I read with interest your periodical group emails and wondered if I may make use of your list to raise the following issue with your recipients.

I read with great joy the letter sent out last week regarding the re- instatement of parking controls on the estate. Only 48 hours later I read with equal consternation the letter presenting the counter point.

I assume that both you and the residents on your list all received both letters.

There can be no doubt that the issue of parking on IP is a contentious one. However, the one thing I cannot be sure of is what the silent majority really think. For the record, I am a staunch advocate of the proposed parking controls. I read the contracts when I moved here and went ahead with the transaction with my eyes wide open. I knew the parking restrictions and have abided by them for the entirety of my residence.

I was dismayed by the letter sent by the anti-control group and further dismayed by the petition they organised on Saturday. My concern is that this rousing of the troops may well make it appear to the authorities that parking controls are neither necessary nor desired by the majority of residents.

My belief is that the majority of residents, if they really think about it, want parking controls to be enforced. I have a nightmare vision that Ingress Park will end up like Waterstone – one big car park. It is the duty of every resident to protect the investment they have made in their home by protecting the natural beauty of the estate upon which it resides. It's no co-incidence that houses are approximately 10% cheaper in Waterstone Park on a like for like basis.

What do we know about this petition? Were multiple people from the same household allowed to sign it, inflating its numbers? Were people who simply rent a property and have no need to protect an investment allowed to sign? Whatever the case, I understand that the petition will be put in front of the powers that be on Wednesday morning and may just be enough to, at best, delay the implementation of the new controls. We cannot allow this to happen.

I stood up and spoke at an Ingress Park Management meeting held at the Hilton a few months ago (perhaps some of you were there). I was at the back of the room and spoke at the very last moment in favour of the parking controls, verbalising much of what I have written above. I was met with rapturous applause and resounding agreement from the floor. I came away from there believing that we were on the verge of parking nirvana.

In response to that meeting, a questionnaire went out to all residents, canvassing opinions on the specific nature of the parking problems and asking for suggestions on how to fix them. When Peveral's letter about the re-instatement of controls came round last week, it was so in-tune with my own view that I did not stop to think that it was not an accurate reflection of the overall consensus.

Clearly the anti-control group have reacted as theirs is not the majority view that resulted from the questionnaire. They have, I believe without foundation,  suggested that the results of the questionnaire were in some way fixed. This is often the stance taken by groups who do not get there own way. The danger is that this vocal minority will manage to convince the decision makers that they represent me and you when they clearly do not!

Without parking controls, anyone can park anywhere. There is nothing to stop residents' bays from being used illegally, there is nothing to stop people parking in front of your garage, there is nothing to stop the side streets being blocked from emergency access and, perhaps more importantly, there is nothing to stop the value of your home from plummeting as Ingress Park becomes one big Ingress Car Park!

If you feel like I do, email me at

thesilentmajority@ingressparking.com and together we may quash the dissenting voices and protect the serene beauty of the place that I am still proud to call home.

(a response)