'Political games' over Bristol parking zones
Clifton residents have accused the Conservative party of playing “political games” with the proposed Residents’ Parking Scheme (RPS) after throwing a spanner in the works.
Bristol City Council’s cabinet approved pilot zones for Brandon Hill and Kingsdown at a meeting on Thursday but almost immediately the Tory councillors called it in.
-
WEB parking
Group leader Richard Eddy and his party’s transport spokesman Cllr Peter Abraham’s actions effectively put the decision on hold until a special scrutiny panel of councillors can look at it again. The party has argued the consultation that led to the pilot scheme approval was biased, and so the proposals should go back to the drawing board.
If the sheme was approved, households would have to pay £30 to park one vehicle, £110 to park two, £310 for three, and up to £50 on visitor parking passes. Just over 50 per cent of the people who returned questionnaires from the two pilot scheme areas were in favour of the zones. Of the 53,000 questionnaires sent out across the city this summer, 13,000 were returned.
Supporters of the pilots say they are in desperate need of the zones to deal with ongoing parking problems.
They argue emergency and waste vehicles can’t get to their properties because parking congestion is so bad, and that commuters frequently make it impossible for them to park anywhere near their homes.
Stephen Perry is one of a number of Clifton residents who have issued a statement condemning the Tories and those from o from outside the pilot area who have campaigned against the RPS.
He said: “We are dismayed the Conservatives on Bristol council have ‘called in’ the cabinet decision to go ahead with the introduction of the Residents’ Parking Scheme in two pilot areas. Are the residents of these two areas now just pawns in a bigger political game?
“In the Brandon Hill and Clifton zone we are on the frontline with cars parking in our streets as their owners work, shop or live in the so-called CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) in our city centre. As a result, emergency vehicles can’t gain access to our streets, nor can vital service vehicles, like refuse disposal... . Residents sometimes can’t park near their own homes.
“The ‘No’ campaign is fighting on a city-wide basis stirring up false fears that everyone in the city will have to have parking schemes eventually, when this just isn’t true. The campaign is trumping up spurious objections to the local authority’s consultation process as a tactic to delay implementation. They purport to be out there defending the ‘people’. Well, they are not. Not us anyway. They are defending their own narrow interests.
“They will oppose any parking scheme, however carefully devised and directed, as a matter of principle. They will always say ‘No, no, no’ to anything the council puts forward. The result is we who live adjacent to the central zone will continue to suffer.
“Does the ‘No’ campaign care about our predicament? No. Do the Conservatives care about our predicament? It would seem not.”
Opponents of the RPS say pilot schemes would be the thin end of the wedge which would lead to Bristol becoming one big parking zone.
The special call-in committee will decide whether the call-in should be dropped or whether the decision should be sent back to the full council or the cabinet.
13 Comments
View all
by Isambard, clifton
Monday, December 01 2008, 10:28PM
“@ Disillusioned Cotham, I think the point about businesses closing on the Triangle is that the Triangle falls squarely in the middle of the 2 proposed RPZ areas. Impose RPZ and more businesses will suffer. Seems a valid point. RPZ's are more appropriate in places like London which have a credible transport infrastructure. Bristol doesn't.”
by Colin, clifton
Monday, December 01 2008, 9:01PM
“Well done the Conservatives!! I went to the council house for the first time ever in my life last week to protest about this ridiculous not-so-stealthy tax. Its blindingly obvious that the plan is to bring it in for part of the city and force others next to it to want it because of the overflow, the end result is that everywhere will have it. Democracy has spoken, the majority of people who responded said no to the CPZ with good reason, just because a majority in two small areas said yes does not overrule a majority in the majority of areas, sorry that is democracy folks! The people who said "No" wholeheartedly believe that it is unmistakeably the thin end of the wedge, that is why they all said No. No means No, get it!!!!”
by Eddie Smith, Chipping sodbury
Monday, December 01 2008, 8:20PM
“Well done the conservatives,everone knows there was improper consultation with this proposed residents parking scheme.
I do not live in the proposed area but have to take my grandchildren to stage and dance classes in the area.As I pay road tax I believe this should entitle me to park my car legally on the roadway .When I bought my house, I had to pay for a garage and carport to guarentee somewhere to park mine and visitors cars.why shold the residents of Clifton be able to rent a piece of road outside their residence when I have already paid considerable road tax to pay for the use of the road.If parking is of such importance let them buy a house with a garage or better still follow the Bristol City council inititive and cycle everywhere!!”
by craig, bristol
Monday, December 01 2008, 8:08PM
“dolores why should we "butt out" do you care about the predicament that the rest of us have who can't afford to live so close to the centre and have to deal with the appalling public transport.
You bought a house you didn't by the road if you don't like it you should move you only care about yourself.”
by Dolores, Cotham
Monday, December 01 2008, 4:56PM
“So many people seem to forget that not all of us work a regular 9-5, so the 'commuting dynamics' argument is off little interest to us. And if you bothered to read the proposals properly you would realise that Auntie Mavis would not need a visitors permit on a Sunday afternoon.
If you don't live in the area just butt out and let us get on with it.”
by Steve, Bristol
Monday, December 01 2008, 3:09PM
“The council will not be issuing parking permits for any new reduced parking houses in the zones, or at most one per household. It puts a limit on what the parking demands of new housing is. I don't know what they will say about division of houses into flats -in theory the number of permits should stay the same, in practise it will probably triple.
The conservative party in this city has clearly given up on the centre, and is positioning themselves as the driver's friend. There is an amusing contrast between this 1980s world view and that of the central conservative party. I wonder if the locals have noticed that Cameron and Boris aren't quite so car-obsessed,.”
by Mark, Stoke Bishop
Monday, December 01 2008, 2:37PM
“If residents of Clifton wish to donate even more money to BCC than they already do then good luck to them. The expression 'turkeys voting for Christmas' springs to mind. £30 is a very reasonable charge for a parking space for a year. The rub is that this payment guarantees nothing whatsoever. Yes, it will discourage outsiders from parking in the area and so will increase the general availability of spaces, but the commuter issue is a daytime one whereas I would say that the parking difficulties are most acute in the early evenings after the out-of-town commuters have gone and the residents of Clifton arrive home from their own commutes. Multiple occupancy in Clifton has resulted in more vehicles per dwelling than there is frontage.
£30/£140 pa might be seem a trivial sum worth paying to achieve a small improvement in the chances of finding a space close to your house, but you need to factor in the human cost of dealing with the bureaucratic dead hand of BCC: obtaining visitors' passes so that Auntie Mavis can drop round for tea on Sunday afternoon, for example. I also assume that the RPZ comes with a more rigorous enforcement regime, so that the things that people currently get away with (parking across junctions etc) are likely to attract a ticket. Expect a net reduction in the number of spaces.
Meanwhile BCC's policies continue to exacerbate the problem. Planning permission is refused for any development proposing more than 1.3 parking spaces per residence. This will not reduce the demand for cars so where do you think they are going to park? A visionary council would be thinking in 3 dimensions to solve the parking problem.”
by Disillusioned, Cotham
Monday, December 01 2008, 1:54PM
“Can't quite work out why shops closing in the Triangle has anything to do with residents parking...
I am thoroughly dismayed that the conservatives have thrown a spanner in the works. What may seem like an amusing political game to some is a real blow to the many residents of Kingsdown and Clifton who voted in favour of residents parking through a democratic process.”
by Lord Above, Clifton
Monday, December 01 2008, 12:48PM
“Hilarious! I think we can see who is being narrowminded here. It's the moaning NIMBY pro-RPZ campaign who would rather have the privilege of parking outside their own home than ensure the survival of shops, restaurants and businesses that currently make their properties so attractive. "Residents sometimes can't park their near homes" - What did you expect when you chose to live in the City Centre? The holes in the consultation process have been known by all for some time and they were raised at the 2 council meetings last week. Thank goodness somebody is standing up for due process, just as the Pro-RPZ lobby would do if the boot were on the other foot.”
by Cheers Drive, Clifton
Monday, December 01 2008, 12:41PM
“Hilarious. I think we can see who is really being narrowminded, it's the NIMBY pro-RPZ brigade who would rather have a space outside their house than ensure the survival of shops, restaurants and businesses which currently make their properties so attractive. "Residents can't park near their own homes" - What did you expect when you chose to live in the middle of a city? The holes in the consultation process are well known by all and were raised at both council meeting last week. Thank goodness somebody is standing up for due process - just as the Pro-RPZ lobby would do if the boot were on the other foot.”