REVIEW BY LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW - February
Eversden of the Chiswick Protection Group on
the review of parking in the area
have as much reason to keep a car as the residents
of Hounslow Town Centre and there is no excuse to
charge them twice the amount in Chiswick for a resident
permit for parking. It is unfair and discriminatory.
Hounslow Council policy for
controlled parking is unacceptable.
The first aim is to ration permits
by price but in Chiswick there
is no need to do so, as the
officerís review of current
CPZ schemes has shown ample
amounts of unused kerb space.
The exception may be the EC/1
zone due to its small size and
the business permit demand within
it. Public transport accessibility
in the east end of the borough
is stated as a reason to charge
residents there more to park.
That is illogical. People in
Chiswick use their cars in the
area: public transport is not
relevant to many of their journeys.
described as "unacceptable."
CPZ review report states in Appendix 5 that
the £75 resident fee in Chiswick has
been reduced to £70. This is partly offset
by the cost of a second and third permit being
increased by £15 and £55 respectively
and the P&D/meter charges being raised
to one pound per hour.
increases in charges and the reduction in meter
parking from two hours to one hour were challenged
by amenity groups when the Traffic Orders were
advertised last year, without Council response.
traders, businesses and shop keepers in Chiswick
need help to survive yet they and their customers
are charged more than in other town centres.
sections of parking for Pay & Display only
are needed just off the High Road. The current
triple usage sections which the Council includes
in CPZs are occupied to a great extent all
day by residents or businesses, restricting
the parking for those using the shops and businesses.
Council seems to have taken funds from Section
106 allocations for CPZ implementation without
reference to the Area Committee, even though
the Head of Finance had written in August 2000
about the Central Chiswick CPZ that 'The implementation
of the schemes will be funded from a combination
of income earned in the year of implementation
and drawings from the Parking Reserve Account.'
The Council now states that the Central Chiswick
scheme was actually funded from the contributions
of the Chiswick Business Park developer and
there is no money now for the implementation
of the West Chiswick or Old Chiswick CPZ schemes.
policy to sell a large number of Business permits
does not seem to accord with the Councilís
obligations under the Road Traffic Reduction
Act, nor the Mayorís Transport Strategy for
the GLA. There is no excuse for the Council
to issue more than one or two business permits
for each small business unless there are workers
who have to use their vehicle to transport
goods or to make trips during the working day
on essential business requirements.
is nothing wrong with there being some spare
parking space found in the streets at the time
of the Councilís surveys. Residents expect
to use their cars during the day and find space
when they return. Many school-run and station-run
trips are made between 8:30am and 9am when
business permit holders may see empty resident
parking spaces. That does not mean that a lot
of those spaces are not required by householders.
Council policy should not be to maximise parking
revenue and profits but to set charges at a
minimum to cover the cost of operating and
enforcing the permit system, as required by
the Government's 1988 Guidance on Traffic Management
propose to change some resident parking into
shared parking. This is generally unacceptable
in most zones as there are unused business
permit parking spaces recorded within them.
No changes can be justified in East Chiswick,
Bedford Park, Mid Chiswick or Central Chiswick.
In the EC/1 zone there should be a full review
by residents and businesses to help design
report fails to fully record the surplus business
parking space in the zones. For example, it
states that the available space in Rupert Road
in Bedford Park is zero, whereas there are
twenty to twenty-five spaces every day which
are unused in the triple parking sections in
that road. The report then recommends that
three roads which join that road all have part
of their resident parking converted to dual
usage for the benefit of business permit holders.
No such changes are required or wanted.
East Chiswick the report records seventeen
or eighteen spare spaces for business parking
in both South Side and Beverly Road, yet then
recommends converting to dual usage some current
residentsí bays in roads that are crossed by
those empty ones.
Central Chiswick and Mid Chiswick zones are
recorded with spare business parking but in
locations not wanted by the business permit
holders. No parking changes are wanted by residents
in those areas. The minimum needs of businesses
should be met but not to the detriment of residents,
their visitors and those looking for Pay &
Eversden, Chiswick Protection Group - 26 February
Chiswick the highest tax area of London?
to be focus of special meeting - 26th February
Report to be considered at the meeting
Permits in Chiswick