Friday, 19 February 2010

Leaflets along Winns Ave

Dropped some leaflets along Winns Ave this evening and counted the cars as I went, just a random Friday evening - I left the house at 9pm.

In the LP zone there were 20 (out of 32 capacity, 62% occupancy) cars, from LP down to Holmes Road there were 40 cars (out of 77 capacity, just 52% full). From Holmes to Priory Court were 15 cars and from Priory Court to the end there were 19 ( 34/88 capacity - only 38% full). That is a total of 94 cars on a road that can house 197 cars. Wow, hadn't done the maths till just now....that is under 48% occupancy. That is 52% of the spaces free - spaces that our families and friends could use to visit us this weekend, but we would have to pay £8.40 per car per weekend for that.....

I'd like to apologise to John who sent me an email to post for him, but my new computer isn't letting me do it. I'll sort out my word application and get onto it this weekend.

Most frustratingly the flyposting continues unabated and it seems our lawbreaking friend has become aggressive and offensive. Having seen the emails he sends and heard the way that his own neighbours talk about him, I think it is clear the man is a patronising bully. Normally I wouldn't post something this unpleasant about someone, but since we haven't named him I think it is only fair. And we imagine he reads this - so hello there, welcome, please feel free to comment, but remember NO SHOUTING.
Best wishes all (but one;)


  1. (I’ll have to post in several parts due to comment-size limitations)

    (Part 1)


    I live in Winns Avenue and am in favour of the CPZ. As such, I have some responses this blog and to your leaflet:

    ‘CPZ VOTE NO: We didn't want it. The Road is half empty. Why Pay?’

    Your leaflet states that,

    "During the last consultation Winns Ave voted convincingly against being part of a CPZ.

    Winns Ave was included in the zone against the wishes of the residents.”

    And then goes on to state that,

    “Several homes on Winns Ave didn’t even get a consultation pack.”

    And that,

    “The return rate of forms was very low on Winns Ave – this could be explained by many residents simply not being given forms.”

    Now, if the return rate of forms was very low, (this low rate being only from a percentage of the percentage of residents who actually received the form) how can that possibly be a “convincing” vote, either for or against?

    Your leaflet frequently states that ‘Winns Ave’ wants this and ‘Winns Ave’ wants that – I’m sorry, but this is incredibly misleading to anyone who reads it. I am a Winns Avenue resident and I don’t want the CPZ removed; and I would prefer it if you not write as if you represent all residents. By all means offer your opinion and campaign for what you believe, but please don’t give the impression you speak for everyone: because you don’t.

    You dropped leaflets on a random Friday evening during school holidays - a night when many people are out for the evening and at a time of year when many people may be away from home, vacationing with their children. To draw any conclusions from a one-time sampling is unproductive.

    I went out last night (Saturday, 20th Feb, 2010) at 10:40pm, and counted the number of cars along Winns Avenue, using the same blocks of space as you:

    LP zone = 24 cars / 23 spaces;

    LP zone - Holmes Ave = 36 cars / 20 spaces;

    Holmes Ave - Priory Ct = 20 cars / 17 spaces;

    Priory Ct - End = 29 cars / 12 spaces.

    The figures I have given for spaces are estimates only, based solely on the amount of space I could see. Obviously, judging by eye alone is completely inadequate for any completely reliable accuracy but, unless my eyes need replacing, there seems to be some big differences between my estimates and the council's figures (e.g. Council's total spaces for LP Zone - Holmes Ave = 77, versus my count for LP Zone - Holmes Ave = 56). My thoughts are that possibly the council's figures don't take into account the amount of space now occupied by the new double yellow lines...

    My occupancy figures appear to bear out yours for the previous night but, again, the two nights combined are of only slightly more value; an extended survey would be significantly more substantive and valuable.

    Both your post here and your leaflet (CPZ VOTE NO) highlight that the road is half empty, and draw the conclusion that the CPZ is, therefore, not needed and should be removed.

    Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

    I’ve lived here for almost thirteen years, and before the CPZ was introduced I considered myself lucky if I managed to park within 50 yards of my front door. There were even a few times when parking was so bad that I had to park on Pennant Terrace and walk the length of Elphinstone Road to get home. Since the CPZ was introduced, it’s a rarity that I’m not able to park directly outside my home.


  2. (Part 2)


    Full to capacity one day, half empty the next.

    So what happened?

    It would be nice to imagine the residents all decided en masse to get rid of their cars in favour of bicycles, in a valiant attempt to save the planet, but I doubt that this is the case.

    The answer, I believe, is to be found in the surrounding roads.

    South of Winns Avenue, within the CPZ areas, the roads (Bemstead, Mersey, and Diana etc.) usually show a reasonable occupancy, without being full to capacity. North of Winns Avenue, the area without a CPZ, the roads (Elphinstone, Fleeming, and Carr) are almost always at full capacity.

    The roads north of Winns Avenue currently have to cope with three parking groups: residents of those roads, non-residential users, and Winns Avenue residents who currently refuse to buy a permit for their zone.

    The first group, residents of those roads, are currently being consulted regarding a CPZ for their area. Given the difficulties they are experiencing trying to cope with the vehicles displaced, it’s not unreasonable to think they might vote for their own zone; this would solve their problems as their ability to park outside their own homes will be greatly increased.

    In the event of the north-side area getting its own CPZ, the second group, non-residential users, will be displaced yet again, and they will have to seek alternative arrangements.

    The third group, Winns Avenue residents, will, in the event of a north-side CPZ, be forced to bite the bullet and purchase a permit for their own CPZ. This will relieve the pressure on the north-side and will also use the 50% or so vacant spaces we currently see on Winns Avenue.

    The introduction of a separate north-side CPZ would reduce the congestion in the Lloyd Park area and enable residents to park where they live – a not unreasonable aspiration.

    If, however, the Winns Avenue residents vote to remove themselves from the CPZ, the parking situation on Winns Avenue will become, once more, a real annoyance. Even if the north-side vote against a CPZ, Winns Avenue will be free parking for anyone who wishes, meaning non-residential vehicles can, once again, use it as a car-park (while they go shopping in the market, off to work on the Victoria Line, spend a few hours in Lloyd Park, etc.). The point being that without the restrictions imposed by the CPZ, Winns Avenue will become as congested as the north-side currently is.

    If, even worse, the north-side vote yes for a CPZ and Winns Avenue is removed from the CPZ, it will be the only road in the area without parking restrictions.

    Imagine this.

    There will be residents, non-residents, and residents from other roads not willing to pay for a permit, all trying to park on one road. All of the congestion on the three roads north of Winns Avenue will descend on one road: ours.

    If you arrive home in your car and there are no spaces in Winns Avenue (and possibly a CPZ to both the north and south), where will you park? How far are you willing to walk, possibly with shopping, or carrying a child, or in the rain or snow?

    Winns Avenue opting out of the CPZ is, for me, not an option.

    The biggest issues regarding the CPZ seem to be availability of parking for non-residential users (commuters etc.), the operating hours of the CPZs, and the cost of temporary permits for friends and family use, rather than a problem with having some provision for residents to park at home.

    These issues should, undoubtedly, be addressed, but they require both the council’s attention towards the issue commuter parking, and an amendment to the CPZ, but certainly not the removal of it.

    Winns Avenue losing the CPZ will not solve the parking problems, it will exacerbate them.

    My apologies for the length of this comment, and I hope it finds you well.

    Best wishes,



    I’m not the Phantom Fly-poster!

  3. Dear Ray - we know you aren't the fly-poster, he is no phantom!
    Thank you for posting, I have a few comments and will try to keep it short.
    I have never claimed that myself, or the group, speak for everyone. When I say that Winns Ave want this or that, it is based on the results of the original survey. It isn't my opinion that Winns A residents didn't want a zone or that 5 days was teh prefered option - that is what we as a road voted.
    Of those given the opportunity to vote, the vote was convincingly against. The Council admit that not all residents on Winns A got a pack - it was more than just me who was disenfranchised. I have never said that everyone agrees or that I represent everyones views - I think that the last consultation figures speak for the road better than anyone - you or me and I think it is important that residents know what happened during the first consultation.
    If you look back through this blog you will see photos and the occasional count over many random days, not just this last Friday the one you mention.
    What happened between your count and mine is (almost nothing in terms of car numbers) but that I used the official space numbers the Council use and you estimated by eye. Unfortunately when there is an enormous amount of space people park badly leaving half spaces etc between cars as there is no need to park prettily. There are 197 spaces on Winns Ave so your count of 109 cars means Winns Ave was just 55% full.
    And one point I particularly want to make - because it feels a little like scaremongering - is that if you re-read the information sent out with the reconsultation you will see that:
    "If the majority do not want to remain in the scheme the recommendation for Winns Ave may depend not only on the response from Winns Ave residents but also on consideration of the consultation results from the area between Winns Ave and Billet Road - since parking in Winns Ave could also be affected if new zones are introduced in this area"
    The Council has been clear that they will not allow just our one road to be surrounded by zone. So we have the opportunity in the reconsultation (which again, the group did NOT ask for) to express our opinion, without the risk of what you say happening. The surrounding are has been given more flexible options than we have, including not wanting one at all if we vote out of the zone.
    Best wishes,

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. I also wanted to add that I am most concerned by the accusation in Roy and Vincents leaflet, that the reconsultation was "demanded" by WMCPAG residents.
    It is entirely untrue. I am astonished that this accusation has been made against a group of residents who have done nothing but present the problems many residents were facing to the Council. And that people are believing it is very disturbing even though the information the Council provided clearly states that a number of complaints from residents inside the LP and WA were received as well as from outside and that is why it is being reconsidered. WMCPAG did not demand anything, except that the Council addresses the problems caused - many of which (such as where teachers at the local schools will park, or how to address the slump in business at the wonderful community facility the Lloyd Park Centre) they have still not shown any interesting id addressing.
    Those comments in particular on ROy and Vincents leaflets are not only offensive, but entirely inaccurate.