CENTRAL PARK MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.
Although representative of Central Park phase 1 the Directors have concern for the interest of the whole of Central Park.
Some background to the parking issues on this development with specific regard to the letter issued April 27th 2012 by Nick Hunt, Principal Traffic Engineer at LeedsCity Council
______
Many of the Directors of Central Park Management Co. Ltd. (CPMC) have been involved with Leeds City Council its Councillors and Officers for 8 years as Directors of other Management Companies involved in Central Park and 3 years as Directors of CPMC.
Parking has been a predominant issue throughout and the “negotiation” has proven a most frustrating, time consuming and to date non productive experience.
The Directors strongly urge you to respond to Mr Hunt but not before you have read the following summary of arguments which have not been clearly presented.
THE CASE PUT BY CENTRAL PARK MANAGEMENT CO.
Who is causing the parking problems is of limited relevance - the question is what is to be done to solve the problems.
The Directors of CPMC are concerned to make what limited parking there is available for residents and their visitors not third party opportunist parking wherever from.
The Background
The Central Parkdevelopment is managed by 2 Management Companies - Central Park Management. Co. Ltd. (CPMC) which is responsible for the area of Phase.1 and Mainstay Residential Ltd representing Phase 2. Not the confusing severalcompanies to which Mr. Hunt refers.
- The Planning Approval for the Development of Phase1 Central Park
included an s106 requirement for the Developer to pay for a
Residential Parking Zone (RPZ) should this need be identified in the
first 2 years.
This establishes that the Council was aware then (more than10 years
ago) that the Design of Central Park presented substantial potential
parking problems.
CPMC Directors have had acknowledgement from Nick Hunt’s line
manager Howard Claxton that this was never communicated to the
Highway Dept. from the Planning Dept. This was later contradicted by
Nick Hunt but remains the fact.
The situation was never monitored by anyone in the Council and the
time obligation on the Developer expired and the opportunity was lost.
- LeedsMetropolitanUniversity have introduced their Green Transport
Plan (GPT) encouraged by Leeds City Council.
The Directors of CPMC and other Weetwood Representative Groups
have expressed that they appreciate this plan is to fulfill Central
Government legislation requiring Universities to reduce carbon
footprint by discouraging students bringing cars to college.
The effect of the GTP has been to substantially reduce parking
available to students on Campus leaving acres of parking within the University grounds unused.
The result is that parking has simply been dispersed onto adjacent
roads specifically Central Park as the only viable adjacentavailable
parking apart from a short length on Glen Rd on the opposite side of
Otley Rd.
- Leeds City Council have progressively surrounded Central Park
(including Leeds Metropolitan University Campus) with RPZs but have
resisted introducing any parking control for Central Park.
This has had the effect of concentrating the entire displaced opportunistparking from Campus onto Central Park with the consequentexacerbation of problems.
The Directors and other representative groups consider it unreasonable and unfair of the Council to expect the residents in Central Park and Glen Rd.
to be expected to solve the consequence of their ownand Leeds Met policies and applications to control parking in other locations.
CPMC Directors are not anti student and have repeatedly acknowledged that the majority of the problem is created by resident demand for parking. This is not surprising when considering:
- The density of properties in Central Park is almost 3 times that of more traditional housing in surrounding areas.
- The no. of 3 storey houses and apartments mean there is up to 5 times as many bedrooms as in adjacent areas by area making it extremely attractive to landlords and resulting in a large proportion of adult occupancy and consequently a very high concentration of cars.
- The carriageways are narrow and both on and off street parking is limited.
The Directors consider that the consequences of the above are totally unreasonable and unfair and that Central Park should at least have the same consideration as the surrounding locations i.e. an RPZ protecting the limited parking for those who need it most i.e. the residents.
CPMC proposed solution
Implementation of an RPZ - giving the same or similar consideration to parking control in Central Park as all the surrounding areas. The Directors of CPMC consider that an exclusively residential area should not bear the consequence of other area policies and the problems they create.
Yellow lines - These would control parking where it should not be occurring at all. It will not reduce the overall available legitimate parking.
Parking and visitor permits – These need not be limited to 1 per household and do not cost. Suggestions to the contrary are scaremongering.
SUMMARY
If parking is full then vehicles will need to find an alternative. This happens anyway and applies to parking everywhere but at least with an RPZ the parking that there is would be available for residents and their visitors the people who require it most.
To our knowledge no on-street parking anywhere guarantees a space it is nonsense to provoke this as a concern against an RPZ.
It needs to be emphasized that Central Park is an exclusively residential area with a single road entry and egress, narrow carriageways and limited off street parking therefore caring and relevant consideration should be given to the parking requirement.
It has never been claimed by CPMC Directors “that parking during the working day term times is greater than residential parking needs on an evening or weekend”. The Directors consider that the availability of parking space is very limited and that this should be available for those who need it most i.e. The Residents of Central Park.
It is quite ridiculous to suggest that anyone puts convenienceabove safety. Sensible controlled parking will result in safer streets and this has been well demonstrated by the effects of the recent short lived RPZ introduced by the Management Company in Phase 2. of Central Park.
An RPZ can only benefit the Residents and make Central Park a more pleasant place to live.
We now need people power to persuade the Council to support the introduction of an RPZ.
Please support the full implementation of an RPZ and write to