No one has right to park in own street - Bristol's transport chief
The city councillor in charge of Bristol's transport department says no one has the right to park for free outside their own home.
Mark Bradshaw, who is overseeing a proposal to create parking permit zones around the city centre, said residents could no longer expect free parking on their street.
The city council is currently reading through the responses to their consultation on plans to set up Residents' Parking Zones (RPZs) for up to 50,000 homes around the city centre.
Under the proposals, permits would cost £40 per year for one car, a further £80 for a second car and an extra £500 for a third car.
Mr Bradshaw said that the 15,000 responses to the consultation had been mixed in their feedback.
As well as people who live in Bristol, an RPZ in the city would affect those who live in South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and B&NES, who drive to work in the city and park for free.
Initial progress on the proposals is set to be decided this autumn and a pilot zone could be suggested by the city council in the new year.
Speaking to the Evening Post, Mr Bradshaw said: "This episode has encouraged positive debate and I want to be upfront with people.
"I don't believe that people have a right to park on their street.
"The idea that there is a parking space for each house is not a valid one – if someone is away for two weeks it would mean that their space could not be used for a fortnight.
"So dedicated bays are a non-starter because there is no law which gives people the right to have a parking space outside their house. People say that they are being charged for something that is free anyway but there's not a right to park freely in a city.
"The philosophy is that if you have got a car then you have got to be asked to contribute towards the parking costs."
Mr Bradshaw denied the RPZ proposal was simply a money-spinner for the city council and also refuted suggestions that motorists in the city were being victimised.
He said: "By law we are not allowed to use parking income for other parts of what the council does. Not all council tax payers have cars so it would be unfair to put this on the general council tax for the city. Additional money would have to be spent on transport initiatives in the city."
He added: "I can understand why hard-working people might find it difficult to pay a new cost but what I am keen to demonstrate is that the costs will be kept to a minimum.
"This is not a money-making exercise but I am acutely aware that people are finding it difficult with increase energy bills and petrol becoming more expensive.
"That's why we need to do more to show that we do understand and that the charge that we have in mind reflects the true cost of the scheme. There will be complete consultation with every aspect of the scheme and that includes the cost as well.
"My household has a car – there are various things that me and my partner need it for and I know access to work is very difficult to achieve by public transport for some people.
"I'm not anti-motorist, nor is the council, but we do feel that a lot of people would like greater choice in how they travel and at the moment that choice isn't really there, either because the service isn't available, or they are too expensive or unreliable, or because it needs more investment. Our focus is to get to the point where those issues are being addressed."
Mr Bradshaw also said that the consultation process for the controlled parking zone proposal, which came under fire from some residents, needed looking at.
He said: "People campaigning against a scheme will inevitably say that a survey is flawed but I think that because it's such a complex issue, and because different areas of the city have such different problems related to parking, I'm not sure a paper-based survey on its own is ideal.
"We need to look at electronic media, running more exhibitions and whether we should do that more intensively – these are all issues that we have go to explore because we are really committed to real consultation."
He added: "I would like to come back with at least some initial thinking in the autumn but I don't want to impose an artificial timetable on it. But we should be able to reveal some of our thinking about which area we could run as a pilot."
130 Comments
View all
by helen, southville, bristol
Thursday, August 28 2008, 11:25PM
“If you are against this scheme sign the official goverment petition here:
The petition reads:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abort plans for Bristol Residents Parking Scheme (RPS) Bristol City Council is planning to create a Residents Parking Scheme which means residents will need a permit to park in their designated zone.
A permit for 1 car will be £40 rising to £80 for a 2nd car & £500 for a 3rd.
Whilst most people would not object to a £40 charge to park outside their own home, and be guaranteed a parking space, sadly this is not the case.
The Council will be able to issue as many permits as they choose in each zone creating a worse problem than now. You will only be allowed to park in your designated zone - if can't find a space there is no contingency for alternative parking - if you park in another zone you risk getting your car
towed away.
Each house which is divided in to sub-lets (flats/apartments/bedsits) will count as seperate residences -
this will mean more cars than spaces.
Residents will have to buy Visitors Permits at £1 each limited to 100 permits per ordinary permit. If you are having building work on your house or you have a carer visit they will need a permit.
There will be no vote on this scheme and the consultation papers are worded so that all answers lead to a favourable reponse to the Council.
The scheme is planned to start in October 2009."
The closing date for this petition is 08/10/08.
Please can this letter be listed on the readers letters page asking all those against the scheme to support this petition by regisitering their interest by using the above link.
Only 200 signatures are required for the petition to be heard in parliment.”
by Tim, Clifton
Thursday, August 28 2008, 11:16AM
“The introduction of this council parking revenue scheme will undoubtedly make my area a poorer place to live. Why, because no longer will out-of-town friends or family be able to drop-by without imposing on me for my costly permits. With a car full of children public transport is even less of an option.”
by Pittster, Southville
Wednesday, August 20 2008, 3:04AM
“"Not all council tax payers have cars so it would be unfair to put this on the general council tax for the city. "
What?! This is a city-wide problem that needs a city-wide solution. Congestion affects everyone in the city whether they have a car or not. Not all council tax payers have children, but they can't opt out of child-related expenditure, can they? Mark Bradshaw is completely missing the point of taxation.
And to openly admit that they're planning to use this scheme to kickstart demand for better public transport just beggars belief. The demand is there already Mark - we're waiting for someone in the council to have the balls to undo the mess that they've gotten Bristol into with First Bus.”
by Helen Silvers, Portishead
Wednesday, August 13 2008, 5:23PM
“If residence only parking is introduced, will people outside that area, who commute to work, be able to apply for them? If not what provision will be made for us? I cannot travel on public transport due to a disability and certainly cannot afford £7.50 a day to park in the NCP. While in principal I am against the RPZ I would be prepared to pay a nominal yearly fee as indicated. I f i am not able to apply for a permit for me personally It would probably mean having to look for another job.
Also who are these 1500 people and what consultation? This newpaper article is the first I have heard of it and I have been using the Totterdown area every working day for the past 2 years and have seen nothing to indicate this may happen!!”
by rob, bristol
Tuesday, August 12 2008, 10:47AM
“Three comments.
1.The council have to raise £11m as their part of the cycle scheme - this looks like a way to help this.
2. Most of the residents around the Memorial Stadium apparently want an RPZ.
3. Whichever way we look at it owning a car in the future is going to get considerably more expensive either by taxation or straighforward economics (supply and demand for fuel). So long as our economy is not based on manufacturing cars we should look at any way we can to avoid using them.”
by Mike, Bristol
Tuesday, August 12 2008, 9:15AM
“...for those who are suspicious of unusual links - and you have good reason to - the same page can be reached by search Google for:
"Mark Bradshaw" Bristol”
by Rachel, Portishead
Tuesday, August 12 2008, 8:02AM
“Wake up and smell the coffee people, is it really going to reduce the amount of vehicles on the road? No. Its not rocket science, improve public transport! If you live in Portishead you can get a bus, if you are lucky but only at certain hours of the day. If you work outside of normal office hours you have had it, its car or nothing here. No one wants to invest in the railway and we dont have a park and ride so we have little choice. Its just another money making scheme, afterall what is he intending to use the permit monies for? If people are parking illegally then enforce the current law and ticket them.”
by A.Hitler, Germany
Monday, August 11 2008, 11:20PM
“£132 a month and you can`t walk the streets without fearing being knifed to death or parking the car outside your house only for some junkie to break into it . The police are too busy catcthing kerb crawlers . And if you speak out the Eve Post take your comment away. Welcome to this great nation we call the United States of Europe.”
by alex, Bristol
Monday, August 11 2008, 11:15PM
“Bring it the CPZ!
Anything to make car-ownership less attractive.
Reclaim the streets.”
by GreenBristolBlog, Bristol
Monday, August 11 2008, 10:49PM
“It seems to need repeating endlessly. Roads are paid for out of general taxation, not VED, fuel duty, so-called road taxes or anything else in particular.
If you don't believe it just ask your MP. He/she will confirm that taxes associated with road use are not "hypothecated", meaning they do not pay for a particular area of government expenditure.”