they are a commuter or a resident? Are we really to believe
that this took place? How and where were these
surveys carried out?
Remember. Traffic services admit that most
roads were never surveyed!
The only people who will be penalised by this scheme are
the residents themselves.
Residents, friends of residents and any visitors of residents
will pay the charges and suffer the inconvenience to park
outside their own homes (or anywhere else in the zone).
How the council`s scheme could get passed in your road
Apathy, misunderstanding of what this proposal
means to residents, the feeling that a resident's voice
cannot make a difference and the misinformation and conjecture
contained in the proposal, could actually allow this scheme to
be approved. This has been the case in Harrow which is
now fighting hard to get the scheme removed.
The votes are counted across all
roads. Individual roads cannot opt out.
Example: If 50 out of 90 roads had problems and voted yes and
the other 40 roads voted no. Those 40 will be forced into the scheme for
life. They would suffer all the inconvenience and costs and
have to pay for vouchers (on written request) to park outside
of their residence. These residents may live in roads that
are totally devoid of cars during the day and have never had a
problem.
Even if an entire
road returns all forms with a "no" vote it cannot
opt out unless the majority of roads also vote
"no" or is on the periphery. (Click
Here)
|
Take
a look at Question 5 of the Consultation Questionnaire
|
 |
Where
is the box for "at no time"?
If you do not answer this question , will your vote be
void?
If you write "None" on the form, will they
declare the paper spoilt? |
Democracy seems to
have been forgotten by this council who can force this scheme upon you through the
methods they have chosen to implement this proposal. Methods that prove
they want it even if you do not.
The narrow roads proposal
The
council are also trying to stop residents parking on one
side or in some cases, both
sides of what they consider to be narrow roads. This will
cause immense problems for residents in these roads who
would now have less parking spaces. They would have to park
further away from their houses and maybe into neighbouring
roads. The council could actually be the cause of a parking
problem by moving cars to less busy roads and increase
the councils argument for controlled parking in those roads.
The council admit displacement problems may occur on
page 4 of the proposal (Click here). A self expanding scheme.
A
scheme not wanted by the residents causing problems where
before there were none.
Mothers, the elderly and those carrying their shopping,
will all suffer greatly if this happens.
The council states that this is to allow emergency service vehicles access.
Where are the statistics that that prove that this has so
far been a problem in these roads? Are they different to any
other comparable road in the country? If not, then why are
these residents in particular being singled out? Shouldn't
every road in the entire country be set the same safety
standards?
It's either safe to park in a road or it is
not.
"Roads
that are between 4.9 metres
but less than 6.7 metres wide
will be able to have parking
on one side only and
roads that are wider than 6.7
meters wide can have parking
bays on both sides."
"Where
footway parking is not allowed and
roads are less than 4.9 metres
wide, no parking will be allowed and
yellow line waiting restrictions
will be introduced."
|
Have
you measured your road? Does
your neighbouring road know
what will happen to them if
your road is too narrow?
A record number of people (over 800) turned out for
the public meeting and all had one objective. To stop this
proposal. (see more below)
|
Once
this scheme is in place it will be here for life and
it
will only ever increase in cost. |
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS BELIEVE THAT THIS SCHEME IS BEING
FORCED UPON THIS AREA FOR REVENUE AND REVENUE ALONE. THEY DO
NOT BELIEVE THE CONGESTION CHARGE WILL CAUSE TRAFFIC TO BACK
UP INTO THEIR ROADS AND THE TIMING OF THE PROPOSAL MEANS THAT
IT WOULD NEVER BE FOUND OUT IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A
PROBLEM.
|
NORTHWOOD
HILLS IS ONE OF THE FEW TOWNS IN THE COUNTRY THAT DOES
NOT HAVE A PUBLIC CAR PARK.
CORRECTION
- WE HAD A PUBLIC CAR PARK. COLCHESTER RD
CONTAINED A CAR PARK WITHIN
2 MINUTES WALK OF THE TUBE
STATION. CLOSED
BY THE COUNCIL. |
 |
Traffic
Services have said that the controlled parking scheme
was first drawn up in 1991.
Colchester Rd car park was closed a few years after
1991.
Why then in
all these years, have councils not managed to re open this car
park?
It is the perfect
solution to any possible parking problems that
"could" be caused by the congestion charge.
Northwood Hills residents protested to keep this car
park open at the time.
Yet again the residents views
were ignored.
Can it really be believed that everything has been
done by the current council to reclaim this car park?
Why would they want to?
It helps with their case for a controlled parking
scheme.
|
|
Colchester
Rd car park entrance. Now closed.
Photo: 11:42am January 30th 2003 |
 |
|
View
into Colchester Rd car park. Now closed.
Photo: 11:43am January 30th 2003 |
|
|
|
|
THE
STORY SO FAR
Outraged residents in the proposed
roads started to write letters, make petitions and elect
representatives for their road. Road representatives have now
discovered each other across Northwood Hills and have formed a
network of over 50 representatives to coordinate action
against this proposal. The number is growing all the time.
The public meeting (Fairfield
Church, 7.30pm, 5th of February 2003)
(View
the full meeting notes)
Councilors beginning to feel
the growing pressure from residents against this proposal,
arranged a short notice public meeting to try and calm the
situation.
The council, expecting similar attendance figures to meetings in other
areas not able to form protest groups in time, were shocked by
the turn out.
A record number of people (over 800) turned out for
the public meeting and all had one objective. To stop this
proposal.
Even those residents who were unable to attend asked
neighbours to register their opinion on their behalf. (Example)
Despite total opposition to this proposed scheme, the council
were determined to rebuff all views.
Resident after resident waited their turn to give their view
as to why this proposal would not be necessary for Northwood
Hills. Excellent points were raised, the answers to which could scarcely be believed by those in attendance.
Instead of listening and taking the residents views
forward as our elected representatives of the community, they
fought for the scheme.
The main spokesman for the council, Mike Heywood, could barely control
the crowd as people had to shout to be heard. Some points were
never able to be made and certainly were not going to be heard
by Mr Heywood who decided to leave the meeting well before it came to a close.
(It is
since been
discovered
that Mr
Heywood had
an
acceptable
personal
reason that
required his
early
departure).
The residents requested more time to get
the rest of the original proposals delivered and get them
returned. They have given us until the 13th Feb. 2003. Why
such a tight deadline?
At the
close
of the
meeting
residents
were not
entirely
sure that
their views
were going
to be taken
into account
and
therefore
decided to
continue
protesting
until there
was no doubt
of an
acceptable
out come.
Since the meeting
A network of representatives
has now been created across Northwood Hills which will
help you fight the issues democratically and fairly. A network
that the council did not expect to be ready in time to stop them.
What happens next:
Well, the councillors were very vague as to what should happen
next, as if they didn't know themselves.
Despite this the residents feel that they should protest in
the following way.
- Requests for more time are being
made of Mr Heywood.
- Photocopies
of proposal forms are being
distributed to roads who the council failed to deliver
- A new simple YES/NO form has been
created by the residents, to allow you to quickly and simply state your view
road by road.
- Proposals will be delivered to
homes that never received one in the first place or did
not realise the importance of their return.
- Forms will be collected and posted
for those that are house bound, find it difficult to
reach a post box or simply would like the representative
to post it on their behalf.
- Petitions and any other letters of
opposition will be sent to all relevant authorities and
the media.
How
you can help?
- Fill in your
proposal and give it to a representative regardless of date.
- Be ready for
your representative who can answer your questions and help
you register your opinion. Contact Lynne
Halse
if
you
have
not been
contacted
already.
- View the
contacts on this site and register your opposition to
all of them. Use every method possible, by
e-mail, telephone and by post.
- If you do
not have the time to write letters, you can
download one from this site to which you can add your
address and
signature or simply rewrite the points that you
feel are relevant to you.
- Sign all petitions
available. They will get sent to all concerned and posted
on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
