Dear Mr Gellard
Thank you for your response. After considering this further, and after a lack of explanation as to how this will benefit the residents of Elmwood Road, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the motives and the manner in which the CPZ consultation process is being conducted. I have some specific questions that I hope you answer.
After reading the questionnaire I believe there is an error with question 6 which instructs people who are against the CPZ to skip a question that is indeed relevant to them. The questionnaire is only 8 questions long, how can it be possible to word 25% of them incorrectly? Is the questionnaire going to be reissued error free to give all residents a fair chance of filling it in correctly?
Why is the CPZ consultation talking place for a third time when it has already been overwhelmingly rejected twice within the past 7 years? Why have we only been allowed three weeks to voice our concerns and respond? It is quite possible that some residents may be away for this time.
Why is the CPZ being proposed on streets (such as Elmwood Road) where there is no problem? I do not accept that it is just better to cover a wider area in the first stage of the consultation process, surely there are extra cost implications of this which you would not be able to justify without good reason? This should be outlined in the document.
Why is the consultation document so generic? It should outline the specific costs and benefits on a street by street basis. The advantages described in the document are by no means representative of Elmwood Road which has no parking issues. As far as I can see it does also not properly outline the disadvantages such as extra expense, fewer parking spaces, ugly road marking, ugly signs, ugly parking meters and Traffic enforcement officers that will no doubt lead to unwanted confrontations on the streets that we live.
I would be grateful for your response
Yours sincerely
Liane Evans
Elmwood Road
No comments:
Post a Comment