Sunday, 31 October 2021

Call for council estate parking 'consultation' to be withdrawn


Parking on Saltcroft Close, Wembley

Paul Lorber, of Brent Liberal Democrats, has written to Brent Council calling for the current consultation on council estate parking to be withdrawn. Wembley Matters is aware of discontent at various estates across the borough which often centre on out of date information contained in the consultation, inaccurate maps, and as Lorber says an apparent threat that if residents do not agree with the proposal no alternative arrangements will be considered. This is compounded by the fact that some residents who have attempted to respond on-line find that their area, such as Saltcroft Close (above), is not listed on the consultation website.


Once again a ham-fisted approach undermines finding a solution to what is for some a very real problem.


Paul Lorber’s letter to Brent Council.


 I have been contacted by residents from Gauntlett Court, Barham Court and Elms Gardens and have seen the consultation document sent to Gauntlett Court.

You will be aware that the Council proposal have not been well received. 

Residents of Gauntlett Court agreed to the Wing service some years ago with a permit charge of £10 per car. They were also entitled to a visitor permit.

The inclusion of the sentence “Please note that should residents not support the proposal to introduce a TMO an alternative service will not be available on the estate” was a mistake by the Council. To make this statement or even to take this position makes it look as if the residents views do not count and the so called consultation is not sincere and therefore pointless.

I think, that in view of the above, the current consultation should be withdrawn and a new consultation letter sent out making it clear that local residents views do matter and that any parking scheme is intended to provide a better parking scheme for residents and not simply make money for the Council.

The following specific points apply to all 3 Estates:

1. The residents find the £50 charge excessive compared to the £10 before. They also do not trust the present Council about future rises as they are aware that CPZ charges have been raised astronomically since those schemes were introduced.

2. All the estates contain elderly residents many of whom need care and therefor visitors (either family members or agency carers). Without visitor permits those visits will be difficult as nearby parking outside the Estates is limited or covered by other CPZs.

3. Visitor Permits are also needed for trades people - plumbers, electricians etc - who also need to bring their tools and materials and need visitor permits. If visitor permits are not available - or arrangements not possible for pre registered number plates - the repair people will avoid the Estates.

4. Spaces (despite what is said about double yellow lines) need also to be highlighted for delivery vehicles (of which there are many more since the start of the pandemic).

5. There is concern about loss of parking spaces - as none of the 3 Estates suffer from pavement parking or major obstruction.

6. There is no information at all about the expected number of enforcement visits in a typical day or if special visits can be arrangements when parking from outsiders is anticipated.

7. There is also no information about exceptional arrangements for parking during funerals, weddings etc

Without concessions in all these areas I expect the Council proposals to be overwhelmingly rejected at the statutory consultation stage.

I also make the following general points:

1. The Elms Gardens block of 16 flats is exclusively for elderly or disabled residents. Many need visitors and therefore visitor permits are essential. 

2. Gauntlett Court has currently around 65 parking spaces for the 100 flats which seems sufficient for the Estate even with visitor permits. The Estate road is wide enough. There does not seem a need for extending existing double yellow lines in a way that would take away any parking.

3. Barham Court seems to get some commercial vehicle parking but otherwise there seem to be sufficient number of spaces.


1. The proposed £50 permit charge needs to be substantially reduced.
2. Visitor permits must be offered - or an affordable system to order (similar to the Ringo system) made available for family, carers or trade visitors.
3. Loss of parking spaces needs to be avoided.
4. There has to be flexibility and circumstances of each estate and nature of residents considered.
5. Likely frequency of Enforcement visits needs to be confirmed or whether Camera type control systems may be introduced explained. (If people become aware that no visits take place after 6pm the reference to 24hour controls will be fairly pointless).

I trust that my comments will be considered seriously and hopefully acted upon.



Anonymous said...

What a stupid idea by Brent Council, but we've grown use to their rubbish, selfish and thoughless decisions over the years haven't we? Surely it is time to get rid of some if not all of these foolish people? Next year's elections are your chance for change.

Pete Firmin said...

Over the years we've grown used to shoddy, meaningless consultations by Brent, basically done with the attitude "say what you like, but we'll do what we want anyway". But this one really does exceed all others in its uselessness. For our part of South Kilburn, the hard copies refer to "Canterbury Court, Gorefield House and Cambridge Court". Problem? Cambridge Court doesn't exist, or rather was demolished years ago as part of regeneration. What their plan refers to as Cambridge Court is simply Cambridge avenue (and their parking is on the road). No mention there of Alpha House, the other main block in the area, though it is on the plan. Because of parking problems in the area, the Tenants and residents Association has been pushing for changes to the parking system for at least 15 years. We've been fobbed off with "the Council is going to do a consultation". So now we have one, all those years later which is a mess. Of course, the TRA wasn't engaged with, though we're used to that. When new flats were built as part of regeneration we were told only those transferred from Council properties who had parking permits previously would be allowed them in their new flats. We have no idea if the Council stuck to that, or whether that stipulation is included in the new plans. The documentation is silent on that as so much else. When new blocks were built nice yellow lines were painted. Yet they have been ignored with people parking wherever they want. When this has been raised the response has been that the yellow lines act as a deterrent, which is absolutely not true. Drivers have learnt that there is effectively no monitoring. Over the years residents have sent photos about the state of the parking, to which the Council eventually replied "stop sending photos, we're not doing anything". Overnight and early morning the area looks like a vast car park. Look at that photo of Saltcroft Close and imagine the space in the middle full of vehicles. That's what our area looks like. The proposed plans give around 80 parking spaces, the number it would be if no-one parked on the double yellow lines, pavements etc. There are around 250 households in Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Court and the plans are confusing about what other residents would have permits for those spaces. Brent has never properly monitored the existing parking system, so there is little confidence they would do so for the new system. As Brent has built more housing in South Kilburn it has never got to grips with the parking issue (though in the luxury flats being built now, you can get an underground parking space for £25,000 a year). Better for this consultation to be withdrawn and a new one be done in real consultation with residents, and without assuming a "one side fits all" approach throughout the borough.

Anonymous said...

Agree with your comment 100%

Time for change

Brent is a corrupt Borough

Stop voting for these corrupt Labour cllrs