Tories approve widening the area for on-street parking charges, really, how long do you need in Newbury town anyway! Options

[Andy Capp]

Be careful how long you are held up at the huge post office queue dear, there'll be a greenmeanie ready to pounce! And I wouldn't dither over that Latte either!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/end-of-...parking-charges

[MontyPython]

Be careful how long you are held up at the huge post office queue dear, there'll be a greenmeanie ready to pounce! And I wouldn't dither over that Latte either!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/end-of-...parking-charges

They say there wasn't much response to the Second consultation - I certainly responded to one of the consultations. I was not made aware of a further one, which means either

a) I responded to the second consultation

The council were scum bags and didn't clearly advise all previous respondents that a further consultation was taking place

or

c) both of the above

I think now is the time to petition for WBC staff to pay for any pass they may have that entitles them to use Public car parking spaces without charge.

At least then self interest will be erradicated from decisions.

[motormad]

Andy is that not something that can be found out under a FOI request?

[JeffG]

Well, I won't be sorry about Newtown Road. It's a pain having to drive along the residents (empty during the day) parking bay so that traffic coming down the hill can get through, then pulling right out to turn left into Porchester Road if I need to.

[On the edge]

Personally, I think it's the right decision. It's taken a bit of time to implement, but at least they've shown some leadership for once. The opposition claim they haven't listened, the time delay suggests that's just what they did do, but if the 'anti' case wasn't made, no amount of 'listening' will change the result.

[Andy Capp]

Well, I won't be sorry about Newtown Road. It's a pain having to drive along the residents (empty during the day) parking bay so that traffic coming down the hill can get through, then pulling right out to turn left into Porchester Road if I need to.

Yes, another piece of 'marvellous' road planning made by people who don't have to live with it.

[Andy Capp]

Personally, I think it's the right decision. It's taken a bit of time to implement, but at least they've shown some leadership for once. The opposition claim they haven't listened, the time delay suggests that's just what they did do, but if the 'anti' case wasn't made, no amount of 'listening' will change the result.

Why do you think it is right?

[spartacus]

Yes, another piece of 'marvellous' road planning made by people who don't have to live with it.

I seem to remember that junction was changed because of the complaints that you couldn't see traffic to the left or right when vehicles were parking either side of the Porchester junction. The kerb was pulled forward so that visibility was improved for drivers waiting to pull out. A couple of years later they got rid of the parking anyway during the day because of the obstruction it was causing for traffic on Newtown Road. The junction has since been adjusted back so it isn't jutting out quite as far as previous.

[MontyPython]

Personally, I think it's the right decision. It's taken a bit of time to implement, but at least they've shown some leadership for once. The opposition claim they haven't listened, the time delay suggests that's just what they did do, but if the 'anti' case wasn't made, no amount of 'listening' will change the result.

How have they listened? A number of people complained over the two consultations, which would have been a small sample of those who disagreed. There will be people like yourself that may agree with the decision, how many of them wrote to the council with their support?

Whilst those writing in support would be a smaller proportion of those who are in agreement of residents and town users - or can be clearly indicated that it is for their benefit and not just to suit the views of the officers of WBC and the councillors!

[blackdog]

The case against was pretty straightforward - WBC were implementing the changes to the existing parking scheme in order to raise income (as they announced when they first announced the changes). This was then declared illegal in a recent test case.

After that case WBC decided they were doing it for traffic control reasons (total tosh) - it doesn't remove any parking spaces so it will have little or no effect on traffic.

I was also unaware that they were carrying out a second consultation - why? Only one reason - the first consultation didn't get the response they wanted.

[Andy Capp]

Rather like the sensitive issue regards the Greenham Common depot, where having just won a favour from WBC/GCT for the control tower, Julia Swift-Hook et al. kept schtum about the new depot. Didn't even inform his parishioners of the event in his news letter.

It seems that West Berkshire Council, Greenham Parish Council and Newbury Town Council now have to keep things quiet, through fear the plebs find out.

[On the edge]

How have they listened? A number of people complained over the two consultations, which would have been a small sample of those who disagreed. There will be people like yourself that may agree with the decision, how many of them wrote to the council with their support?

Whilst those writing in support would be a smaller proportion of those who are in agreement of residents and town users - or can be clearly indicated that it is for their benefit and not just to suit the views of the officers of WBC and the councillors!

That's a bit convoluted, but nonetheless, I did write in and support the proposition. However, I also know my Local Councillors asked a good few people in their normal local soundings, by the time I saw them face to face. They had the grace to say they were surprised at the level of support, when people understood what was being done. These days, the number of letters or emails you get as a Councillor or MP isn't a particularly accurate indication of public support.

[On the edge]

The case against was pretty straightforward - WBC were implementing the changes to the existing parking scheme in order to raise income (as they announced when they first announced the changes). This was then declared illegal in a recent test case.

After that case WBC decided they were doing it for traffic control reasons (total tosh) - it doesn't remove any parking spaces so it will have little or no effect on traffic.

I was also unaware that they were carrying out a second consultation - why? Only one reason - the first consultation didn't get the response they wanted.

So you are against a second referendum on Europe then?

[spartacus]

The case against was pretty straightforward - WBC were implementing the changes to the existing parking scheme in order to raise income (as they announced when they first announced the changes). This was then declared illegal in a recent test case.

I think that's been a red herring and almost a completely separate issue. The test case found against the London Council not because of the fact that it was introducing pay and display. They already had pay and display on their streets. What that council were intending to do was raise the price of the resident's parking permits from £40 to £100 (!) and vouchers for visitors from £1 to £4 as they simply wanted to raise £1.5m and had to reverse-engineer the charges to raise that.
Guardian link

The fact that WBC will be introducing pay and display in Newbury is no different from having pay and display in Hungerford - which has been there for as long as I can remember (20 years?).

The judgement at the High Court just focuses council's minds and reminds them that they can't divert any new income from the new parking to help Social Services keep going despite the ever heavier cuts in funding from central government....

it doesn't remove any parking spaces so it will have little or no effect on traffic.

Oh it will have an effect. The commuters will move into the residential streets.

[blackdog]

So you are against a second referendum on Europe then?

There may be grounds for a second EU referendum - because membership implies a radically different thing that it did when the original referendum took place decades ago. But then again our democratic system empowers parliament to make such decisions on our behalf,

In the case of the parking scheme it is essentially unchanged from the first consultation so there was no justification for holding a second consultation and, as a result, ignoring the results of the first one.

It's a common tactic in planning - put in an application - wait for the objections - withdraw the application. Repeat until objections dwindle. Get planning permission thanks, in part, to a lack of objections. The Blue Ball site is a classic recent example in Newbury.

It's about time the consultation system allowed responses to carry over to subsequent similar proposals.

[spartacus]

In the case of the parking scheme it is essentially unchanged from the first consultation so there was no justification for holding a second consultation and, as a result, ignoring the results of the first one.

Except that the first one was informal and sought comments on an intention to introduce the parking. IIRC there were some changes made (small, but to do with the complaints they received from the school on Link Road).

The second consultation was the legal and statutory requirement.

[Andy Capp]

Except that the first one was informal and sought comments on an intention to introduce the parking. IIRC there were some changes made (small, but to do with the complaints they received from the school on Link Road).

The second consultation was the legal and statutory requirement.

The 'quiet' one?

[Biker1]

Well, I won't be sorry about Newtown Road. It's a pain having to drive along the residents (empty during the day) parking bay so that traffic coming down the hill can get through, then pulling right out to turn left into Porchester Road if I need to.

Absolutely.
Fed up with having to wait by the obstructions in this road caused by people parking all day while they work or commute.

[blackdog]

Absolutely.
Fed up with having to wait by the obstructions in this road caused by people parking all day while they work or commute.

If they wanted to improve traffic flow they would paint yellow lines on the road - and they won't. There will still be parking in Newtown Road.

[JeffG]

If they wanted to improve traffic flow they would paint yellow lines on the road - and they won't. There will still be parking in Newtown Road.

Yes, but it will be less popular for the rail commuters - most of those parking I'm sure - for obvious reasons, so it will be easier to negotiate with fewer cars and shorter term parking. More will be displaced into the adjacent residential roads - unless they check out a large pot of yellow paint, or implement more residents' only parking.

Interested to read that Porchester Road poked out more than it does now - it currently seems to be at the natural pavement line.