WALTHAM FOREST: 'Thousands' against CPZ proposals

An Olympics CPZ sign in Leyton.

An Olympics CPZ sign in Leyton.

First published in News East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

THOUSANDS of people across Leyton and Leytonstone have given their support to a series of campaigns that have sprung up in protest at proposals to make Olympic parking restrictions permanent.


Residents-only Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) permit schemes were introduced across the south of the borough during the Games to stop visitors using the area as a giant car park.


But last month Waltham Forest Council began consulting on making the changes permanent, which would result in residents having to pay between £22.50p to £120 annually - if they have one car - to park outside their homes.


With just weeks to go until the consultation closes – on Monday October 22 – campaigners have stepped up their efforts with a final push that has seen close to 4,000 people sign one petition and the establishment of several neighbourhood groups.


The council has said it will only make the restrictions permanent in areas where the majority agree.
 

Campaigners say they object to paying to park when there are little or no problems with lack of space in their streets and believe the council just wants to make extra money.
 

Petition organiser Claudette Samuel, of Melford Road in Leytonstone, said: “It's really been ramping up in the last few weeks. It's quite overwhelming.


“People feel very strongly about it. The parking restrictions had a devastating impact on local businesses during the Olympics and it's going to cost residents money at a time when many people are so cash-strapped.”
 

There are also widespread claims that many households have not received their consultation forms and concerns they are not translated into other languages.


Maureen Measure, 71, of Richmond Road in Leytonstone, of the 'Action Against Parking' group, said: “We've had dozens of calls from people who have received our leaflets but not the council consultation.”
 

Trevor Hurst, 65, of Forest Glade, of the 'Campaign Against Permit Parking Zones', added: “The forms give no real idea how much a CPZ will actually end up costing everyone, like with visitor permits.


“There's also a real chance these charges will go up in future”,  he said.


The Guardian is awaiting a comment from the council.


Cabinet member for environment, Cllr Clyde Loakes, previously told the Guardian it was unlikely that any new CPZ times would be the same as during the Olympics and said the temporary restrictions had provided a unique opportunity to have a consultation.


Call Ms Samuel on 0795-7063-473 or visit www.cappz.org for more on the campaigns.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:39am Mon 8 Oct 12

E17lady says...

Fed up with this council making money from car owners! They said the CPZ's would be temporary now they want them made permanant! Why??? There was no trouble AT ALL during Olympics or Paralympics so why try and keep them?? As had been said before, they only move the problem not cure it!
Fed up with this council making money from car owners! They said the CPZ's would be temporary now they want them made permanant! Why??? There was no trouble AT ALL during Olympics or Paralympics so why try and keep them?? As had been said before, they only move the problem not cure it! E17lady
  • Score: 0

11:44am Mon 8 Oct 12

Techno3 says...

The whole idea of CPZ schemes has turned into a money-making exercise.

They don't even operate at the right time of day: many streets are near empty in the day time when the restrictions are in place and fill up in the evenings when all the commuters come home from work.
The whole idea of CPZ schemes has turned into a money-making exercise. They don't even operate at the right time of day: many streets are near empty in the day time when the restrictions are in place and fill up in the evenings when all the commuters come home from work. Techno3
  • Score: 0

11:56am Mon 8 Oct 12

Cornbeefur says...

In Wanstead now, they have really began to affect Trade in Local shops will no doubt lead to closures in some cases.

Residents will then complain about the poor quality and demise of shops.

They already have an Ice Cream Shop and a 'BBQ' opened up there, the place will soon become another Bowl of Fruit avenue like Barkingside has.
In Wanstead now, they have really began to affect Trade in Local shops will no doubt lead to closures in some cases. Residents will then complain about the poor quality and demise of shops. They already have an Ice Cream Shop and a 'BBQ' opened up there, the place will soon become another Bowl of Fruit avenue like Barkingside has. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Mon 8 Oct 12

mdj says...

No consultation documents from the Council in my street so far.
So, if 'The council has said it will only make the restrictions permanent in areas where the majority agree', is it going to be another of those North Korean exercises where those who don't vote will be deemed the 'silent majority', who want the same thing as the Council?

I'd ask people to view residents' parking as a form of tax on family life. Obviously, congestion needs to be controlled, and positive alternatives to car use promoted; but if you have a bustling family or social life, the cost of visitors will be a major expense.

These schemes also have the effect of creating resentment and division in areas that otherwise might be more cohesive neighbourhoods.
If I were a Councillor with a large portfolio of buy-to-lets and an interest in promoting a transient population who would hand me their postal or proxy vote form, anything that discouraged settled family life and community involvement would only be good news.
Stagnation and social decay is actually a win-win model for some interests.
No consultation documents from the Council in my street so far. So, if 'The council has said it will only make the restrictions permanent in areas where the majority agree', is it going to be another of those North Korean exercises where those who don't vote will be deemed the 'silent majority', who want the same thing as the Council? I'd ask people to view residents' parking as a form of tax on family life. Obviously, congestion needs to be controlled, and positive alternatives to car use promoted; but if you have a bustling family or social life, the cost of visitors will be a major expense. These schemes also have the effect of creating resentment and division in areas that otherwise might be more cohesive neighbourhoods. If I were a Councillor with a large portfolio of buy-to-lets and an interest in promoting a transient population who would hand me their postal or proxy vote form, anything that discouraged settled family life and community involvement would only be good news. Stagnation and social decay is actually a win-win model for some interests. mdj
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Silent Majority 2009 says...

Cllr Loakes has lost a battle in the war. He told a parking meeting well before the Olympics that the whole Borough would have to be temproary CPZ during the Olympics. He lost this battle and only Leyton and Leytonstone were affected. He also said the Olympic CPZ would remain in place unless residents voted against. He lost that as well as the temporary CPZs have been removed.
It is clear, except to our councillors, that this is a money raising scheme. The honest way is to either put up the council tax or to impose a CPZ on everyone then we all take the pain. Currently some areas of the Borough without a CPZ do not have to pay or suffer the inconvenience a CPZ creates. Surely this is not what you would expect of a Labour council!
Cllr Loakes has lost a battle in the war. He told a parking meeting well before the Olympics that the whole Borough would have to be temproary CPZ during the Olympics. He lost this battle and only Leyton and Leytonstone were affected. He also said the Olympic CPZ would remain in place unless residents voted against. He lost that as well as the temporary CPZs have been removed. It is clear, except to our councillors, that this is a money raising scheme. The honest way is to either put up the council tax or to impose a CPZ on everyone then we all take the pain. Currently some areas of the Borough without a CPZ do not have to pay or suffer the inconvenience a CPZ creates. Surely this is not what you would expect of a Labour council! Silent Majority 2009
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Mon 8 Oct 12

leyton_man says...

Long before the Olympics, the council asked if the residents of the Barclay Estate wanted and CPZ. When the resounding response was no in the vast majority of the streets, no CPZ was installed, only towards the entrance to Whipps Cross as the residents there requested it.
So fair enough.

However, now we are being asked again, clearly the answer will be the same. This council is intent on grasping for money any way it can to cover it's incompetence for wasting all its money on various failed schemes.

Anyone voting for these crooks should hang their heads in shame.

Labour OUT!
Long before the Olympics, the council asked if the residents of the Barclay Estate wanted and CPZ. When the resounding response was no in the vast majority of the streets, no CPZ was installed, only towards the entrance to Whipps Cross as the residents there requested it. So fair enough. However, now we are being asked again, clearly the answer will be the same. This council is intent on grasping for money any way it can to cover it's incompetence for wasting all its money on various failed schemes. Anyone voting for these crooks should hang their heads in shame. Labour OUT! leyton_man
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Mon 8 Oct 12

mdj says...

'.. only towards the entrance to Whipps Cross as the residents there requested it.
So fair enough.'

Up to a point: they certainly didn't ask for 13 hrs a day, 7 days a week. And the householders in Forest Drive certainly weren't consulted at all about having a yellow line with those hours outside their garages, making using their own property a hazardous exercise from towing trucks.
It's news to everyone I know that you can be towed away from a single yellow line on a Sunday - expensive news. They're actually allowed to do this without signage telling you, as well.
Had the zones simply been about the Olympics, then one large zone for E10 and E11 would have been enough.Divide and conquer...let's not fall for it!
'.. only towards the entrance to Whipps Cross as the residents there requested it. So fair enough.' Up to a point: they certainly didn't ask for 13 hrs a day, 7 days a week. And the householders in Forest Drive certainly weren't consulted at all about having a yellow line with those hours outside their garages, making using their own property a hazardous exercise from towing trucks. It's news to everyone I know that you can be towed away from a single yellow line on a Sunday - expensive news. They're actually allowed to do this without signage telling you, as well. Had the zones simply been about the Olympics, then one large zone for E10 and E11 would have been enough.Divide and conquer...let's not fall for it! mdj
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Mon 8 Oct 12

ann-leyton says...

most people do not seem to have noticed that not only are we being charged to park in our own street, the council, are dictating the amount of visitors we can have! This is supposed to be a democracy seems this council are dictators in the extreme!
most people do not seem to have noticed that not only are we being charged to park in our own street, the council, are dictating the amount of visitors we can have! This is supposed to be a democracy seems this council are dictators in the extreme! ann-leyton
  • Score: 0

9:52am Tue 9 Oct 12

Techno3 says...

ann-leyton wrote:
most people do not seem to have noticed that not only are we being charged to park in our own street, the council, are dictating the amount of visitors we can have! This is supposed to be a democracy seems this council are dictators in the extreme!
I also dislike the way the council issues books of 5 hour visitors' tickets. Why not a ticket for a whole day or even a week or two? If relatives come to stay it is a real pain having to check on their car all the time.
[quote][p][bold]ann-leyton[/bold] wrote: most people do not seem to have noticed that not only are we being charged to park in our own street, the council, are dictating the amount of visitors we can have! This is supposed to be a democracy seems this council are dictators in the extreme![/p][/quote]I also dislike the way the council issues books of 5 hour visitors' tickets. Why not a ticket for a whole day or even a week or two? If relatives come to stay it is a real pain having to check on their car all the time. Techno3
  • Score: 0

10:46am Tue 9 Oct 12

pjcoop says...

Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy.
I think that made it clear.
Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy. I think that made it clear. pjcoop
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Cornbeefur says...

pjcoop wrote:
Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy.
I think that made it clear.
Who? In what way?
[quote][p][bold]pjcoop[/bold] wrote: Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy, Greedy, greedy. I think that made it clear.[/p][/quote]Who? In what way? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Ferdy54 says...

I also read that if people decided against the CPZ's and the council have put down double yellow lines, the lines will stay!!!!!
I also read that if people decided against the CPZ's and the council have put down double yellow lines, the lines will stay!!!!! Ferdy54
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Wed 10 Oct 12

livedheretoolong says...

I predicted that this would happen last December:

livedheretoolong says...
10:22pm Wed 14 Dec 11

"People seem to be getting off the point a bit. The issue here is about council democracy (or lack of it). CPZs are generally very unpopular with residents; hence the huge amount of opposition every time they try to introduce one. The council claims that they consult with local residents but it is very clear that their views are ignored because the decision has already been made.
The only way to force the council to change it's mind is through massive local opposition which takes a lot of time and energy on the part of local residents who need to be highly organised. On this occasion the council has been beaten but they will bide their time, wait a while until the heat dies down and then try again in a year or two’s time. They will keep trying until they get what they want.
This whole situation undermines our faith in the fairness of local government democracy so is it any wonder that so many people have become completely disenfranchised with the political process. Councillors like Clyde Loakes have shown time and time again that they are not interested in what local residents actually think and are determined to push through their own political ideology regardless. There are many examples of this but the most obvious one that springs to mind is the Leytonstone one way system which has had a disastrous impact in the area.
Councillors and councils are supposed to represent the views of the majority of the local electorate. But once they gain power they think that they can to do whatever they want regardless of what we think. This is not just confined to Waltham Forest – look at what is happening in Westminster right now.
There is no need to have CPZs at all in this borough except in a tiny amount of cases. As has already been pointed out there are plenty of other ways to protect residents’ parking from commuters and shoppers. It might also help a bit if there were a few public car parks next to our main shopping areas. I don’t know of any in Leytonstone. People shopping there don’t have much choice other than parking at Tesco’s which whilst good for their own business might explain part of the reason for the terminal demise of the rest of the town.
If the council was really concerned with looking after residents’ parking they would offer permit parking for free and fund it from the vast amounts of money collected from parking fines. But as we all know CPZs have become the easy option to raise large amounts of money for very little effort.
Next year will see the introduction of a vast ‘temporary’ CPZ covering the entire areas of Leyton and Leytonstone. The Council says that they will consult residents to see if they want to keep the arrangement on a permanent basis afterwards. But they are not fooling anybody. We all know that the decision has already been made and we will have an almighty fight on our hands to stop them.
You have been warned."

The fight is on.
I predicted that this would happen last December: livedheretoolong says... 10:22pm Wed 14 Dec 11 "People seem to be getting off the point a bit. The issue here is about council democracy (or lack of it). CPZs are generally very unpopular with residents; hence the huge amount of opposition every time they try to introduce one. The council claims that they consult with local residents but it is very clear that their views are ignored because the decision has already been made. The only way to force the council to change it's mind is through massive local opposition which takes a lot of time and energy on the part of local residents who need to be highly organised. On this occasion the council has been beaten but they will bide their time, wait a while until the heat dies down and then try again in a year or two’s time. They will keep trying until they get what they want. This whole situation undermines our faith in the fairness of local government democracy so is it any wonder that so many people have become completely disenfranchised with the political process. Councillors like Clyde Loakes have shown time and time again that they are not interested in what local residents actually think and are determined to push through their own political ideology regardless. There are many examples of this but the most obvious one that springs to mind is the Leytonstone one way system which has had a disastrous impact in the area. Councillors and councils are supposed to represent the views of the majority of the local electorate. But once they gain power they think that they can to do whatever they want regardless of what we think. This is not just confined to Waltham Forest – look at what is happening in Westminster right now. There is no need to have CPZs at all in this borough except in a tiny amount of cases. As has already been pointed out there are plenty of other ways to protect residents’ parking from commuters and shoppers. It might also help a bit if there were a few public car parks next to our main shopping areas. I don’t know of any in Leytonstone. People shopping there don’t have much choice other than parking at Tesco’s which whilst good for their own business might explain part of the reason for the terminal demise of the rest of the town. If the council was really concerned with looking after residents’ parking they would offer permit parking for free and fund it from the vast amounts of money collected from parking fines. But as we all know CPZs have become the easy option to raise large amounts of money for very little effort. Next year will see the introduction of a vast ‘temporary’ CPZ covering the entire areas of Leyton and Leytonstone. The Council says that they will consult residents to see if they want to keep the arrangement on a permanent basis afterwards. But they are not fooling anybody. We all know that the decision has already been made and we will have an almighty fight on our hands to stop them. You have been warned." The fight is on. livedheretoolong
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Wed 10 Oct 12

livedheretoolong says...

I live in the area so would be affected by any change.

I received the consultation pack but I gather that many residents did not. I understand that several random properties were missed out in streets as opposed to entire streets so this would make it very difficult to establish who has so far been excluded from the consultation process.

On the consultation form it states that “This consultation will follow the guidelines agreed within the Council Parking policy which:
1) Requires that following consultation, the scheme can be implemented in roads where at least 51% of respondents support a scheme.
2) Allows the introduction of parking controls in the whole area consulted in or in smaller zones in the area.
3) A single street could not be excluded if the roads surrounding it on all sides were in favour of controlled parking. Likewise a single road wanting a CPZ but surrounded by ‘no’ voting roads may not be implemented.
4) Please note that only questionnaires that are sent back are counted in the final vote. We will not make any assumptions for those people who do not respond to the enclosed questionnaire.

Point 3 is very important – even if there was 100% opposition in my street we are still dependent on the response from residents in adjacent streets (who in turn would be dependent on the response from residents in their adjacent streets.
Point 4 is interesting. According to the Council’s own policy they would need at least 51% of support from residents responding to the consultation. It is almost certain that most residents oppose the scheme so I would imagine that it will be very hard for the Council to get the 51% support. So, there should be nothing to worry about…
Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated time and time again this Council cannot be trusted to carry out consultations in a fair and truthful way. So they will skew the results to suit their own objectives. If anybody asks them to provide proof of how they reached their decision they will use any excuse not to reveal the facts, i.e. data protection reasons, asbestos contamination of the forms, the dog ate the forms, etc.
In the worst case scenario for the council there will be overwhelming opposition for the scheme which will force them to abandon it. They will face a humiliating defeat so will then retaliate by introducing Plan B which will be to implement double yellow lines in all residential streets throughout the borough due to ‘safety concerns’. That way they will be able to collect the revenues they so desperately need from parking fines instead.

As leyton_man says: ‘anyone voting for these crooks should hang their heads in shame.’
I live in the area so would be affected by any change. I received the consultation pack but I gather that many residents did not. I understand that several random properties were missed out in streets as opposed to entire streets so this would make it very difficult to establish who has so far been excluded from the consultation process. On the consultation form it states that “This consultation will follow the guidelines agreed within the Council Parking policy which: 1) Requires that following consultation, the scheme can be implemented in roads where at least 51% of respondents support a scheme. 2) Allows the introduction of parking controls in the whole area consulted in or in smaller zones in the area. 3) A single street could not be excluded if the roads surrounding it on all sides were in favour of controlled parking. Likewise a single road wanting a CPZ but surrounded by ‘no’ voting roads may not be implemented. 4) Please note that only questionnaires that are sent back are counted in the final vote. We will not make any assumptions for those people who do not respond to the enclosed questionnaire. Point 3 is very important – even if there was 100% opposition in my street we are still dependent on the response from residents in adjacent streets (who in turn would be dependent on the response from residents in their adjacent streets. Point 4 is interesting. According to the Council’s own policy they would need at least 51% of support from residents responding to the consultation. It is almost certain that most residents oppose the scheme so I would imagine that it will be very hard for the Council to get the 51% support. So, there should be nothing to worry about… Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated time and time again this Council cannot be trusted to carry out consultations in a fair and truthful way. So they will skew the results to suit their own objectives. If anybody asks them to provide proof of how they reached their decision they will use any excuse not to reveal the facts, i.e. data protection reasons, asbestos contamination of the forms, the dog ate the forms, etc. In the worst case scenario for the council there will be overwhelming opposition for the scheme which will force them to abandon it. They will face a humiliating defeat so will then retaliate by introducing Plan B which will be to implement double yellow lines in all residential streets throughout the borough due to ‘safety concerns’. That way they will be able to collect the revenues they so desperately need from parking fines instead. As leyton_man says: ‘anyone voting for these crooks should hang their heads in shame.’ livedheretoolong
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Wed 10 Oct 12

mdj says...

' I would imagine that it will be very hard for the Council to get the 51% support...'
When they can get turnouts of 125% at the election? Don't be so pessimistic!
' I would imagine that it will be very hard for the Council to get the 51% support...' When they can get turnouts of 125% at the election? Don't be so pessimistic! mdj
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Spoons1972 says...

Techno3 wrote:
ann-leyton wrote:
most people do not seem to have noticed that not only are we being charged to park in our own street, the council, are dictating the amount of visitors we can have! This is supposed to be a democracy seems this council are dictators in the extreme!
I also dislike the way the council issues books of 5 hour visitors' tickets. Why not a ticket for a whole day or even a week or two? If relatives come to stay it is a real pain having to check on their car all the time.
Also, if your CPZ runs from 8am to 6.30pm you will need two 5 hour vouchers and one 1 hour voucher to park a visitors car for one day. The vouchers terms state that you are not permitted to place more than two in your car at a time. If you have visitors and want a day out how do they legally park their car?
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ann-leyton[/bold] wrote: most people do not seem to have noticed that not only are we being charged to park in our own street, the council, are dictating the amount of visitors we can have! This is supposed to be a democracy seems this council are dictators in the extreme![/p][/quote]I also dislike the way the council issues books of 5 hour visitors' tickets. Why not a ticket for a whole day or even a week or two? If relatives come to stay it is a real pain having to check on their car all the time.[/p][/quote]Also, if your CPZ runs from 8am to 6.30pm you will need two 5 hour vouchers and one 1 hour voucher to park a visitors car for one day. The vouchers terms state that you are not permitted to place more than two in your car at a time. If you have visitors and want a day out how do they legally park their car? Spoons1972
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Fri 12 Oct 12

freeparkingonourstreets says...

Public Meeting on Wednesday 17th October 2012 at the Heathcoat Arms Function Room, 344 Grove Green Road, London E11 4EA, 7pm-8:30pm

We are inviting a Councillor from each of the Wards affected by the proposed Control Parking Zone (CPZ) in Waltham Forest to attend.
VERY IMPORTANT ALL WANTING FREE ACCESS TO OUR STREET MUST ATTEND!!!!


Public Meeting on Wednesday 17th October 2012 at the Heathcoat Arms Function Room, 344 Grove Green Road, London E11 4EA, 7pm-8:30pm We are inviting a Councillor from each of the Wards affected by the proposed Control Parking Zone (CPZ) in Waltham Forest to attend. VERY IMPORTANT ALL WANTING FREE ACCESS TO OUR STREET MUST ATTEND!!!!

 freeparkingonourstreets
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Fri 12 Oct 12

freeparkingonourstreets says...

BBC London radio covered the parking story this morning. Check this BBC link

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/programmes/p00ys478 - our interview comes in at 1:36 and that Councillor Loakes response is at 2:36.
BBC London radio covered the parking story this morning. Check this BBC link http://www.bbc.co.uk /programmes/p00ys478 - our interview comes in at 1:36 and that Councillor Loakes response is at 2:36. freeparkingonourstreets
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Fri 12 Oct 12

freeparkingonourstreets says...

i've worked out that the cost for a family with kids, and two cars and a social life will need 4 different type of permits that's apart from the scratch and display vouchers, and normal shopping centre carpark costs. They are going to charge more for bigger engines and age of the car (what has that got to do with parking space, besides thats already been paid through the road tax system, plus if you have two cars you pay more for a 2nd car permit!
So in total this is the breakdown:
*1st car permit for old big car £120
*2nd car permit for small/ new car £42.50
*15 mins school run permit £20
*visitors permit book of 20 £16 (up to 3 visits per wk for 2hrs) PLUS ONLY TWO VISITING CARS AT ANY ONE TIME!!!!
GRAND TOTAL=£462
========

Businesses will have to pay out £390
and 570 for subsequent cars!

And then they call this a consultation, they have gone into such detail about how the scheme is going to be run there's room for manoeuvre!!!
i've worked out that the cost for a family with kids, and two cars and a social life will need 4 different type of permits that's apart from the scratch and display vouchers, and normal shopping centre carpark costs. They are going to charge more for bigger engines and age of the car (what has that got to do with parking space, besides thats already been paid through the road tax system, plus if you have two cars you pay more for a 2nd car permit! So in total this is the breakdown: *1st car permit for old big car £120 *2nd car permit for small/ new car £42.50 *15 mins school run permit £20 *visitors permit book of 20 £16 (up to 3 visits per wk for 2hrs) PLUS ONLY TWO VISITING CARS AT ANY ONE TIME!!!! GRAND TOTAL=£462 ======== Businesses will have to pay out £390 and 570 for subsequent cars! And then they call this a consultation, they have gone into such detail about how the scheme is going to be run there's room for manoeuvre!!! freeparkingonourstreets
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Fri 12 Oct 12

freeparkingonourstreets says...

* We are being sold a false message of a ‘parking problem ‘ and now low income homes / families face another annual bill for permits (even if you don’t have a car you will need a permit for your guests).

* There were also questions raised about the transparency and democratic process of the consultation, that its suffice to make any decision on just 15 or 20% of respondents.
* the council hadn’t made any demographic calculations of the area, as many buildings have shared occupancy and one paper per household was unfair.

* Vitally the community spirit is being eroded, not having the freedom of movement to park freely or carry out errands without having to buy voucher .* what is sickening is that some roads have black stickers on the poles, but if you peel them back they've got the new operating times of the new scheme. WHATS GOING ON!!!????
* We are being sold a false message of a ‘parking problem ‘ and now low income homes / families face another annual bill for permits (even if you don’t have a car you will need a permit for your guests). * There were also questions raised about the transparency and democratic process of the consultation, that its suffice to make any decision on just 15 or 20% of respondents. * the council hadn’t made any demographic calculations of the area, as many buildings have shared occupancy and one paper per household was unfair. * Vitally the community spirit is being eroded, not having the freedom of movement to park freely or carry out errands without having to buy voucher .* what is sickening is that some roads have black stickers on the poles, but if you peel them back they've got the new operating times of the new scheme. WHATS GOING ON!!!???? freeparkingonourstreets
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Fri 12 Oct 12

livedheretoolong says...

freeparkingonourstre
ets
wrote:
BBC London radio covered the parking story this morning. Check this BBC link

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/programmes/p00ys478 - our interview comes in at 1:36 and that Councillor Loakes response is at 2:36.
I urge you all to listen to this, particularly the second part when Paul Ross interviews Cllr Loakes.

Clyde Loakes comes across in his normal manner - shifty, evasive and if you listen to the tone of his voice it sounds as if he is lying.

When pressed by Paul Ross he would not give a straight answer. As Paul Ross suggested the whole exercise is a complete waste of money (OUR MONEY).

The council has already made up its mind that we are going to get CPZs whether we want it or not.

Like I said before, we are going to have an almighty fight on our hands to try and get this stopped so if you live in the area affected please support the campaigners by attending the Public Meeting - details above.
[quote][p][bold]freeparkingonourstre ets[/bold] wrote: BBC London radio covered the parking story this morning. Check this BBC link http://www.bbc.co.uk /programmes/p00ys478 - our interview comes in at 1:36 and that Councillor Loakes response is at 2:36.[/p][/quote]I urge you all to listen to this, particularly the second part when Paul Ross interviews Cllr Loakes. Clyde Loakes comes across in his normal manner - shifty, evasive and if you listen to the tone of his voice it sounds as if he is lying. When pressed by Paul Ross he would not give a straight answer. As Paul Ross suggested the whole exercise is a complete waste of money (OUR MONEY). The council has already made up its mind that we are going to get CPZs whether we want it or not. Like I said before, we are going to have an almighty fight on our hands to try and get this stopped so if you live in the area affected please support the campaigners by attending the Public Meeting - details above. livedheretoolong
  • Score: 0

9:52am Sat 13 Oct 12

livedheretoolong says...

It is Loakes’ ultimate ambition to turn the whole of Waltham Forest into one giant CPZ.

I doubt if he will achieve this in Chingford so it will only affect the poorer south of the borough where Labour rules.

So residents living there will be made to pay for the years of incompetence and mismanagement by Labour in this borough. It’s somewhat ironic when you consider that Labour claim to be the party representing the poorer people in society.

If you live in the areas affected don’t expect any support from your local councillors unless you live in Leyton Ward as they are virtually all Labour. As we saw with the controversial Walthamstow Stadium decision Labour councillors voted en bloc to force the decision through.

They won’t oppose Loakes because they will be happy to take the money that the CPZs will make.
It is Loakes’ ultimate ambition to turn the whole of Waltham Forest into one giant CPZ. I doubt if he will achieve this in Chingford so it will only affect the poorer south of the borough where Labour rules. So residents living there will be made to pay for the years of incompetence and mismanagement by Labour in this borough. It’s somewhat ironic when you consider that Labour claim to be the party representing the poorer people in society. If you live in the areas affected don’t expect any support from your local councillors unless you live in Leyton Ward as they are virtually all Labour. As we saw with the controversial Walthamstow Stadium decision Labour councillors voted en bloc to force the decision through. They won’t oppose Loakes because they will be happy to take the money that the CPZs will make. livedheretoolong
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Sat 13 Oct 12

mdj says...

'It’s somewhat ironic when you consider that Labour claim to be the party representing the poorer people in society. '

Labour represent the poor the way the shepherd represents the sheep. He protects them from other predators in order to shear or slaughter them for his own gain.

Residents' parking is not only a surrogate for frozen Council tax: it has the added gain for Labour of penalising families, who build communities they can take pride in, as against transients and bedsit-dwellers who have less interest or involvement in local realities. The number of Labour Councillors who are landlords is an interesting sidelight on this issue.
'It’s somewhat ironic when you consider that Labour claim to be the party representing the poorer people in society. ' Labour represent the poor the way the shepherd represents the sheep. He protects them from other predators in order to shear or slaughter them for his own gain. Residents' parking is not only a surrogate for frozen Council tax: it has the added gain for Labour of penalising families, who build communities they can take pride in, as against transients and bedsit-dwellers who have less interest or involvement in local realities. The number of Labour Councillors who are landlords is an interesting sidelight on this issue. mdj
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Ferdy54 says...

I remember a Haringey Council consultation for a CPZ around the Spurs stadium on match days about 4 years ago.

In a road I used to park in there are 35 houses. 3 replied, 2 said yes, so it was passed for that road. I dont know what the rest of the local streets voted.
I remember a Haringey Council consultation for a CPZ around the Spurs stadium on match days about 4 years ago. In a road I used to park in there are 35 houses. 3 replied, 2 said yes, so it was passed for that road. I dont know what the rest of the local streets voted. Ferdy54
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Ferdy54 says...

Also if the council insist on putting it in, give everyone free vouchers as it was their idea that nobody wants!!!

Or everyone gets together & refuses to pay for any permits or any fines imposed.
Also if the council insist on putting it in, give everyone free vouchers as it was their idea that nobody wants!!! Or everyone gets together & refuses to pay for any permits or any fines imposed. Ferdy54
  • Score: 0

2:15am Sun 14 Oct 12

XenaWP says...

Thank you WF Guardian for bringing this to our attention.

My street has the "temporary" CPZ, but we've had no information from either the Council or the campaigners.

Thanks "livedheretoolong" for info about the meeting - see you there.

I just checked LBWF website. Of course they don't provide a consultation form to download. Could one be scanned & made available on www.cappz.org ?

For those who have not received the form, LBWF says:
"If you live within the CPZ catchment area and have not received your questionnaire by 2 October 2012 please email us, stating your name and address to cpz.schemes@walthamf
orest.gov.uk or contact us at Waltham Forest Direct on 020 8496 3000 and request for them to email to this address on your behalf."

i.e. order by email to be sent by SNAIL MAIL >:-[ I'm going to try this but doubt it will get here on time.
Thank you WF Guardian for bringing this to our attention. My street has the "temporary" CPZ, but we've had no information from either the Council or the campaigners. Thanks "livedheretoolong" for info about the meeting - see you there. I just checked LBWF website. Of course they don't provide a consultation form to download. Could one be scanned & made available on www.cappz.org ? For those who have not received the form, LBWF says: "If you live within the CPZ catchment area and have not received your questionnaire by 2 October 2012 please email us, stating your name and address to cpz.schemes@walthamf orest.gov.uk or contact us at Waltham Forest Direct on 020 8496 3000 and request for them to email to this address on your behalf." i.e. order by email to be sent by SNAIL MAIL >:-[ I'm going to try this but doubt it will get here on time. XenaWP
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Sun 14 Oct 12

freeparkingonourstreets says...

Public Meeting on Wednesday 17th October 2012 at the Heathcoat Arms Function Room, 344 Grove Green Road, London E11 4EA, 7pm-8:30pm

We are inviting a Councillor from each of the Wards affected by the proposed Control Parking Zone (CPZ) in Waltham Forest to attend.
VERY IMPORTANT ALL WANTING FREE ACCESS TO OUR STREET MUST ATTEND!!!!


Public Meeting on Wednesday 17th October 2012 at the Heathcoat Arms Function Room, 344 Grove Green Road, London E11 4EA, 7pm-8:30pm We are inviting a Councillor from each of the Wards affected by the proposed Control Parking Zone (CPZ) in Waltham Forest to attend. VERY IMPORTANT ALL WANTING FREE ACCESS TO OUR STREET MUST ATTEND!!!!

 freeparkingonourstreets
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Sun 14 Oct 12

freeparkingonourstreets says...

Public Meeting on Wednesday 17th October 2012 at the Heathcoat Arms Function Room, 344 Grove Green Road, London E11 4EA, 7pm-8:30pm

We are inviting a Councillor from each of the Wards affected by the proposed Control Parking Zone (CPZ) in Waltham Forest to attend.
VERY IMPORTANT ALL WANTING FREE ACCESS TO OUR STREET MUST ATTEND!!!!


Public Meeting on Wednesday 17th October 2012 at the Heathcoat Arms Function Room, 344 Grove Green Road, London E11 4EA, 7pm-8:30pm We are inviting a Councillor from each of the Wards affected by the proposed Control Parking Zone (CPZ) in Waltham Forest to attend. VERY IMPORTANT ALL WANTING FREE ACCESS TO OUR STREET MUST ATTEND!!!!

 freeparkingonourstreets
  • Score: 0

9:40am Mon 15 Oct 12

marshwarbler says...

What I don't understand is how the council justify the exorbitant prices for CPZ parking. I'm charged £120/year to park outside MY OWN house. Quite frankly I think that's a disgrace (they claim that because my car's got a large engine I have to pay more - go figure).

As if that's not bad enough, when I changed my car and had to wait for the new V5 document which took over a month to arrive, they tried to charge me £120 for a one month temporary pass. £120/month!!!

If you don't live in a CPZ already and you're asked whether you want one, believe me - say no
What I don't understand is how the council justify the exorbitant prices for CPZ parking. I'm charged £120/year to park outside MY OWN house. Quite frankly I think that's a disgrace (they claim that because my car's got a large engine I have to pay more - go figure). As if that's not bad enough, when I changed my car and had to wait for the new V5 document which took over a month to arrive, they tried to charge me £120 for a one month temporary pass. £120/month!!! If you don't live in a CPZ already and you're asked whether you want one, believe me - say no marshwarbler
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree