Looking through, its clear the agenda is simple -- keep doing assessments until every street is in a CPZ.But what if people say 'no'....Well tweak the thresholds -- Page 7: Currently a minimum 20% need respond of which 60% need to be in favour (so 12 households out of 100). In future the threshold wont have to "meet the same exacting parameters" (exacting?) - instead "no minimum response raterequirement and a threshold of 50% and above in support". So as few as 6 people out of 10 replies in a street of 100 and - chching - its a CPZ. If few than 10% "a scheme may be referred to the Portfolio Holder" (that's the labour councillor that is in charge of CPZs - who'd just rubber stamp it).And yet more removing of "democratic" oversight in the name of efficiency:"In order to improve the delivery time of controlled parking schemes, where ... results for an area clearly reflect the necessary evidential justification for implementation, a further report to Cabinet will not be required" i.e count the 6 responses and immediately order the CPZ signs. no need to report back to *even* the council leadership, let alone the ward councillors....There is mention of re-assessing existing zones - surely it's fair and balanced..?"Existing CPZs will only be reviewed when substantial requests are received and there is evidence and justification to do so".Right, so there's a timetable to consults on every NON CPZ area, but only by exception will an existing CPZ be validated.Why so? "CPZ reviews are expensive". Erm, surely just as expensive as putting one it.....
Jon Wilkins ● 3385d