Call for council estate parking 'consultation' to be withdrawn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Liberal Democrats, has written to Brent Council calling for the current consultation on council estate parking to be withdrawn. Wembley Matters is aware of discontent at various estates across the borough which often centre on out of date information contained in the consultation, inaccurate maps, and as Lorber says an apparent threat that if residents do not agree with the proposal no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I think, that in view of the above, the current consultation should be withdrawn and a new consultation letter sent out making it clear that local residents views do matter and that any parking scheme is intended to provide a better parking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.

Conclusion:

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.