London Liberal Democrats

info@libdems4london.org.uk

Campaigning for London in Parliament, in Europe and in the London Assembly

Lib Dems Slam Labour Over CPZ Consultations

11.36.00am GMT Mon 2nd Oct 2006

Lib Dem councillors have conducted independent surveys that indicate that Labour's controversial CPZ consultations are fatally flawed. Labour are being slammed by residents and Lib Dem councillors over the second stage of consultations for drawing up plans without reference to hard evidence of residents' wishes.

The Lib Dems have conducted their own surveys across the borough, in an effort to help residents to have their voice heard. It has emerged that in response to the Hornsey Station CPZ plans, a staggering 87% of residents are against the proposals.

Hornsey Councillor Robert Gorrie comments: "Our survey shows that five streets in the Labour Council's second stage consultation show a clear majority of residents being against the CPZ. The reverse is true too: there were only eight streets that did not show a majority of residents to be against the plans, and just three of these streets are included in the plans. We have said all along that parking issues are very localised and specific to individual streets. Labour have taken no notice - they are just not listening to our residents."

The Lib Dems forced Labour to agree to allow them to examine the responses to the Council's consultation, in order to check the facts. They will scrutinise closely the responses received by the Council, with particular focus on those streets included in the Phase 2 consultation where the Liberal Democrats own survey does not indicate a clear majority in favour of a CPZ.

In addition councillors are working with residents of the streets who have reported parking issues but are being ignored by Labour, in order to see what local solutions can be proposed.

The Lib Dems have released a policy document laying out their vision for this and future consultations, in an effort to provide an alternative policy to Labour councillors that they claim are either unwilling to listen to its residents, or simply too incompetent to find a way to do so.

Councillor John Oakes, Spokesperson for Community Involvement, comments: "It is becoming clearer and clearer that Labour are just not willing to listen. We have heard anecdotal evidence that the maps of this second phase of consultation are dated March 2006. Our own research indicates a seriously flawed consultation, where residents' wishes have not been taken into account. A promise to address this at a special meeting of the Crouch End, Hornsey and Stroud Green Area Assembly has been reneged upon; the meeting cancelled that very night. Residents are very rightly furious.

"Our vision is that Haringey should go back to the drawing board, and conduct a meaningful consultation. The Council should establish a 'parking forum' with local residents groups, businesses and councillors. This could be done through, or report to, the neighbourhood assembles, where CPZs have been strangely omitted from the agenda. In my own ward, 33% of all households are simply not on the Council's list. Their missing results would be enough to overturn any 'results' they have so far obtained.

"We want the full involvement of the local community and their representatives, in order to implement a localised, street by street plan that genuinely reflects residents' wishes."

Bookmark this story at: del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg FacebookFacebook LibDigLibDig redditreddit StumbleUponStumbleUpon
Print this news story
Previous news story: Local Hospital 'Second Most at Risk' in Britain, Say Liberal Democrats (Mon 2nd Oct 2006).
Next news story: Local Blind People Left Without Support (Mon 2nd Oct 2006).

Related News Stories:

Thu 2nd Oct 2008:

Mon 29th Jan 2007:

Mon 18th Dec 2006:

Fri 22nd Sep 2006:

Fri 7th Apr 2006:

Wed 5th Oct 2005:

Wed 7th Sep 2005:

Printed and hosted by Prater Raines Ltd, 82b Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BX.
Published and promoted by London Liberal Democrats, 4 Cowley Street, London SW1P 3NB.
The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider.