We reported last October that the Cleveland Ward Councillors would be sponsoring a new consultation for a CPZ centred on the block formed by Kent Gardens, Cleveland Road, Kent Avenue and Scotch Common, including all of the Templewood estate. Some other streets - Castlebar Park, Victoria Road, Sovereign Close and a further section of Cleveland Road - would be able to opt in to the CPZ if the core area vote was in favour but would not be able to vote against the CPZ. As was the case with the 2013 Pitshanger CPZ consultation, concerns have been raised about the possible impact of displaced parking on trading in Pitshanger Lane, and a very politely worded notice has appeared in many trader windows: “Your Pitshanger GB High Street winning traders ask the residents concerned about parking in Kent Gardens, Kent Avenue, Cleveland Road, Victoria Road and Castlebar Park to please consider the impact on the Lane and the traders when voting in their forthcoming CPZ consultation”.
We’ve heard that the consultation documents have now been posted to residents in the core and outer areas, and the documentation is also available for download on the consultations area of the Council web site here. The closing date is 24th June.
In the meantime, there are a couple of questions we will be putting to Ealing Council. The first is concerned with how the proposed CPZ will be funded. The principle usually followed by the Council is that CPZs should fund themselves through the sale of parking permits to residents. But residents with off-street parking don’t need to buy permits, and there is a very high proportion of off-street parking in the target area. To be clear, we’re not having a dig at the residents concerned – we know that commuter parking is a problem – but we feel the question of who will pay for the CPZ given the limited scope for the sale of parking permits is a valid one.
The other question relates to an agenda item included and then mysteriously withdrawn from the Council Cabinet meeting held on 17th May, dealing with a rolling programme of CPZ consultations over the next three years, including Pitshanger (again). The question here is that if the Council is proposing another centrally funded CPZ consultation for Pitshanger, why is the Cleveland Ward Forum paying for the Kent Gardens/Avenue consultation separately? And what would happen if Kent Gardens/Avenue said No in the next few months but Pitshanger said Yes in a year or two’s time? We hope to bring you the answers in a future edition of the newsletter.