Dear Editor

You asked me for my comments and I am happy to give you them.  

You raise several issues.  Firstly, the guidelines handed down by the government have now changed.  Originally the guidelines were one and a half spaces per dwelling to include any garage.  This has now been changed to one and a half spaces not including a garage.  So now there is plenty of scope to increase the amount of parking spaces available for residents.  In fact many of the people who are now talking to me have suggested exactly this, as a solution to the problems.

Secondly, you mention space theft.  The new parking scheme does not address this issue in any way.  If you are parked in a bay, you cannot be issued with a ticket, regardless of whether it is your bay or not.  I have been told by many of my fellow protestors that this is huge problem. 

Thirdly, your summing up of my argument, as "it's not fair" makes me sound petulant and childish, irritating as you had not even heard my argument at the time.  I take great exception to being told how many visitors I am allowed to have stay over in a month.  It is not within the remit of the Board or Crest to decide such matters for me.  As for the covenant, nowhere does it state that I agree to the Board deciding how many visitors I am to be allowed in a month.  And yes, they do use bullying tactics.  We have been told that in order to get our allowed quota of permits we HAVE to sign a letter, which states that we agree with the scheme.  I have since had it in writing from OPC that there is no legal obligation to sign the letter.  So why try to force us to sign our agreement with it in the first place?  The unattractive and badly worded signs are very threatening; once again I would say are bullying.  We are now told that "they reserve the right to tow away vehicles and dispose of them if fines are not paid within 2 weeks"  How can they reserve such a right?

Fourthly, you mention the Fasttrack bus.  The route down to Ingress Park is on hold due to ecological issues.  Apparently, we have a colony of endangered bats living in the cave. 

 I would also like answer some of the points raised by “parking controls – I’m all for ‘em”.  By an anonymous contributor.  As for being the “silent majority”, I think they will soon find out that they are in fact the silent minority and I have never believed in minority rule.  Perhaps this gentleman should contact an estate agent to find out why the homes here are 10% higher than Waterstone Park. I think he will find out it is because of a combination of river views, the presence of Ingress Abbey and the wide open spaces.  I very much hope that when we come to sell our investments we will not be hoisted on the petard of these parking measures and find ourselves unable to find a buyer willing to submit to the will of a Board that does not consider the views of the majority of residents.  I have been accused of being anti-regulation, but this is not the case.  I do agree that nobody should be allowed to park on pavements or block the roads to the extent that emergency service vehicles cannot get through, but this new parking scheme is not the answer.  We should also consider the effect on the estate when Dartford Borough Council formally adopt the roads.  This will cover the majority of the estate, (Felix has a map in his office) and when that happens, and the roads are public highways, as long as you have a tax disc and do not park on a yellow line or pavement, you will be able to park.

 I would also like to mention the questionnaire sent out some months ago by the board. I have a copy of the results and in contrast to the results proving " majority" desire for more regulation; the fact is that of some 1,000 residences only around 200 replied. So in no way was the registered result as claimed in the Board`s document.  Statistically, less than 10%  said " more" regulation, which means about 90 % did not say that. In this respect the Board has NO mandate.

The Board & its predecessors have had about 7/9 years or so to come up with a winning plan. This new, flawed plan is the result. When I organised the petition signing I was told by one member of the board, that I had to come up with an alternative.  This I am happy to do, but in consultation with the 300 or so residents that I have so far contacted and the rest as they join us.  It is my intention, with our new community group - Ingress Park Community, to find out exactly what the majority of people want.  So far the only residents association that the board are listening to consists of a very small number of residents, I have been told 20 - (but it is a closely guarded secret exactly how many, I wonder why?) who are in favour of more draconian parking regulations.  <Editors note: actually this may not true. The "others" include people with a full range of views. As a result they are, as a group, staying out of the debate though their members (many of who are also included in Linet's supporters), may express their views> I do not believe they represent the "silent majority" for one second.  However, we shall see.  Our group will also seek the opportunity of representation to the Board.  Anyone who wishes to join our residents group can contact me via our new website, which I have also funded myself,  www.ingressparkcommunity.com  Our intention is to form a residents group that listens to the majority of residents views and not only over such issues as parking. We want to organise an annual fete and other such events and begin to create a real community feeling.

Best regards, Linet

Silent Majority