Thank you for your e-mail. Hopefully I can answer all of these!!

1. Not necessarily. It would depend on the nature of the comments, the location of the road and the comments received from surrounding roads. I would suggest though that an even split would suggest to me that going ahead with an initial CPZ design was justified. Residents would another opportunity to comment on that design in any case

2. It is not possible, or indeed prudent to have individual streets or parts of streets opt out of a proposed CPZ, especially if they located in the centre of it. The only time this happens is when roads on the periphery of a proposed scheme boundary may opt not to become part of it.

3. A previous consultation on parking was held in 2007 and the area currently highlighted in the leaflet is broadly that where we had largely positive responses. Outside of this, the responses were more negative so we did not include them in this area. If a CPZ were to go in, areas on the periphery would be monitored and a further consultation would take place some 6-12 months afterwards, to see if an extension was required/supported.

4. I can assure you that the revenue generated by CPZs is used to pay for not only admin, but also the set up costs (signs/lines), on-going maintenance costs as well as for the actual enforcement. £40 per year (or the equivalent of one tank of fuel) equates to about 10p a day which in our view, is not a significant cost for an improved parking environment.

5. No. The same cost applies to all.

6. Visitors permits would be available to purchase from a local establishment or via post from MSDC. Effectively they are like a book of scratch cards. Each time a visitor needs to park, a card is scratched off and put on the dashboard. Each permit applies for two hours and can be purchased in advance e.g. buy three books and keep them in a draw ready for whenever a visitor arrives.

7. Quite simply, it is my job to ensure that my schemes are enforced! As part of the design process, a financial study will be undertaken which calculates how much additional enforcement would be required. MSDC would then be asked/instructed to divert resources to the CPZ.

8. Permits will have a vehicle registration on them so will not be able to be swapped around. Pool permits may be issued if a resident has two vehicles but only parks one on the road at any one time – in this case the permit could have two registrations on it and could be used on either vehicle. The priority is to allow all households to have one permit but in most cases, two will be issued. If there is capacity, 3rd/4th permits could be issued.

9. Not necessarily (refer to question 4). Even back in 2003, it cost us over £100,000 to implement a scheme in Crawley. Take into account the design costs, on-going maintenance requirements and the cost of employing additional enforcement/admin officers (at say £20K a year), we very rarely break even within a number of years, if at all.