Monday, 30 July 2012

Petition on Resident Parking

The Ladywell CPZ is not currently a 'live' issue for Ladywell Village, where controls seem largely 'fit for purpose' and will improve with the introduction of new short-stay bays early next year.  However, views in the area are mixed on whether the zone (and, in particular, way it operates at present) is a good thing or not.  The most recent extension, which takes the zone further up the hill, has generated particular concerns.  A group of residents has recently set-up an online petitionwhich you may wish to support, urging the Council to review the zone's operation to seek to find a solution that better addresses the area's parking issues.
The LVIG Committee


val said...

Ah, the rude people who spat out their dummies at the Assembly. They've had their chance and they didn't get their ducks in a row. Apparently they didn't have the time like those of us in the earlier consultation - I let my hair go naturally grey, so I must be retired; thanks. They also think democracy is synonymous with forcing their issue on to an existing agreed agenda at a meeting they never before bothered to attend, and insulting the people who do bother by calling them "cronies" just because their efforts in giving up their time to work together to help the community mean they dare to know one another's names.

Anonymous said...

It's always good to have a snipe at someone and the internet is a good forum for trolls . . . but anyway, getting back to the issue

The article is wrong - the most recent extension included Embleton Road and a further few parts of Brookbank, it didn't take the zone to the top of Vicars Hill, it remains stopping at Ermine Road. There are now safety concerns (speeding cars etc) on Vicars Hill particularly (probably elsewhere as well) which has been exacerbated by the recent extension.

Anonymous said...

The current CPZ is too blunt an instrument. Commuters cannot park at all anywhere near the bottom of the hill, there are a very few £10 all day bays but who will pay that, but they can park for free almost anywhere towards the top. So now we have near empty streets at the bottom of the hill but double parked vehicles at the top. Those of us at the top of the hill were relaxed before the consultation which first imposed this CPZ was done. I suspect we're not now. I hope the current consultation and borough wide rethink of parking will take into account such knock-on effects and unintended consequences as implementation of the current Ladywell CPZ doesn't seem to have at all.

val said...

Thanks for calling me a troll. At least I am not anonymous. And I think the term better applies to those who were rude at the assembly. Notice you didn't mention that my "trolling" was actually a reaction to being insulted when I was just trying to offer some help and advice.

Ther empty spaces lower down the hill are there because we voted for the scheme. we were sick and tired of having to park at the top of the hill while commuters clogged our streets to bursting point. Vehicles in the lower streets could not pass eash other, cars got damaged. Life was a nightmare. Now you have the congestion we used to suffer - indeed you tried to deny us the CPZ for this very reason - you still think you have the right to have empty streets and we should have the parked cars back.

We needed the CPZ. Now you need it, too. Don't blame the residents of the lower streets, or even the Council. Blame the commuters who drive as close as they can to Zone 2 in order to save money.

And stop being anonymous...yes, trolls. Those who snipe at people making a legitimate point.

I'd send this to you direct, but you're anonymous...

Simon said...

Val has this spot on. The growth of the CPZ is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The problem gets moved to neighbouring roads, those roads then vote for the CPZ extension and it moves on again. We cannot ban commuters but just move them on.

I was always against the idea of having to pay for the prvilege to park near my residence.

That was until I moved in to a road adjacent to the CPZ and sufferred the problems with commuter parking such as returning from grocery shoppping and having to park two roads away not to mention the arguments, parking damage and worry.

I now willinigly pay the annual charge and our road is a far more pleasant, safer place to live. Yes I feel that I have been duped in to paying £120 a year and the council is on to a clever money raising scheme but unless the entire process can be re-thought I am glad I no longer have to suffer.

Anonymous said...

Val seems to be taking this far too personally. Also can't make sense of Simon's comments, he says Val has this spot on and then go on to more or less disagree with her.

Anyway to get back to the issue. I'm sure "life was hell" for those at the botom of the hill prior to the CPZ, and, you are right it was not a problem at the top of the hill then. For that reason most people at the top of the Hill didn't vote for a CPZ (I'm talking about 3-5 years ago or whenever that original consultation was) as they didn't perceive the need for it at that time.

I am not being critical of those of you at the bottom of the hill but of the council who should have anticipated the effect on the top of the hill that introducing a CPZ at the bottom would have. Maybe they did anticipate this but were unable or unwilling to make the effort to communicate this to those of us at the top of the hill who have had to find out how this works the hard way.

I guess Simon's right we will probably now get a CPZ at the top of the hill.

However, I think the council could and should have had a more comprehensive approach to this from the start which also protected the interests of people working in the area who need to park their cars somewhere and even of commuters travelling on into town, who after all are just people trying to get to work too.

I can see the council's problem, had they suggested a well thought out comprehensive scheme from the start (say a borough, or at least ward, wide CPZ with some all day parking in all areas and with some price discrimination - i.e. cheaper to park, for non-residents, at the top of the hill than the bottom for example) then it would probably have been rejected by everyone. The way we're going now it's probably what we'll get in the end but we could have had it with less pain at the price of some unpopularity for some councilors or the Mayor. Of course political unpopularity is too high a price to pay for anything as we all know.