|
Response to consultation with residents
regarding parking in Lode Lane
and Leafield Road
14 June 2005.
Dear Paul,
Please find below my response
to the consultation, which arose following a petition sent to Solihull
Metropolitan Borough Council by residents in February 2005.
Residents of Lode Lane and Leafield Road,
as well as Leam Crescent
and Lammas Close, have incurred problems as a result of workers from the
nearby Land Rover plant parking vehicles in their road for many many years.
As well as residents contacting me I know that reports have also been made
to Land Rover and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. It is fair and
accurate to state that neither Land Rover, SMBC nor local councillors have
had any real success in alleviating the problem for residents. Any
reduction of parking was only temporary, with new workers vehicles taking
the place of those displaced. Those residents directly affected are those
who reside in Lode Lane
and the top of Leafield Road.
Here, residents have incurred their drives being blocked for periods of
whole shifts and have received verbal abuse when confronting drivers. Those
residents who are disabled have, on many occasions, not been able to drive
their vehicles onto their drive, forcing them to walk longer distances than
they should. I have also received reports that when refuse has been left at
the roadside (as most residents of Solihull normally do the evening before
collection) they have woken to find the refuse bags have been thrown into
their gardens, presumably by drivers of vehicles who have parked in the
kerb space in front of their house. This is totally unacceptable.
Residents in the other roads
are also affected because of parking in Leafield Road. Driving from the
bottom part of Leafield, Lammas Close and Leam Crescent, residents are
confronted by a ‘chicane effect’ because of vehicles parked,
sometimes half on the pavement. Residents recognise this as a danger,
especially because vehicles turning into Leafield Road from Lode Lane are forced to brake suddenly.
Local drivers recognise this as a road hazard and are forced to alter their
driving plans accordingly. In addition, residents using motorised scooters
or those pushing pushchairs and prams are sometimes forced onto the
pavement.
The above constitutes not
only a great deal of inconvenience to residents, but is also a road safety
issue. Residents have incurred great problems over a long period of time
and feel badly let down by SMBC. I have consulted with many residents,
receiving scores of telephone calls and emails. I have met dozens of
residents on my visits and can state with great certainty that they have
had enough. I support their petition and requests and know that many more
residents who did not get the opportunity to sign the petition support it
as well. Hopefully they will respond to you in the terms they have to me.
On behalf of residents I feel that to
do nothing is not an option.
I have to state that
residents, as well as myself, have been let down because of the lack of
promised action regarding this petition. I related to residents promises
that questionnaires would be sent to residents; firstly at the end of
February, then beginning of April, and then beginning of May. This has
fuelled their feelings of being let down by SMBC. In respect of the letter
sent to residents (dated 27
May 2005) and the two options I wish to respond as follows.
I feel the letter is negative
in context, especially when highlighting police response and that vehicles
would be merely displaced, with other residents being inconvenienced. I
have received complaints about the tenure of the letter and two options
provided. The options are not ideal for residents and I feel many who
respond may misread what is being put before them. Several residents have
called this cynical.
As I read it, option 1 will
mean that workers from Land Rover will still be able to park their vehicles
in front of the houses in Lode
Lane. Yes, where there are lines there will be
no parking, but where there are no restrictions then drivers will know they
CAN park there. Therefore the needs of residents in Lode Lane will not be met and the
problems will remain as they are. Why can there not be timed parking
restrictions on the frontages of the property to complement restrictions at
the top of Leafield Road
(as shown on the map)?
Option 2 has caused some
concern. The problems are in Lode
Lane and the top of Leafield Road. Does it need all of
the roads to have parking restrictions? This may mean that residents, who
have obvious concerns, reply in a negative manner (if at all) to the
consultation.
May I suggest a way forward?
Is it not possible that timed parking restrictions are put in place in Lode Lane and
the top of Leafield Road
– up to the line of houses? Yes, some vehicles may be displaced and
if they are SMBC will be able to respond quickly to increase the length of
the restrictions in Leafield
Road. This can be communicated to residents to
show that SMBC is supporting them and will respond to their concerns.
I will be interested to find
out how residents have responded, certainly to ascertain if what I have
been told is corroborative. Hopefully as many as possible do respond, but I
do have grave doubts about the consultation, because of the concerns
residents have mentioned to me as a result of the consultation letter sent
to them. I have a letter from one resident claiming the options are
smokescreens and another example of SMBC fobbing residents off.
Sorry to have gone on, but
even now I have edited my response so as to keep it on two sides of A4. As
you appreciate I have the interests of residents at heart, who I feel have
been let down over the years by Land Rover and SMBC. I stated earlier in
the letter that doing nothing is not an option, but it is vitally important
that we do the right thing for our residents – some of which are at
the end of their tether.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Hawkins,
Councillor – Elmdon Ward.
|
