| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:CPZ ‘consultation’ | |
| Posted by: | Arthur Breens | |
| Date/Time: | 27/11/24 23:41:00 |
| To date no reply on the flaws and faults in the mail drop consultation paper from the company who published and distributed it. Problems are (1) emotive language.(2) Wrong hours.(3) Lies/poor maths. With so many faults how can they be trusted to assess the returns? Tomorrow I write to Cllr Driscoll who has already blotted his copy book with the Lammas Park fiasco. Maybe he can tell us why our short hour CPZs are difficult to enforce. And how does he intend to weight the responses of residents with off-street parking with those who park in the road. Hey and there are other questions but again these won't be answered you bet. The one that is never properly discussed are local shops and amenities. Rents and house prices are high in Ealing. How then can those who service our shops and facilities travel to us? Short hour CPZs allow them to duck and dive. What are the unintended consequences of long hour CPZs on them and their work? Unintended consequences Unintended consequences Cllr Driscoll. |