AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 TO: Members who called in the item :
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 TO: Councillor Stone Councillor C Smith Councillor Brown Councillor Fox Councillor Campion-Smith Members who called in the item : Councillor Abraham and Councillor Eddy Executive member : Councillor Bradshaw CALL IN PANEL OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MONDAY 5th JANUARY 2009 Ref No. Name Subject matter S01 Suzanne Maksimovic Residents' Parking Scheme S02 Steve Perry Residents' Parking Scheme S03 June Jeffreys Residents' Parking Scheme S04 Hilary and Ian Abrahams Residents' Parking Scheme S05 Sara Stock/Ken Hayward Residents' Parking Scheme S06 Margaret Emondson-Gregory Residents' Parking Scheme S07 Arne Ringer Residents' Parking Scheme S08 James Smith Residents' Parking Scheme S09 Brenda McLennan Residents' Parking Scheme S10 Keith Hallam Residents' Parking Scheme S11 Giles and Lesley Woodward Residents' Parking Scheme S12 Richard and Janie Mander Residents' Parking Scheme S13 Janet Askew Residents' Parking Scheme S14 N McCormack Residents' Parking Scheme S15 David Johnstone Residents' Parking Scheme S16 Sam Shatford Residents' Parking Scheme 1 Ref No. Name Subject Matter S17 Nicholas & Vanessa Clark Residents' Parking Scheme S18 Dr Adrian Longstaffe Residents' Parking Scheme S19 John Sparrow Residents' Parking Scheme S20 Clive Gregory Residents' Parking Scheme S21 Ben Russell Residents' Parking Scheme S22 Tim Southall Residents' Parking Scheme S23 Susie Smith Residents' Parking Scheme S24 Anthony Parker Residents' Parking Scheme S25 Elaine Pope S26 Wendy Britton Residents' Parking Scheme S27 Colin and Val Harvey Residents' Parking Scheme S28 Lorna Robinson Residents' Parking Scheme S29 John Baden-Daintree Residents' Parking Scheme S30 Michelle Snow Residents' Parking Scheme S31 Jon & Sophie Nicholls Residents' Parking Scheme S32 Heather Southall Residents' Parking Scheme S33 Linda Ewles Residents' Parking Scheme S34 Jim Pimpernell Residents' Parking Scheme S35 Kieran Battles Residents' Parking Scheme S36 Michael Branch Residents' Parking Scheme S37 Richard Boston Residents' Parking Scheme S38 Sionaid Rottger Residents' Parking Scheme S39 Beth Gibbons Residents' Parking Scheme S40 R J Smyth Residents' Parking Scheme S41 Mrs W A Pollard Residents' Parking Scheme S42` Rachel Alexander Residents' Parking Scheme S43 A L Topping Residents' Parking Scheme S44 Malcolm and Bridget Parker Residents' Parking Scheme S45 Mary Asfour Residents' Parking Scheme S46 Christine Townsend Residents' Parking Scheme Residents' Parking Scheme 2 Ref No. Name Subject Matter S47 Sharon Shadrokh-Cigari Residents' Parking Scheme S48 Bill Ambridge Residents' Parking Scheme S49 Ms H D McCloy Residents' Parking Scheme S50 Caroline and David Gordon Residents' Parking Scheme S51 Diana Hayns Residents' Parking Scheme S52 Margaret Ainley Residents' Parking Scheme S53 Christopher and Sarah Sharp Residents' Parking Scheme S54 John Rowe Residents' Parking Scheme S55 Catherine and Jonathon Wills Residents' Parking Scheme S56 Matthew Smith Residents' Parking Scheme S57 Suzanne Gardner Residents' Parking Scheme S58 Steve Loughran, Bristol Cycling Campaign Residents' Parking Scheme S59 David King Residents' Parking Scheme S60 Christine King Residents' Parking Scheme S61 Chris Hutt Residents' Parking Scheme S62 Tomas Hazelle Residents' Parking Scheme S63 Jane Phillips Residents' Parking Scheme S64 Rebecca Gunson Residents' Parking Scheme S65 T Greenland Residents' Parking Scheme S66 John Fenkel Residents' Parking Scheme S67 Charlotte Hazelby Residents' Parking Scheme S68 Martin Cott Residents' Parking Scheme S69 Steve Loughran Residents' Parking Scheme S70 Edward Bowditch Residents' Parking Scheme S71 Mr and Mrs H Leaman Residents' Parking Scheme S72 Deborah Davinson Residents' Parking Scheme S73 Councillors B Janke, B Price Residents' Parking Scheme S74 B Morgan Residents' Parking Scheme S75 Councillors Wright and Wooodman Residents' Parking Scheme 3 Ref No. Name Subject Matter S76 Councillor Harrison Residents' Parking Scheme S77 Richard and Joan Guise Residents' Parking Scheme S78 Hilary Jelbert Residents' Parking Scheme S79 Paul Robinson Residents' Parking Scheme S80 Graham Jennings Residents' Parking Scheme S81 Liz Dunn Residents' Parking Scheme S82 Simon Banbury Residents' Parking Scheme S83 Dr Cameron Dunn Residents' Parking Scheme S84 Helen Tierney Residents' Parking Scheme S85 Shelly and Trevor Davies Residents' Parking Scheme S86 Ben Hamilton-Baillie & Jennifer Hill Residents' Parking Scheme S87 R J Burton Residents' Parking Scheme S88 Caroline Hunt Residents' Parking Scheme S89 Giles Woodward Residents' Parking Scheme S90 A M Smyth Residents' Parking Scheme S91 R A A Gibbons Residents' Parking Scheme S92 Paul Haynes Residents' Parking Scheme S93 Alison Haynes Residents' Parking Scheme S94 John Ward Residents' Parking Scheme S95 Mrs Paul Residents' Parking Scheme S96 Mrs Wilson Residents' Parking Scheme S97 Mrs Bye Residents' Parking Scheme S98 Robin Dodd Residents' Parking Scheme S99 Julie Dodd Residents' Parking Scheme S100 Greg Clark Residents' Parking Scheme S101 Amy Clark Residents' Parking Scheme s102 Amy Clark Residents' Parking Scheme S103 June Jeffreys Residents' Parking Scheme S104 Sue Patterson Residents' Parking Scheme 4 Ref No. Name Subject Matter S105 Juile Ellis Residents' Parking Scheme S106 Simon Fuller Residents' Parking Scheme S107 Susan Parsons Residents' Parking Scheme S108 Kieran Battles Residents' Parking Scheme S109 Nigel Furey Residents' Parking Scheme S110 David Ansell Residents' Parking Scheme 5 STATEMENT S01 STATEMENT From: Suzanne Maksimovic Date: Subject: Tue, Dec 16, 2008 6:03 pm Call-In Committee - 5th January 2009. Statement on RPZs I am in favour of the Residents Parking Sceme in Clifton Wood. The residents of this area voted for it in a democratic vote. I find the position of the Conservative Party i.e.to try to send the Cabinet decision back for a full council debate, is a cynical vote-protecting mechanism which is driven by councillors having an eye to preserving their own seats in the May elections. The Conservatives are not driven in this by looking at the long term need of the city's transport policy. I am also suspicious of the Lib Dems apparent fence sitting. Four of their councillors, including their leader and deputy leader, recommended that no decision be meade without more consultation. This is a strange attitude. There are RPZs up and running in many UK cities. Delaying for further consulation is like suggesting reinventing the wheel. Study of existing schemes will supply most of the answers. The pilot scheme will supply the rest once it is up and running. No one expects a perfect scheme in its initial stages, hence the pilot scheme. The Lib Dem deferrment proposal again seems to be about not upsetting the electorate before the May Election. The "If in doubt, do nowt" policy is weak-willed. There should have been a firm plan and steps taken years ago to manage Bristol traffic and transport. If Council does not take some firm steps now, the city will reach private car gridlock. Suzanne Gardner 20 Southernhay Avenue Clifton Wood CALL-IN COMMITTEE – 5TH JANUARY 2009 STATEMENT NO: 2 STATEMENT Stephen Perry 20 Southernhay Avenue – tel: 0117 904 0287 PILOT RESIDENT PARKING ZONES I think this committee meeting is being “used” for cheap politicking by the Conservative Group in Bristol and its new best friend, the “Keep Parking Free” Campaign. There is no practical need whatsoever for the proposals for two pilots RPZs to be reconsidered here. The Call-In Committee is dealing with a frivolous and vexatious objector. The existing pilot RPZ proposals have the support of the majority of residents in Brandon Hill and Kingsdown. They will, when implemented, provide immediate relief to areas suffering from chronic car congestion and its concomitant unpleasant loss of quality of life for those who live there. The plans for consultations with the residents have every chance of ironing out most remaining wrinkles in the schemes. To the extent that such consultations can’t iron out everything then the introduction of pilots will deal with the rest. That is what pilot schemes are for. The principal proposals are solid. The charge per car is reasonable, as are the number of permits. The consequence of implementation will without doubt remove non-resident cars and university and college student cars from these zones. There is nothing unusual about the scheme, the likes of which have been introduced in many cities and towns the length and breadth of the country. It is almost certain the NO campaign will raise many spurious objections at this meeting and ask questions for which there can almost certainly be no answer. They will seek to scaremonger, making absurd claims including those about people not being able to hold weddings in these areas or that the RPZs will cause house prices to fall. They seek to deploy any method to delay and defer the schemes because they are and always have been opposed to any scheme in the city that would hamper the car drivers from unbridled use and access of their car anywhere in the city, regardless of their impact on others. In our city centres congestion is so serious that those days of “freedom” are as much a part of the past as the right to smoke in restaurants has already become. I urge the Call-In Committee to disregard the request to pass the subject on to a full council meeting. To do so would simply allow certain councillors to showboat in front of a large public gallery and would add nothing to the sum of human knowledge. STATEMENT NO: 3 Question for meeting due to take @ace on January sth2009 at 5.30 at the Council House regarding Car Parking Permits From June Jeffreys, 3 Hillside, Clifton, Bristol BS8 4TD Tel. No. 01 17 9268545 I live in one of the Pilot Zones you have designated for Car Parking Permits and am appalled that you can consider putting this in place with such a flawed consultation. It certainly seems illegal that you can go ahead like this when this so-called "consultation" had taken place when it was during the holiday season and a lot of people were away. I do not see this as democracy when people have not been given an opportunity to state their views. Surely it is illegal to proceed in such a way. It would seem this is yet another tax on us - which is really terrible given the state of the country at present and you are penalising everyone - even the elderly who do not dnve because they would have to purchase visitor permits so that anyone could visit them. STATEMENT S04 We live in Somerset Street, Kingsdown and we are writing in support of a Residents Parking Scheme that, we understand, is being discussed at a Call-in meeting on 5 January 2009. For us, the key issues which make a Residents Parking Scheme essential are as follows:1 Access for Emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and fire engines - cars parked very close to corners and on pavements make the already narrow roads of Kingsdown even narrower and obstruct the progress of large vehicles. There was a house fire in Somerset Street last year and fire engines were unable to reach it. The firefighters had to carry hoses and other equipment manually several hundred yards in order to fight the fire. Had anyone been inside the building, this delay could have been fatal. The previous year, a car leaking petrol was similarly beyond the reach of firemen and there have been other such incidents over the 20 years we have been resident here. 2 Access for service vehicles, such as dust carts and recycling lorries, and for other large delivery vehicles serving the local community. 3 Parking for tradespeople and carers working for local residents and for other visitors to local residents - with much of the limited parking in Kingsdown taken up by commuters working in the local hospitals or at the university, or by shoppers, legitimate visitors to residents in the area are unable to find parking spaces. 4 Hazards for residents, especially the elderly and children - cars parked close to junctions obstruct the view for vehicles emerging and for children especially. There have been a number of accidents and near-accidents in Kingsdown Parade caused by such parking. 5 Reduction in Pollution - the additional commuter parking adds to the pollution in a residential area. Additionally, commuters frequently park in the streets, leaving their engines running so that they can pounce on a space as soon as a resident moves out. We have lived in Somerset Street for more than 20 years and seen parking become progressively more of a problem. Recent and proposed developments in the city centre and nearby will further worsen the problem. For the reasons mentioned above, it is essential that the Council supports the democratic view of the people of this area who voted in support of a Residents Parking Scheme. We have had enough of delays. Introduce the pilot scheme now. Hilary & Ian Abrahams Victoria Cottage, Somerset Street, Kingsdown STATEMENT S05 We live on Kingsdown Parade, in a single-family occupancy home. We drive one car and do not run a business in the area. We have read the arguments from both sides and would like to suggest that the trial go ahead for one year and that we are consulted again. The one-year period is important as parking difficulties vary depending on the season, time of day, day of the week etc. After the trial we will not be reliant on the predictions of agencies with agendas other than our best interests but on our own experiences of the trial. We also think that the trial should not be funded by us as we already pay considerable amounts of council tax and the parking scheme should therefore be free for that one year. Sara Stocks and Ken Hayward Kingsdown Parade STATEMENT NO S06 Dear Sir or Madam Regarding the meeting being held on Jan 5th to discuss the residents parking pilot scheme. (RPS) Firstly, I would like to SUPPORT the scheme for residents parking. I am a resident living in Kingsdown Parade. From a personal point of view I would like to make the following comments. I cannot use my car during the day as I cannot find a spot to park when I return, which makes me virtually housebound unless I walk everywhere, which I do. We have a high percentage of hospital and university students who park on the area, therefore, we have to suffer a high percentage of non-residents parking which is a heavy and tiresome burden on the residents. Even at the weekends it is a problem, when I shop on Saturdays I cannot park to unload all my bags due to shoppers parking in the road. Even after the opening of Cabot Circus car park, it hasn't changed because it is so easy to walk to the centre, and it is a free car park. My car gets scratched due to people trying to park in the very limited places. In addition, if we have workmen visiting, they cannot park to unload, and they can block the roads which causes chaos. Finally, I can never park outside our house except on Christmas day, which demonstrates the impact of parking commuters and shoppers. Next, I would like to make further comments that are not personal but I believe to be significant. My understanding is that the government want to stop cars coming into the city. Allowing people to park freely in resident areas, is not helping it achieve this in my opinion. A residents parking scheme helps encourage people to use public transport and Park & Ride (P&R) schemes. 1 We lived in Oxford once and they have schemes there which worked very well and encouraged more use of the P&R. There is evidence there which demonstrates the benefits to a city. Lastly, safety is an issue without a RPS, some of the roads are very difficult to access with the free for all parking that is allowed. As a consequence, police, ambulance or fire engines have difficult getting through, and potentially, it could be a danger to human life. Finally, I have been informed, that this meeting is being held due to a question about the research data. We were asked our opinion about the scheme at the time, and felt we had ample time to submit our views. This 'appeal' is nonsense. I should be grateful if you would use this email as a demonstration of my support for the RPS, thank you. Yours faithfully Margaret Edmondson-Gregory Kingsdown Parade 2 STATEMENT NO S07 I am absolutely in favour of a Residents Parking Scheme for Kingsdown. Parking on the streets here has become neigh impossible. Having a small child and a full-time job makes for many movements in the week and every time this involves the car, the return to Kingsdown is fraught and troublesome. How to off-load shopping and child at the same journey is impossible when the streets are jammed full with commuter vehicles. As a family, we are thinking of moving away from the area unless the parking issue is resolved. Yours sincerely Arne Ringner STATEMENT NO S08 Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee Call in Panel 5th January 2009 @ 1730 hrs Statement This Panel is not asked to consider the merits of a Residents Parking scheme only the quality of information and consultation that has taken place. It is therefore necessary to consider not only the original documents but also what has happened to the information and also to consider whether a more informed decision would be possible. The original consultation has been criticised as being biased. It proposed a draconian 24/7/365 scheme at a high cost. It proposed to yellow line all drive ways, all visitors permits had to be purchased, the zones were to cover about 500 dwellings limiting your options to park to a relatively small area and little flexibility was offered at public meetings. If this process was biased at all, it was clearly biased in favour of a No vote. Despite this, in the proposed pilot areas, residents are so desperate to be able to lead normal peaceful lives a majority responded in favour. Within this response, representations were made and the council has responded by significantly altering the original proposals to produce schemes tailored to residents problems in specific areas. They have also committed, in papers submitted to this Panel, to continue detailed consultations with residents in and adjacent to the schemes, to refine boundaries and other details of each scheme. In assessing whether a better more informed process is possible it is legitimate to look at the information supplied to residents by the KPF campaign and also at the speech made in opposition at the Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission on 24th November 2008. The latest information from the no campaign is a mixture of wild unsupported allegations, propositions which can be refuted by merely walking around and outright contradictions. It states that “hundreds” of spaces will be lost, this is directly contradicted by the statements from the city transport officers who have undertaken to maximise spaces by removing unnecessary and out of date restrictions. It states that parking will become so difficult that house prices will drop. We who live within the area know that this is the current situation. To see what actually happens when the cars that will not be able park within the scheme are removed it is only necessary to walk around during the recent Christmas holiday. Cars parked, certainly, but with spaces for visitors and without the obstruction of drop kerbs and all the other problems that occur during normal times due to the extreme pressure on our area from non residents. On the same page the document complains of a lack of visitors permits and suggests that a family might use up 100 permits in a single day. To do this of course would require 100 free parking spaces and if these exist then the previous paragraphs must be wrong. Perhaps the scheme will be so successful that it will be possible to have 100 visitors at a time but this is not a credible position. At the scrutiny committee we were invited to question how the council could alter the fees during consultation with the inference that they must be inaccurate and not to be trusted. It is a matter of simple mathematics that if you significantly reduce the proposed hours of operation then you will significantly reduce the cost of that part of the budget and, if you wish to achieve the same neutral sum result, you must reduce the fees. This was clearly designed to mislead. It has been clearly stated that there will be separate published accounts for the scheme so this can be monitored. Also at scrutiny much was made of the overall figures for and against, showing a majority across the city against. From the council website I note that there are 251 Lower super output areas (used to analyse the results). Of these, only 2 areas are proposed for pilot schemes, just under 0.8% of the total. On the principle advocated by the speaker this massively underweights the yes vote to the benefit of the no vote. Once again if there is bias it is heavily against residents parking. Again this was clearly intended to mislead. I suggest to this panel that the only person who would claim the speeches and publications of the opposition campaign as “information” would be the head of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984. It has no claim to inform any decision and has harmed the process of proper informed consultation. No credible basis for this reference to you has been established and you should therefore decline to take any action on it. James Smith Southernhay House, Southernhay, Cliftonwood. STATEMENT NO S09 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CALL IN PANEL Monday, 5th January at 1730 I am curious as to how the ‘No’ campaign thinks the fact that the survey was a bit clumsy and possibly could have been worded better strengthens their argument. Residents around the city were asked to vote for a draconian scheme with 24 hour restrictions and no flexibility. If they didn’t like the idea of this rigid scheme, they had no choice but to vote ‘no’. Given this, if the survey was biased at all, it was towards a ‘no’ vote. This completely negates the argument that the survey was flawed in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. Given that in the pilot areas there was still a majority in favour further strengthens the argument that the pilot schemes should go ahead with detailed consultation with the residents in those areas. People strongly opposed who do not even live in the affected areas should have no part of this process – they have had their say. The survey was valid and this point proves that it was useful and representative. Residents in these areas were so desperate to do something about alleviating the parking and other traffic problems in their streets that they figured even an extreme plan was better that what was going on at the time – and is still the case now. Another point that the no campaigners seem to have missed in their eagerness to oppose any scheme whatsoever is that different streets – and even parts of streets - within the pilot areas and the wider possible scheme areas have different needs. They are only concerned with their little area and what it means to them personally and are completely ignoring the issues facing other residents. In Cliftonwood for example, there are very few properties with off street parking and above average population density. There are also quite a few home businesses meaning that there is not a steady in and out in the mornings and evenings – or any time for that matter. This may not be the case in other areas where there are a lot of commuters going out to work. This pattern combined with the fact that it is an easy walk to town for incoming commuters and students, makes the demand for spaces in the mornings and evenings excruciating. Although I have to say it can be quite entertaining to watch! There was one point on the latest Keep Parking Free leaflet that I just couldn’t help but laugh at. They, in their desperation to say how evil the whole idea of a scheme is, have totally contradicted themselves. They have said that there will be less parking spaces meaning that you will have to walk miles from car to door and then have gone on to say that if they have a big party with 100 cars that they may well use all their visitor permits in one day. Wow! I’d love to see where those 100 cars would park now. And boy would you be popular with the neighbours! It seems to me that they are saying that the scheme will work really well and that there will be loads of spare spaces around their houses for all their guests. The way our streets are now, you couldn’t possibly contemplate inviting all those people in all those cars. In my neighbourhood, they’d take a week to find a park! It’s funny how people can spin something on its head and are great at turning positives into negatives. House prices would drop? Are you completely mad! We all know how off street parking can add up to 10% on the value of a house and having a residents scheme can only add value as well. Knowing that you are not going to have loads of commuters and others taking up all the spaces and creating noise and pollution can only improve the desirability of the area. Everyone I know would put a premium on this. In fact, I have been recently told of instances where neighbours of mine have struggled to sell their houses or have had a sale fall through because of the current parking problems and the desire for a scheme. This was particularly noticeable from people moving from places that have residents parking schemes who are often surprised that in such an area we don’t already have one. I also know of at least one case where a family felt they had to sell up and move at any price just to get out of the area after a failed attempt to get an ambulance to their house in an emergency. I am very disappointed with our elected politicians. They have turned this into a party political issue rather than what it should be – a chance for the residents to have their say on whether they want some sanity back in their streets. This issue should be completely nonparty political and go back to being a great idea that was born of residents pleading with the council to do something about the chaos that we have at the moment and learning lessons from other parts of the country that have managed to successfully implement similar schemes. Learn the lessons guys, pull your heads out of the sand, think about the future of this great city, and do something good for our inner city areas. Brenda McLennan Southernhay House Southernhay Bristol BS8 4TL www.yestorpz.info [email protected] 28 December 2008 Keith R Hallam Ground Floor Flat 1 St Edward’s Road Cliftonwood Bristol BS8 4TS T +44 (0)117 925 2955 M +44 (0)7736 071409 [email protected] Residents’ Parking Scheme Dear www.yestorpz.info [nb: You managed to mistype the web site address on your own leaflet] Please find below a few comments on your Yes campaign literature – paper and www – and the latest [How many times have Avon and Bristol councils been around this loop since the early 1990s?] attempts to impose residents’ parking schemes on us. You seem to have it in for students. According to the Council, ‘the principles of residents’ parking need to apply to all households equally, so HMOs will be eligible for the same number of permits as other households.’ I haven’t seen it written anywhere that you have to be a Council Tax payer to be allowed to park – only that there will be a matching of registered addresses for vehicles with Council Tax addresses. So students who are residents will be able to park here if their vehicles have a local address on the DVLA records, and, thus, not contribute towards your hoped-for reduction in congestion. If the aim is to prevent commuters and shoppers from travelling in to the city, then reintroduce toll gates or impose a congestion charge. If problems are increasing because of new developments, shouldn’t that have been covered by the ‘low car ownership’ restrictions imposed during the planning process? The Council shouldn’t need a residents’ parking scheme to make them do what they should be doing already: o Preventing parking at dangerous junctions, etc to allow emergency vehicles to get through, etc. o Improving pedestrian safety at junctions [drop-kerbs, etc]. o 20mph zones. o Patrolling and enforcing current parking regulations. o If pavement-parking is dangerous, then enforce restrictions against it – we don’t need a new tax to prevent parking as illustrated in your Gallery. o Of course, I presume the Council is already patrolling often enough on a regular basis to enforce the current temporary residents’ scheme in my area to cope with the building works at the bottom of Church Lane… If not, why not? The signage, paint, pay-and-display machines will make a huge residential area of Bristol look like on open-air car park: You say that ‘the only lost spaces will be those lost to the safety double yellow lining which is going to be inevitable and completely separate from any RPZ’ – Not true, since individual bays will have to be marked out everywhere [presumably in lots of white paint]. The imposition of painted bays will reduce the number of on-street spaces as they will have to be a minimum length to cope with the largest vehicles, whereas smaller/average-sized cars could park more closely without having to fit into your painted infrastructure [reduced flexibility] o The Council should tell us how many spaces each street will have so we can see the direct affect of their plans. o If bays are a preset size, won’t that encourage us to go out and buy bigger cars, because we know there will be space to fit them into a bay, rather than a small car that we might otherwise have chosen to make it easier to fit into a flexible on-street parking arrangement? o Increased numbers of car club bays will also reduce space for all. o Pay-and-display bays will also reduce space for all. o Why not have identified sections, rather than bays [eg Cotham Hill, though there is a huge confusing mess of white and yellow paint all along there…], leaving drivers with freedom to park as close as necessary. o The Council have also measured street widths, etc so should inform residents where half or all the on-street space will be lost due to width restrictions. You say that ‘The pilot schemes are in residential areas’ – There are a number of businesses within the outlined pilot area and you admit to there being businesses requiring visitor/client access operating from residential addresses. You say that ‘residents of the development at the bottom of Church Lane [which will have its own rather limited parking] will be allowed to overlap into our streets unless there are parking controls in place.’ – Are you proposing that they should remain in their own gated community? Will they not be residents too, as equal as you are and with equal rights to access the outside World? Once the initial up-front costs for signage, painting, recruitment, etc have been met from the parking tax, will the permit fees be reduced? Why should Band A cars be free? o They take up just as much space. o A residents’ parking scheme should be designed to maximise available parking for residents and not be about pollution levels – that is a separate subject. Why should residents pay not only for the scheme but also for subsidies to alternative travel schemes for commuters [eg Park+Ride]? My experience of a parking scheme designed by committee [at the University of Bristol] is more than equally discouraging [eg having three categories of space and restricting access leads to more workers driving around the streets for longer trying to find an on-street space, increasing congestion and pollution for all, including residents, while off-street University-owned spaces are left empty…] Has anyone done an assessment of the extra pollution emitted as people drive around hunting for one of the fewer spaces that will be available? What happens to all the extra cars not given a space and not buying a permit? What happens at the borders? o If your permit is only valid for a few streets around your immediate home, it might be that you have less on-street space available to choose from as half of your previous options are the wrong side of the line o Having created space, why are we then to be trapped in our little ghetto? o How many spaces are taken by commuters? If you get rid of them and create lots of space, why restrict the residents to parking only within small zones? Why not let us have the freedom of the complete area? The Council consultation appeared to be just going through the motions and they appeared to have already made up their minds on everything? o They say it is contrary to council policy not to have parking schemes – so why bother asking us? o ‘Following completion of the inner ring’ – what point is there in consulting if they have already decided? o ‘The initial focus may be to introduce residents parking zones within the inner ring’ – again, why are they demeaning themselves speaking to us if they have already made up their minds? o ‘The Head of Transport Operations produced a summary sheet detailing the pilot study zones’!!! What happens on a wet Sunday afternoon when I have run out of permits and a visitor arrives? Yours faithfully Keith R Hallam cc [email protected] STATEMENT NO S11 SUBMISSION to the OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CALL IN PANEL To be held on Monday, 5th January at 1730 We are grateful for the opportunity to put forward our support for the proposed RPZ Scheme. As residents of CliftonWood for over 21 years, we have watched in dismay as our tiny and historic corner of Bristol has become more and more choked with traffic. It has been obvious for the last few years that we are being used as a free long term car park by commuters and students. Matters have become increasingly bad with the building of the City of Bristol College , the implementation of the CPZ in the Centre and the building of large blocks of flats with too few parking spaces for occupants. Commuter cars pour into our area and circle the streets looking for a space in which to leave their cars for 9 – 10 hours at a time. Cars are left on the corners of roads making it very hard for residents and emergency or rubbish vehicles to get in or out. Students bring cars in at the start of term and dump them for days, even weeks at a time. On balance the proposed RPZ Scheme seems sensible and well thought out. We see no advantage to the public purse to re-run the Survey. The demand to do so seems merely a delaying tactic on the part of the NO campaign. We should move on into the detailed consultation phase of the Pilot Scheme implementation as soon as possible. We are very disturbed by the negative and hysterical literature from the NO Campaign, which has not to our knowledge offered a single solution for the obvious traffic problems we face in the City. We do not feel that it is an option to do nothing, to continue to let the car rule our streets. We urge all political parties to think of the ‘Bigger Picture’ of a sustainable Public Transport system for the City of Bristol. The implementation of an RPZ Zone is a small part of this bigger picture, but an essential one. Giles and Lesley Woodward Randall Road CliftonWood Bristol BS8 4TP STATEMENT NO S12 I am writing in connection with the proposed pilot scheme for residents parking in the Brandon Hill area of Clifton. I own and reside at Richmond Hill, Clifton. May I say that I am completely in favour of the proposed scheme in general, and more specifically the pilot scheme that is being put forward for our area which I think is an excellent idea. Since we moved into our current house nearly three years ago parking in the area has been nigh on impossible and has got worse. The major part of the problem is caused by commuters (I see them cruising round like sharks looking for free parking early in the mornings), students (they park on our street and then leave their cars sometimes for weeks at a time) and shoppers (I see them returning to their cars with bags of shopping when there is a virtually empty multi storey car park round the corner). Quite simply this needs to be stopped. I have no garage (the houses were not built with one) I have no drive to park on (I have been told by Bristol CC that there is no way I would get planning to do so!) and so my wife and I have to take pot luck which can sometimes mean parking a very long way away from our house. This can be extremely tiresome when we have shopping to bring home. Whilst I understand some of the points raised by the "no" campaigners, surely maintaining the status quo can not be preferable. I will not reiterate the many arguments in favour of the scheme as surely there is a more fundamental point. Is there not a basic right for someone living in any residential area to have a right to enjoy their own property? How can this be possible when the only way we can get anywhere near our property on Richmond Hill is by helicopter! Please have the courage to go ahead with the scheme. Many other cities have rightly done so and it really is about time Bristol had the sense to do the same. The current situation favours the opportunistic rather than the resident and surely this can not be right. Yours sincerely, Richard and Janie Mander STATEMENT NO S13 Dear Sir or Madam, I write to add my strong support for the residents' parking zone pilot scheme to be introduced in Cliftonwood and Brandon Hill. It is vital for the success of the city and the quality of life of its residents that this is introduced. Other residents have made various points about traffic congestion so I will not repeat them here. We are aware of an active 'no' to residents' parking, but this is mainly from businesses - not located in our area but in adjacent areas and they do not want to lose their free parking. However, it is unsustainable for business to rely on free parking and increasingly people have to pay to park at work my own employer (UWE, Bristol) for example, charges for parking - daily or annual rates. Why should small businesses not pay to park as well? Other important reasons are: 1. The use of residential streets for non- residents, commuters, business users does not create a good quality of life for residents and it is the policy of Bristol City Council to encourage more people to live in the city centre. I know a number of people who have moved from Cliftonwood because of the traffic. 2. For these residential areas nearest to the city centre, the council is losing out on income from the metered parking zones. Commuters and people going out in the evening drive to residential streets then walk into town by day and night, and consequently park for free. This shows that people will walk to a facility - so they could walk to a bus stop near home or park at the park and ride on the edge of town. 3. Many other cities in UK have residents' parking zones indeed Bristol may be one of the only ones that does not. They work well elsewhere. 4. The cost proposed is very cheap - 9 pence per day! It may be that people have to understand that owning a car needs to become more expensive. 5. Many points have been made about air quality, car fumes, noise from cars roaming round looking for spaces, and all this compounds safety issues for children, and for emergency service vehicles - the latter is very serious. Finally, Bristol City Council prides itself on being a sustainable city, which I support wholeheartedly, but it is seriously let down by its lack of policy and action in the matter of residential parking. I urge the Council to vote for the pilot residents' parking zones to go ahead. Thank you, Yours faithfully, Janet Askew Cliftonwood Road, Bristol STATEMENT NO S14 Dear Committee I would like a residents scheme put in place N McCormack Ambra vale west BS84RD STATEMENT NO S15 Dear Sirs, I am writing to confirm support for the proposed Kingsdown parking scheme. I consider that there has been a fair consideration of views – flexibility in the response by the Council and agree that ³doing nothing² is not an option. It is almost inevitable that a ³No Campaign² will generate more noise but this must not be taken as representative of the majority opinion - more of a resigned acceptance of a pragmatic solution to a problem which they would prefer not to have. We welcome participating in the next stage. David Johnstone STATEMENT S16 Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to offer my support in the campaign to introduce a Residents Parking Zone to the Brandon Hill and Clifton Wood areas of Bristol. I am a resident of Clifton Wood and am frequently appalled by the standard of some of the parking on the streets in my neighbourhood. Many cars park on the pavements, but some barely leave room for any pedestrians to pass, let alone anyone in a wheelchair or with a pushchair! I understand that the streets are narrow in this area, but I think it is important that pedestrians are able to walk freely along the pavement without hindrance, whilst at the same time leaving enough space for the like of fire engines and waste management vehicles to access all houses. To this end I think it would be hugely beneficial if double yellow lines were painted on one side of each of the narrow streets in the area (particularly mine!). I believe it is totally unnecessary for residents who live in the area to require a car in order to work in the city centre. I hope that a new parking scheme will transform the area from a car park into an area where residents would be encouraged to travel to work using sustainable transport. How about piloting a 'Green Commuter Zone' right here in the heart of Bristol? I believe that a Residents Parking Zone would be a great start to a scheme of removing cars from Clifton Wood and Brandon Hill and creating a virtuous and exemplary green inner city area. I wish all representatives in favour of the RPZ the best of luck in its implementation. Kind regards, Sam Shatford 56 Ambra Vale East STATEMENT NO S17 Dear Sir With reference to the recent vote in favour of residents parking zones (RPZ) in our street and the surrounding area. We are strongly in favour of the introduction of controlled parking in our street and area. It is currently a complete 'nightmare' for residents to obtain parking at all hours of the day. Effectively our area is blighted by non residents using ours and the surrounding streets as a free inner city public car park. We have young children and suffer greatly when trying to park. We often have to park long distances from our home due to the current unregulated system encouraging commuters etc. to use our street to park their cars. In our opinion Bristol suffers from the worst inner city parking problems in the country. This is as a direct result of unregulated parking in the majority of the city centre. All other major cities have resident parking schemes that successfully operate and it is long overdue for Bristol to follow suit. We believe that RPZs will immeasurably improve quality of life without any detrimental effect. We have lived in another UK city where we saw an RPZ introduced in our street and life was positively transformed for all. Yours faithfully Nicholas & Vanessa Clark Richmond Terrace Clifton Bristol BS8 1AA STATEMENT NO S18 Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee Call in Panel 5th January 2009 @ 1730 hrs Residents parking pilot scheme Statement I am a resident of Clifton Wood Road and as such part of the proposed pilot scheme. I support the development of this pilot scheme. I have read the representations of the Conservative group who called this decision in and I ask you to ignore these. • The so-called flawed consultation (and you can always get someone to give an opinion that something is flawed, this sort of consultation can never be perfect and can never satisfy everyone) is in fact flawed in favour of the "no" vote. The proposed scheme was so draconian that it frightened a lot of people into supporting the "no" campaign. It is significant that in spite of this, in this area people were so desperate that they still voted in favour of this initial RPZ scheme. • During the consultations, staff from the council did listen to representations from local residents and this has resulted in a considerably modified and much more satisfactory set of proposals. In this respect, the consultation was excellent. • Furthermore, the council has committed to further consultations during the development of these pilot schemes and I feel that the council in this instance has behaved correctly. • It is evident from the (much more seriously flawed) "no" campaign that they would be against any form of RPZ so to question the consultation is simply a delaying tactic. • I would also point out that the critics who say that the costings are flawed because they were able to bring the cost down as a result of consultation are wrong. It was possible to bring the cost down because the modified scheme required less policing and therefore less maintenance. • I would oppose referral to a full council meeting because this will result in a repetition of what happened on the 24th of November when the "no" campaign fielded 250 vociferous and intimidating • objectors most of whom did not originate from the areas under question. Because of the size of the proposed pilot zones, the "no" campaign will always be able to mount bigger numbers than the "yes" campaign -- the "yes" campaign acts on behalf of residents of one of the two pilot areas whereas the "no" campaign covers the entire city. Finally, criticism of the consultation process is a standard tactic of opponents of residents parking nationally -- it is an easy target. The situation gets worse on a daily basis and those of us (a majority in this area) who desperately need a workable scheme need support from this committee. With sincere regards Adrian Longstaffe 24 Clifton Wood Road Bristol BS8 4TW 01179262456 [email protected] STATEMENT NO S19 Dear Sir / Madam, I would like to express my support for the proposed Residents Parking Zone. The call in of this proposal is unhelpful and unnecessary. The pilots should go ahead as planned and development of the scheme should be allowed to progress through due process. The vocal minority who are objecting to this scheme should not be allowed to derail a process which has such obvious benefits and which is supported by a silent majority of long suffering Clifton residents who experience constant and increasing difficulties with finding parking somewhere reasonably close to where they live. Yours faithfully, ________________________________ John Sparrow STATEMENT NO S20 Dear Councillor Fox & Committee Regarding the meeting being held on Jan 5th to discuss the residents parking pilot scheme. (RPS) Firstly, I would like to SUPPORT the scheme for residents parking. I am a resident living in Kingsdown Parade. From a personal point of view I would like to make the following comments. Every day our lives are blighted by commuters using our road as a free car parking, there are never any parking spaces for residents between 08:00 and 18:00 and this situation will only get worse with the new BRI\Bristol University buildings opening soon and the extra shoppers to Cabot Circus. My car has received damage as commuters try and park in spaces that far too small for their car, such is the competition for parking places. In the day time my wife is restricted to walking or using the bus to get anywhere, as once she moves her car there will be no spaces available till after 18:00 Finally, I have been informed, that this meeting is being held due to a question about the research data been flawed as in July many people were on holiday. We were asked our opinion about the scheme at the time, and felt we had ample time to submit our views. The whole subject of RPS has been open to debate for many years, so no one can argue they have not been able to submit their opinion. I should be grateful if you would use this email as a demonstration of my support for the RPS, thank you. Yours faithfully Clive Gregory Kingsdown Parade STATEMENT NO S21 To whom it may concern, I am a resident of Frederick Place in Clifton and have for a long time been concerned about the state of parking in the streets around my flat. As a resident it is impossible to find a space during many times of the day and evening and this has a direct impact on my quality of life. Commuters, shoppers and students all use the streets as a long-term car park and I can't see how this can be contributing to Bristol City Council's desire to increase the use of public transport for those people travelling into Bristol and to create a sustainable parking and congestion situation in the coming years. I hope that the council makes the correct decision and introduces the RPZ and furthermore that Frederick Place is included in any trial project, Best Regards, Ben Russell Top Floor Maisonette Frederick Place STATEMENT NO S22 Dear Committee Members, I understand that this Item has been "called in" for your Committee's consideration on 5th January 2009. I appreciate that people supporting the NO campaign have legitimate concerns, however I do object to the way that residents from outside Kingsdown have been lobbying politicians on behalf of Kingsdown residents to get the decision of the Cabinet on 24th November reversed about a pilot in Kingsdown. I understand that the Survey that was conducted in the Summer may not be adequate or sufficiently democratic approach to determine the level of support for this scheme in Kingsdown. If this is the case then I would urge Councillors to take decisive action and ask officers to commission a formal referendum or further consultation to an agreed timetable as soon as possible so that the scheme, if support is confirmed, can be implemented. I arrived with my family in Kingsdown over six years ago. At that time many of the windows in our street were plastered with small posters "No to CPZ". Arriving from the South East we were somewhat bemused by this negative attitude to a policy that would give residents priority in parking close to their home. It has been very noticeable that as the pressures for parking spaces have increased with expansions to the University, Hospital and Businesses in the City Centre and now Cabot Circus this opposition has significantly diminished - so that the local opponents in the main appear to be public houses and shops in the area who are dependant on the casual visitor and students/young professionals in multi occupied houses. As the Survey has already indicated, 51% of Kingsdown Residents are in support of the Scheme, as they recognise that despite the scare mongering of the NO campaigns letters and posters that residents are far better served by a regulated Residents Parking Scheme. Finally, I feel the introduction of a pilot may have some unexpected and helpful consequences. It may require the Hospital and University authorities to reconsider their overall Parking and Employee Travel Plans. For example: Is it acceptable for a Nurse on late shift duty to not be able to parkas close by to the Hospital as possible when the Hospital has access to a multi storey car park in Eugene Street? I trust the comments detailed above will be given due consideration in the debate. Yours sincerely Tim Southall Kingsdown Parade STATEMENT NO S23 Dear CALL-IN SUB COMMITTEE I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed introduction of a pilot Residents Parking Zone for Brandon Hill including the congested streets of Clifton Wood where I live. I have voted at every local, national and European election since the age of 18 but this is the first time that I have written to a local councillor in my personal capacity and is a reflection of my deep concerns over this issue. I was one of the majority in our neighbourhood who voted in favour of such a scheme. I am concerned to learn that despite a majority of residents in the area affected voting in favour and the proposals being approved by Cabinet at the end of November, the decision has been called in for further consideration on 5th January. I have previously lived in towns and cities where residents parking schemes are in force and so I have personal experience of their operation. I am of the view that the "no" vote is unnecessary scaremongering and is driven by a misguided view that we are "entitled" to free parking and that we have an unquestionable right to park outside our own homes. I am pleased to see that the amended proposals do seem to have taken into account the concerns of local businesses. I have no problem with the proposed fee structure. The principle reasons why I support the scheme, and urge you to vote in favour, are as follows: Access for essential vehicles: the demand for parking space from commuters on our road results in badly parked vehicles which cause regular inconvenience and real problems with access. Earlier this year due to thoughtless parking by commuters I had to guide an ambulance down our road (having got vehicles moved as well) in order for the emergency services to gain access to a neighbour's house. (I work from home most days and I know which cars belong to my neighbours so I know that the obstructing cars did not belong to residents). It would be impossible to get a fire engine or other large emergency vehicles down this road with the current intensity of parking. This is a health and safety risk. We also regularly have problems with rubbish and recycling collections. Deliveries and work vehicles: We do warn all delivery vehicles in advance that access is tight but we have found that over the last 2 to 3 years the number of vehicles using our roads for commuter parking have resulted in major problems for deliveries which, in turn, inevitably block access. We have also now found that many trades people are loathe to work in this area and we have over the past 18 months had to timetable all building works for the school holidays. Access for friends and family: We have a disabled friend who no longer comes to see us because there is now very little chance of a space to park within a short walk. We also have elderly family members who are very unwilling to visit other than on a Sunday or during holiday times - all due to a lack of parking. What is very telling is that during the school holidays there is sufficient parking space for residents and visitors. This I believe demonstrates that the proposed scheme will achieve the aim of freeing up a sensible amount of parking to ensure that the health, safety and day to day lives of the residents here is made easier. On a less personal level I support the RPZ because we all need to start to rethink our reliance on the car ( and one, two or more cars per family) as the primary form of transport. This of course, veers in to the controversial territory of the Council's woeful public transport policy. The RPZ should be one small step in building up the messages about the need to change behaviours for the benefit of all. I trust that you will be supporting the RPZ. Yours sincerely Susie Smith Southernhay Avenue STATEMENT NO S24 I write in reference to the RPZ Call-In meeting scheduled for January 5th 2009. I will be unable to attend the meeting but request this letter be taken into consideration. My name is Anthony Parker. I live at Frederick Place, BS8 1AS. I strongly support the proposed RPZ. Frederick Place is less than 5 minutes walk to Clifton Triangle. Every weekday morning between 07:30 and 08:45 I see a procession of commuters drive along my street at crawling speed searching for a free parking place. For the rest of the day, it is shoppers searching for free parking spaces. Please explain to me why I, as a resident, should be unable to park on my own street whilst commuters and shoppers monopolise the parking spaces. If there is one honest and reasonable argument why this state of affairs should be allowed to continue, I have yet to hear it. The situation is notably worse during University term time. My premises are at the bend in Frederick Place. I have on three occasions in the last two years been present when emergency vehicles (twice fire engines and once an ambulance) have been unable to get around the bend in the road due to badly parked vehicles. The chances of this happening would be greatly reduced by the implementation of a RPZ. There should be no further procrastination. The RPZ needs to be implemented now. Anthony Parker Frederick Place STATEMENT NO S25 Dear sirs I would urge you to go ahead with the pilot RPS scheme in the Kingsdown area. As a resident I am frequently unable to park in the vicinity of my house. Today I am parked in Nugent Hill, a fair walk from Somerset Street with or without shopping bags, and today is still a holiday for many. I understand that the Conservative group has "called in the scheme" and that it will be discussed at a council meeting on 5th January. I would be pleased if you would represent my views at this meeting and request that the scheme goes ahead. Yours faithfully, Elaine Pope Somerset Street STATEMENT NO S26 To whom it may concern I am resident in Clifton Wood and wish to register support for the proposed RPZ in this area. Yours faithfully Wendy Britton Clifton Wood Road Bristol STATEMENT NO S27 Sir/Madam As residents of Kingsdown we support the Pilot RPS approved by Cabinet on 24 November 2008. Despite the call-in by the Conservative Group we would emphasise the importance of the trial and in our view the long-term benefit an RPS would bring to the Kingsdown Community. Please ensure that this endorsement is registered with the Call-in Committee at their meeting, which is being held on Monday 5 January 2009. We do not want further delays in the Councils' policies, which would address parking and transport for the City. With thanks Colin and Val Harvey West End STATEMENT NO S28 Dear Sirs I am writing to express my full support for the proposed Residents' Parking Scheme in Kingsdown. I live in Somerset Street and am convinced that the scheme will - improve the environment for local people have added safety benefits (allowing ambulances & fire engines access to the area, which they often do not have at the moment) encourage commuters to use public transport and other more responsible ways to travel into the city centre. I urge you to adopt the scheme at the meeting on 5th January and implement it as soon as possible. Yours faithfully, Lorna Robinson Somerset Street STATEMENT NO S29 Dear Chairman and Sub-Committee I am appalled that a lobby group (no group) is playing a devious game to derail the pilot RPZ scheme for my area Despite a 55% vote in favour of a RPZ for my area (Brandon Hill/Clifton wood) despite the fact all that was planned at this stage was a pilot scheme despite the fact it was democratically approved on 24 November Parking for those of us who live in the area is truly appalling Despite the fact I live on what was until about 5 years ago a quiet residential street (Clifton wood crescent) the level of commuter traffic means it is now unsafe for our children to play outside or walk to the local school on their own. It may well not be a perfect solution - but at least it is a plan by the council to deal with the problem that blights our lives. It may well require further refinement - but that is the point of it being a pilot. I urge the council to stand up to the lobby group (no group) campaigning against any form of scheme and allow the pilot to go ahead. I ask that this written representation be taken into account at the call-in meeting on 05-01-2009 and i am happy for it to be read out. John Baden-Daintree Clifton Wood Crescent Bristol BS8 4TU STATEMENT NO S30 Dear Sir I write in connection to the proposal for a pilot residents parking scheme in Clifton, where I am currently a resident (on Richmond Terrace), in order to offer my wholehearted support. As a Transport Planning Consultant working for a private engineering consultancy in Bristol, I am well aware of the benefits that Residents Parking Zones (RPZs) can bring. Not only should the scheme bring about benefits for local residents, businesses and organisations through improved opportunities for parking, but the scheme should also result in increased numbers of persons using the City's public transport system as previous car drivers who parked free in our residential area will be forced to find alternative modes of transport to access the city centre. Furthermore, the RPZ should also ensure that the capacity of the highway network is improved through the prevention of inappropriate / illegal parking on street thereby improving the ability of traffic to free flow. I look forward to the scheme being implemented in my residential area. With Kind Regards Michelle Snow STATEMENT NO S31 Dear Members, (Call in meeting - Monday 5th January 2009) I have been a resident in the Kingsdown area for over 15 years and have been disappointed over the years at the lack of action to secure residential parking. At last sense seems to have prevailed and we might at last get a scheme. Please don't allow political shenanigans win the day. Kingsdown needs a residential parking scheme...I say YES Yes Yes ...bring it on. Both my wife and I are fed up with not being able to park near our house due to hospital workers and builders taking up valuable car spaces near our home. These people come from out of town and should use the car parks provided, but instead choose to park for free all day preventing residents from using the available spaces. It would be a travesty if the RPS is thrown out. We had a poll several years ago that agreed with the scheme, for goodness sake lets get it agreed once and for all. Yours Sincerely Jon, Sophie, Louise and Amy Nicholls Marlborough Hill, Kingsdown. STATEMENT NO S32 I understand that there is a Call-In meeting on Monday 5 January. I am writing to say that I am strongly in favour of a Residents Parking Scheme in Kingsdown. I have lived in Bristol for 6 years and parking has always been a nightmare. It seems that the people behind the Keep Parking Free campaign probably don't even live in this area and have no idea what it is like. When we leave for work at 7.30 there are people hovering to immediately take the space - it is impossible to come back before at least 3.00pm to park anywhere near the house. This is because all the spaces have been taken up by people going off to work for the day. Even in the evenings it is sometimes impossible to park any closer than St Matthew's Church. In addition, the road is a mess of cars day and night - I would welcome the street being tidied up with marked parking bays. Yours sincerely Heather Southall Kingsdown Parade, Bristol BS6 5UG STATEMENT NO S33 I live in Tyndalls Park Mews, which I hope will be included in the Kingsdown RPS pilot area. I am aware that RPS is a hotly-debated subject, and inevitably there will be some downsides to the scheme. But I firmly support the introduction of RPS, especially in Kingsdown, for a host of reasons, principally to prevent our streets being a long-term city-centre car park for commuters and students. We MUST work to reduce Bristol's appalling traffic problem, get people out of cars and onto their feet, bicycles and public transport. Especially we must deter students from bringing cars into Bristol, parking them in our streets and then scarcely moving them all term (which happens in our road). While the option of parking in our area exists, change will never happen. Go on, Bristol City Council - don't let us down again, be brave, grasp the nettle and get on with it! Linda Ewles Tyndalls Park Mews, St Michael's Hill, Bristol BS2 8DN STATEMENT NO S34 Residents Parking Scheme I live within the Kingsdown area and fully support the proposed RPS. It seems to be a reasonable first step in addressing not only the problem of resident's parking in the area, but the more general issue of commuter travel. In response to the specific issues raised by Councillors Abraham and Eddy: . Do they really believe that residents opposed to the scheme were more likely to be away during the summer period? If not, then it is fair to assume that the distribution of those for and against would be the same at whatever time of the year the consultation took place; . Yes, implementing the scheme will have an impact on neighbouring areas directly outside the pilot areas. But the Council must start somewhere; doing nothing (not unknown in Bristol) is unacceptable; the problem will not go away. Let's run the pilot as soon as possible; without results from this we cannot start to gain insight into what is a complex but urgent issue. Please, delay no longer. Jim Pimpernell Tyndalls Park Mews STATEMENT NO S35 Keep Parking Free Statement to Bristol City Council Overview and Scrutiny Management Call-In Panel - 5 January 2009 “Where a local authority failed adequately to consult residents on the introduction in their area of a controlled parking zone that designation would be quashed.” These are the words of Mr Justice McCullough, a High Court judge, who ruled against the London Borough of Camden in a case with striking similarities to that being discussed today. The consultation failure made the decision to proceed with the parking zone invalid. We have shown the judgment to a legal expert whose (initial) opinion is that there is no reason why the same reasoning should not apply to Bristol City Council in this case. In effect, any Residents’ Parking Zone introduced following a flawed consultation would not be legal. Indeed, it is hard to see how anyone could disagree with the judge in the Camden case. Local authorities have a duty to consult with residents prior to introducing any Controlled (Residents’) Parking Zone. It would be a mockery were it to be held that there was no obligation on them to do this properly. It is entirely clear that Bristol City Council has not consulted properly in this case. When the consultation documents were published towards the end of June this year there was widespread amazement that the executive had not seen fit to discuss it first with even the councillors who represent the wards affected. Cllr Barbara Janke, the leader of the largest party on the council and councillor for part of the proposed Clifton pilot zone, complained at a public meeting in front of more than 200 people that she had not had sight of the consultation documents before they were sent out. Cllr Simon Cook, former Lord Mayor and also ward councillor for part of the proposed Clifton pilot zone, has stated publicly that had he seen the document before it was sent out “it would certainly have not gone out in this form.” He said it was phrased very poorly and the questions were vague. Cllr Neil Harrison, whose Cotham ward includes part of the proposed Kingsdown pilot area, and who has expertise in the field, has explained at great length about the quality of the consultation and has described it as “either a sham or a shambles”. Cllr Alex Woodman, Chair of the Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission, whose ward includes part of the proposed Kingsdown pilot zone, has said that he "was disappointed with the quality of the consultation". The Conservative group on the Council has called the consultation exercise ‘botched’, ‘shambolic’ and ‘fundamentally flawed’. We sent the documents to a number of household names in the opinion research industry – people who are experts in the field of collecting information on public opinion. Here are some of their comments: “I ...would agree that there are serious flaws in the questionnaire, that the exercise lacks objectivity and makes unwarranted assumptions” “Your concerns are definitely justified. The survey does not appear to be particularly balanced; only really focusing on the advantages of the scheme without contextualising the disadvantages. The wording as well suggests people need to answer the questions a certain way. ”Question 1 is a poor question. It is not at all clear how people should answer if there is enough space sometimes but not always” “Question 3 is a bad question – one of the first rules of questionnaire design is that the answer should match the question!” “The sheer amateurishness of this and other questions will deter people from completing the questionnaire at all” “Question 5…is both a leading question and almost an implied threat.” In short, the quality of the consultation documents – and therefore the validity of the results – was inadequate. However, it gets worse. Bristol has two major universities and a large population – both students and staff - whose lives revolve around the academic calendar. There is a belief, at least in some parts, that students should not have cars and certainly Bristol University discourages students from bringing cars to the city. However, students and, of course, staff are people and democracy works for them too. To carry out a consultation, especially in areas substantially occupied by university students and staff, entirely during the summer vacation beggars belief! That the consultation started the very day that Bristol University’s summer vacation started makes it almost impossible to believe this was some sort of unfortunate accident. There is a further consultation failure, which is financial. The Council has been at pains to try to show that the pilot zones, and any wider scheme, are not being introduced to make money. However, the figures hide a number of peculiar assumptions. Why, for example, does the Council assume that each parking attendant would issue on average only one ticket per day, when the national average is around seven? By year 10 the assumption is that the Council would spend more than three times as much on enforcement as it makes in fines – that would surely be a first! Altering the figures to fit the national average would bring a profit of over £1million per year for the two proposed zones. If people were aware of this they may be very much less inclined to vote ‘yes’. The sum of all this is that the consultation was wholly inadequate and, as was instructed by the judge in the Camden case, must start again. Finally, let us add, lest it be suggested that there will be further consultation with residents in this case which would make everything alright, that it is simply not possible to build on rotten foundations. The only way is to go back and start again. Thank you Kieran Battles Bernard Cooke Keep Parking Free STATEMENT NO 36 Dear Sir, I would like to express my support the proposed residents' parking zone in Clifton and hope that all measures will be taken to improve parking and congestion as this is a difficult area. A similar scheme was introduced in Brighton& Hove a number of years ago and it was a great improvement; where wide streets allowed it herringbone parking bays were introduced and this actually increased the number of spaces. yours, Michael Branch Jacob's Wells Road Bristol BS8 1DX STATEMENT NO S37 Dear Sir / Madam I would like to express our support for a controlled parking scheme. My wife and I recently returned to Clifton after 6 years living in London. Our house there benefited from controlled parking and we are really feeling the pain now we're back in Bristol. We frequently find it difficult to park in our street, sometimes even up to three or four streets away. This is particularly difficult when returning home with our two year old daughter. In London we could always park outside our house - or at worst within about 10 yards of it. We appreciate that many Bristol residents oppose such a scheme. We ourselves were against it when we lived here before. Not all formulations will deliver tangible benefits to all residents. However, on the face of it, the proposed scheme looks sound. It may be too late to do so, but if you haven't already done so I recommend speaking to Merton Council about their experience of introducing a very successful scheme in London. Kind regards Richard Boston STATEMENT NO S38 Yes toRPS Sionaid Rottger Somerset St Kingsdown Pam Reader- Howell Somerset St Kingsdown STATEMENT NO S39 To Whom It May Concern I am a resident in Kingsdown Parade and I am for the Resident Parking Scheme. The present parking is flooded with non residents and in such a strong community as Kingsdown it is such a shame residents can't park outside their own house!! Yours Sincerely Beth Gibbons STATEMENT NO 40 I am emailing in support of an RPZ in Clifton Wood. In an ideal world, such a proposal would be unnecessary, but the continued failure of the Council to resist the conversion of houses into flats in this area has added greatly to the numbers of cars owned by homeowners. Pressure on parking is then compounded by the increase in the use of the narrow streets here as free car parks by office workers and students. The combination has had an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and the quality of life of residents here. Sincerely, R J Smyth Ambra Vale South Clifton Wood BS8 4RN STATEMENT NO S41 Dear Sirs Reference: Zones Call in Meeting on 5th January 2009 - Residents Parking I am writing in support of the planned pilot scheme for a Residents Parking Zone. 1. Living on Richmond Terrace, Clifton Road, frequently it is difficult to park within a reasonable distance of my flat. I am over 75 and I find carrying items difficult for a long distance. The distance can sometimes be as much as 10 or 15 minutes walk away. 2. If one needs one's car in the evening, (not possible to get to one's destination and back by public transport) a long walk in the dark, down deserted streets is not to be recommended. 3. The spaces that would be utilised by residents are taken up by commuters from 8 am onwards. 4. On a more long term basis spaces are also taken by those who live within the existing, central, controlled parking area and who do not have their own parking facilities. 5. The fight for parking spaces results in obstructive parking on corners etc. This can prevent access by ambulances, fire engines etc. I understand that the Council will be introducing more double yellow lines anyway to overcome this problem and this will in turn increase the pressure on residents parking spaces. Thus increasing the need for controlled parking spaces for residents. 6. May I recommend to the Council that they aim for an eventual RPZ to cover Clifton, Redland, Cotham and Kingsdown. Residents would be able to go about their normal lives being able to park legitimately within this outer central area and I feel sure that this would lead to less complaints in the long run. If the area is divided up into small areas with different rules this will not only be confusing, but will result in injustices and therefore complaints. HOWEVER It is important that the public transport alternatives for commuters are well publicised. It is important that there are sufficient two/three hour parking meters to enable shoppers to Clifton village and others from outside the area with shorter term parking needs to be catered for. Yours truly W A Pollard (Mrs) STATEMENT NO S42 Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to say that I am strongly opposed to residents parking in my area of Cotham (St Matthews Rd). I work very long and often antisocial hours and could not do this without the help of people who cover childcare for me. They often need to park and drop off the children and sometimes wait for me and this is the case 5-6 days a week often twice a day. Parking permits for visitors would not cover this number of days and the cost of meters would be prohibitive. Please reconsider this detrimental scheme. We would all like luxurious parking but in the real world a bit of give and take will go much further than the them and us attitude that this represents. I have been abused by people on my street who believe no-one, even a fellow resident of the street should be allowed to park outside their house because they want the nearest space to their door! This is not how a community should work. People who park here may not be residents but they may be helping residents or the community in general. Yours faithfully Rachel Alexander STATEMENT NO S43 CALL-IN SUB-COMMITTEE – 5TH JANUARY 2009 Just for your information, I have always been fully in favour of the new proposed residents' parking scheme. Thanks and may it go ahead soon! A L Topping Bellevue Crescent, BS8 4TE STATEMENT NO S44 CALL-IN SUB-COMMITTEE – 5TH JANUARY 2009 We understand there is to be a Call-in meeting of the Council on Monday, 5th January to discuss - yet again - the proposal to introduce a pilot residents' parking scheme in the Clifton Wood and Kingsdown areas. As residents of Kingsdown we are shocked that this meeting is to be called, despite the Cabinet agreement of 24th November 2008 to implement the pilot scheme. As far as we are concerned the Council took the necessary steps to consult with its citizens and the majority of residents of these areas are in favour of the scheme being introduced. We have lived in Kingsdown since 1996 and there is no doubt at all that a Residents' Parking scheme is vital and should have been introduced years ago. Why the situation has been allowed to drag on and on is incomprehensible and we support the Cabinet fully in its attempt to bring this matter to fruition. Malcolm and Bridget Parker 43 Kingsdown Parade STATEMENT NO S45 CALL-IN SUB-COMMITTEE – 5 JANUARY 2009 Sorry, I am unable to attend in person However, I am writing in support of the RPS in Kingsdown. I voted in favour of the scheme and am looking forward to its implementation. Please do not waste any more time listening to the No campaign, we live here and we want it NOW Regards Mary Asfour STATEMENT NO S46 CALL-IN SUB-COMMITTEE – 5 JANUARY 2009 This is to register my support for the Residents Parking Scheme in the Kingsdown area. I will not be able to attend the meeting on 5th January as I am away, but as a resident of 21 Fremantle Road I feel very strongly that there should be an RPS, and that Fremantle Road should be within the RPS. During week days it is impossible to park anywhere near our house in Fremantle Road. Early in the morning many cars hover and wait to snap up spaces as soon as residents leave for work. The parking in Cotham Side is particularly bad and sometimes cars have parked so badly that it is impossible to drive around the area surrounding St. Matthews Church. It is frequently impossible to drive out of St.Matthews Lane into Cotham Side, as there is no room to turn into the middle of the road, due to cars parking badly in Cotham Side. Thank you, Christine Townsend STATEMENT S47 Dear Council, I totally oppose the CPZ scheme proposal for Brandon Hill and Kingsdown as this will push parking traffic to the neighbouring part of the town where I live (Tyndalls Park). Thank you, Sharon Shadrokh-Cigari Elmdale Road, Tyndalls Park, BS8 1SF STATEMENT NO S48 Sir I write in support of the proposed new RPZ schemes in the city, and would like to see the full RPZ scheme implemented this year across the whole of the originally designated area. I believe there is a meeting on 5th January 2009 to discuss the decision to implement the pilot areas. I will not be there, but please count this email as a vote in favour of both the decision made in November, and implementation in general. Many thanks. Bill Ambridge Hartington Park Bristol BS6 7ES STATEMENT NO S49 Southernhay Avenue Clifton Wood Bristol BS8 4TJ 2nd January 2009 Public Forum Statement to Bristol City Council Overview & Scrutiny Call-In Panel 5th January 2009 As a resident with a young family in one of the proposed pilot parking scheme areas I am writing to say that I fully support the Council’s approach to this difficult issue. I urge members of the Panel to reject the call-in and look forward to the eventual implementation of the scheme. Ms. H.D. McCloy STATEMENT NO S50 We should like to support the pilot residents' parking zone which will affect our road. Anything has to be an improvement on the current situation where commuters regularly go round the block four times hoping for a space. We do not see students' vehicles as being a major cause for concern (and the Students' Union is at the end of our road, and many live nearby) but are worried by the greed of households running several vehicles, often not using their own garage which may be for storage. The university could impose stricter guidelines on students having a vehicle in Bristol if it chose. Ultimately, the goal has to be to persuade people to use fewer cars and to use them less. There will be problems from the pilot scheme, but this could be a good experience to build on to achieve the goal. CAROLINE AND DAVID GORDON GORDON ROAD CLIFTON BRISTOL BS8 1AW STATEMENT NO S51 I would like to make it clear that I support the introduction of the Residents' Parking Scheme in Kingsdown and I would like to see the consultation going ahead immediately instead of being caught up in more bureaucratic procedure. I am a non car owner and as such I feel quite overwhelmed by the volume of traffic which parks in this area. I would be very happy to encourage my visitors to arrive here by public transport or by walking or cycling, as I do myself and I find the insistence on the so-call 'right' to park without charge is totally unacceptable. I am unable to attend the meeting, hence this email. Diana Hayns Kingsdown Parade STATEMENT NO S52 To whom it may concern, As a resident in the Brandon Hill area proposed for the pilot Residents Parking Zone scheme, I'm writing to voice my support for its implementation as I understand the Cabinet's final decision will be taken on Friday 5th January. I applaud the Cabinet in supporting the proposals and was very pleased to see how much importance was placed on public consultation before the pilot scheme would be introduced. As one of the 54.9% of local residents who voted in favour, I feel moved to send in this statement to counter the 'NO' campaigners who have loudly voiced their opposition but as far as I can see have not put forward any constructive alternative to a problem which must be addressed. They are not representative of this area and do not seem to appreciate the impact of the problem. I've lived in Cliftonwood for 23 years and there's been a noticeable increase in commuter parking in our street over the past few years, even while a virtual road closure has been in operation which was intended to limit parking to residents and visitors. In spite of large red signs saying that only permitted vehicles were allowed to park, numerous city commuters and City of Bristol College students and personnel regularly park in our street, and have been known to become aggressive when politely informed about the road closure limitations on parking. The following are consequences of this daytime long-term parking, as well as the issue of multi-occupancy accommodation where one property can host several cars, and the fact that many owner-occupied houses have two cars: * Residents who are at home during the day often find it hard or impossible to find a space if they go out and return. This is particularly relevant to parents with small children, the elderly and those with impaired mobility. * Anyone coming to work in the street, especially builders with large vans, can often find it very difficult to park in the street, let alone nearer enough to where they're working to be able to work from their vehicle. * This also applies to visitors * We have had a number of fires in the street in the past two years, the most recent being very serious, and on all occasions the fire engine has not been able to get into the street because of cars parked badly as well as the volume of parked cars. * This also applies to refuse lorries and delivery vans. If proof were needed about the impact of commuter parking, there are always more available day-time spaces during college vacations and public holidays. Margaret Ainley 20, Cliftonwood Crescent STATEMENT NO S53 Dear Sirs We write to give our qualified support to the proposed scheme for a RPZ in the Cliftonwood area. Our reservations include the following: - - - It is essential that the available space for parking in the area is not reduced. This means that there must not be defined parking bays. We are all used to fitting into smaller areas and parking bays will use up more space than is necessary there are roads where parking on both sides of the road is necessary and where to allow a sufficient passage for larger vehicles it has become accepted practice to park on pavements where this does not obstruct pedestrian routes. This must not be prevented. Randall Road is a case in point, where the council inexplicably provided a pavement opposite the houses (where previously the level was pretty similar to the road surface). The pavement goes nowhere and serves no-one. Cars park on it as they parked on the surface it replaced. It would be preferable if the council removed the pavement but the existing practice must at least be allowed to continue visiting services such as doctors, district nurses etc must be exempt from visitors' passes. Presumably there are dispensations for the disabled. It would make sense for the scheme to run on Saturdays (if at all - we would question the need) only until midday or 1300 hrs. There is little need for the scheme to run on weekdays after 1800 hrs If the scheme is to work and is to be acceptable to the residents of the area it must protect true residents (from incomers, commuters and such like) but without making life any more difficult for those same residents. The cost will not be insubstantial and will fall hardest on those least able to pay. It is a regressive measure from this point of view. To justify that cost it must be seen to give an improvement for those who must pay. There is some strong feeling against the scheme and although a certain element of such opposition is bred of ignorance of the details of the scheme, there are some justifiable concerns. We hope you will take these views into account in your deliberations. Yours faithfully Christopher and Sarah Sharp STATEMENT NO 54 Call-In Sub-Committee – 5th January 2009 Residents' Parking Scheme (RPS) With reference to the proposed RPS and the Call-in meeting on Monday 5th January 2009 I feel that the consultation for the pilot schemes has been fair and therefore the Call-in meeting is an unnecessary delay in putting the scheme into practice. The proposed scheme is a reasonable response to an ever-increasing problem for residents of parking in areas close to the city centre by those coming to work here. There are fewer available spaces than required by residents' vehicles at the moment. A reduction in the number of vehicles from outside will improve the situation. Vehicles from the emergency and waste management services will be able to gain access easily. Builders' vehicles will be able to park close to the work site. The action for those who will no longer be able to park freely in our streets is for them to look into alternative means of transport to work and support local authority initiatives such as 'Park and Ride' to do this, and to lobby employers to provide parking or transport. We residents deserve better than to have our daily lives disrupted by those who seem to care little for the area in which we live and who do not recognise that their behaviour causes great inconvenience to us. John Rowe (Kingsdown resident - Spring Hill/Somerset Street). STATEMENT NO S55 Dear Sir, I write to add this household's voice to those in favour of the parking scheme for residents in Clifton Wood. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the meeting on 5 January, but we believe that the parking scheme will be of benefit to the area and look forward to its implementation Yours sincerely Catherine and Jonathan Wills 1 Randall Rd Clifton Wood Bristol BS8 4TP STATEMENT NO S56 We address this statement to the Call-in Committee, in support of the pilot residents' parking scheme proposed for the Brandon Hill/Clifton Wood area. As long-standing residents of Clifton Wood, we suffer daily from the commuter traffic which uses our streets as a free car park. On week day mornings the roads are blocked by bad-tempered commuters fighting over parking, their minds focused on space-hunting rather than on the safety of school-children and pedestrians. Visitors, residents and trades people find it impossible to park later in the day. Since we have been living here, we have noticed a significant increase in the problem and it will only get worse as new developments open down on the Harbourside and elsewhere. We welcomed the consultation exercise performed by the Council and, along with a majority of local residents in this area, responded positively to the proposal, in spite of the draconian measures proposed. Much has been made of the supposed inadequacies of the consultation, however our impression was that, if anything, it risked under-estimating the 'yes' vote. Since the consultation, the council has addressed many of the concerns raised by residents and we are very happy that the pilot should go ahead. The scheme was accepted by a majority of local residents, passed by the scrutiny committee and recommended for action by cabinet. We object to any unnecessary delay in implementation resulting from calls to bring this scheme in front of the council yet again. The objectors to the scheme do not represent the local residents and should not override the wishes of those who are directly affected by the scheme. Matthew Smith Rebecca Gunson Hilary Williams Richard Puttick Clifton Wood Road STATEMENT S57 As a lawyer I have spent some time considering the legal position of the Council and the No campaigners. The challenge by the Conservatives to the council's decision to proceed towards pilot schemes is heavily tainted by a policy devised by the "No" campaign. Although the pilot areas voted in favour of the scheme, the Conservatives seem to be happy to delay matters so the parking issue can be fought as a central campaign platform in the Clifton and Clifton East wards, which they hope to take from the Lib Dems. They appear to believe those opposing the scheme would vote Conservative and those in favour of the pilots schemes will not have the same zeal or feeling of being threatened by the Council and therefore will be passive. It is therefore perceived to be in the interests of both the "No" campaign and the Conservatives to use whatever delaying tactics they can so they can use this issue to what they see as maximum benefit in the May local elections. They probably want the May elections in these two wards to be the "Keep Parking Free" elections and assume the Lib Dems will sit on the fence on this issue thus playing into their (the Conservatives') hands. Their first challenge (by way of Call-In) is that the consultation process is flawed. I have looked at the Strategic Director - City Development's report and it deals intelligently with the somewhat nebulous grounds raised by Councillors Abraham and Eddy. I am concerned that if the No group and the Conservatives fail at the call-in stage the "No" group will then threaten, as they have done before on other issues, to Judicially Review the decision and the decision-making process. I would hope that a Court would reject at an early stage any application for a JR on the grounds that it is vexatious and frivolous and clearly intended as a delaying tactic. What bothers me is that the Council may feel intimidated by the possibility of delays and costly legal proceedings, and that it may shelve the pilot schemes. I myself have been on the receiving end of the "No" group's intimidation this week. One of their group sent me an obscene email which, among a lot of obscenities, stated that several of the "No" group were thinking of coming to set fire to my house (they have my address as I do not intend to hide behind anonymity in this campaign). The police are now investigating and are treating the case as high priority, with extra surveillance of my house. The "No" group are implacable and irrational. They will blindly protest against this scheme regardless of the obvious need for this long overdue scheme. They will threaten and intimidate (as was seen at their frightening performance at the Scrutiny meetimg on 24th November 2008) I hope the Council will not allow itself to be intimidated by the "No" campaign. Suzanne Gardner 20 Southernhay Avenue Clifton Wood STATEMENT NO S58 Hello, I am writing on behalf of the Bristol Cycling Campaign, Bristol's cycling organisation, with reference to the Call-In meeting on 5th January. We are an organisation with many hundreds of members across the city, including many in and near the proposed residents parking zones. We are writing to say that we are in favour of the proposed resident parking zones. The Bristol Cycling Campaign strongly supports the rights of residents of parts of the city to opt to become resident parking zones. Those areas in which a majority of respondents have opted to become such a zone should become part of a trial to see if it helps to address some of Bristol's major traffic and pollution problems. Our organisation already has an database exploring parking issues within the Kingdown and Brandon Hill areas. Key issues in these areas that we have identified are * pavement parking, with a consequent impact on pedestrian, especially disabled pedestrian access, and an effective narrowing of the road compared to stretches of roads such as Kingsdown Parade in which yellow lines reduce the number of parked cars. Kingsdown parade is a key example in Kingsdown http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/kingsdown-parade John Carr's Terrace is an equivalent example of the same problem near Brandon Hill: http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/brandon-hill * Cars blocking dropped pavements or across corners, which again hinders pedestrian and disabled access, and makes cycling around the city harder http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/corner-parking A seminal example are students parking in Highbury Villas who make the road virtually impassable to cars, pedestrians and bicycles alike http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/highbury-villas * Cars parking on the school-keep-clear zone. In the areas in/near the proposed zones, Queen Elizabeth School and Christchurch School, Clifton, appear particularly dangerous, as parents who drop off or pick up their children by car are clearly endangering those who walk or cycle http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/2008/12/queen-e-school.html http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/christchurch-school * The only "short-stay" parking in the areas are the school-keep-clear and zebra crossing areas, a fact which many drivers know. By using these areas, they endanger pedestrians, especially schoolchildren. http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/zebra-crossing There are also the traffic problems generated by cars looking for parking spaces, and opting to drive into the city rather than using alternate transport modalities. A roll out of resident parking zones may reduce the problems here. As far as our organisation is concerned, there are some key benefits to the city which could be obtained from the residents parking zones, not just by reducing the number of vehicles travelling round the city (which is hard to measure), but by improving street safety for all road users. 1. If pavement and corner parking issues are addressed by yellow-lining those parts of the road where parking legally is impossible -and enforcing those restrictions- then pedestrian and cyclist safety will be enhanced. 2. If, when narrow roads are restricted to single side parking, the uphill side of the road is marked as no-parking, then it becomes easier to cycle uphill, as there is no need for the extra strength to pull round park cars, or the aggression needed to pull in front of cars coming up behind you. Cotham Brow is a particular troublespot here, though it is not in either of the proposed zones. 3. If short-stay parking were rolled out by shops in the zones –such as Cotham Road South- there would be less need for transient traffic to park on zebra crossings. 4. Assuming disabled drivers from around the city will be able to park legally in the zones, the Kingsdown zone will provide extra disabled parking near the BRI, parking which the hospital does not permit within its own fee-paying parking area, and which tends to create traffic jams on Horfield Road, which must be especially inconvenient for FirstBus buses, whose bus stop gets abused this way. With reduced commuter parking, these disabled drivers should even be able to find somewhere to park without parking on the pavement or blocking a bike lane. We believe that the RPZ rollout should not itself be associated with stricter enforcement of existing parking legislation. Laws about pavement, corner and school parking should be enforced within the proposed RPZ areas -and the areas immediately outside of them - independent of the RPZ rollout. The Bristol Cycling Campaign is willing to collaborate with the council on datacollection and datamining experiments, which could be used to measure the effect of the RPZ. We propose a number of data-gathering experiments and surveys, Before * * * * * * * Collecting the number plates of vehicles parked in the zones, identifying permanent resident, student and commuter vehicles. Through letters sent to their addresses, survey their "Before" driving habits. Monitor/survey schools in/near the catchment areas to assess transport options used. A full census of transport habits of all residents of the zone Monitor volume/speed of traffic down selected thoroughfares in the zone. If this was done with manual/automated number plate recognition, cars looking for parking spaces could be identified. Possibly: more Bluetooth pedestrian traffic monitoring experiments For residents: measure their monthly vehicle mileage. If some residents are willing to install logging GPS units in their vehicles, monitoring their weekly driving patterns. After * * Repeat all experiments to see what has changed Follow up surveys of the previously identified commuters to see if their transport options have changed, or merely where they choose to park We can assist with number plate collection, Bluetooth data collection and the datamining algorithms, along with interpretation of the results. We are particularly curious as to where commuters will go, and whether offering residents somewhere to return to during the day will actually increase car use. We are worried that it will make driving the kids to school easier for parents returning home afterwards, and provide extra parking spaces for parents doing by-car-dropoff in or near the zones. We would also like to provide input on any proposals to mark off areas of the RPZ as no-parking, to discuss the impact/opportunity for cycling in the city. Both Cliftonwood and Kingsdown are valuable through routes for cyclists, and with the proposed Resident Parking Zones could improve the experience when cycling to or through either area. Therefore we strongly support this measure. Steve Loughran Bristol Cycling Campaign STATEMENT NO S59 01/ DCK/ 1st January 2009 Dear Sir, PROPOSED PILOT CPZ - CLIFTON WOOD ROAD AREA. As a resident of Clifton Wood Road I record my opposition to the proposed experimental CPZ in the Clifton Wood area. I have lived here for 27 years and only very rarely cannot park within 100 yards of my house on weekdays. Parking at weekends is not a problem. I am not against the principle of residents parking schemes being discussed or investigated but believe the whole basis of the present proposal is deeply flawed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Consultation. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have called the consultation process flawed. I agree. Parking permits. Charging the people who have not caused the problem is inequitable. Controlled parking hours. To effectively deter all day commuter parking a CPZ needs only to operate between 9.30 am Monday to 4.30pm on Friday. Anything else is outrageous and just a way to make money. Parking after 6pm. The proposal to charge for this is outrageous. Commuters. What alternative arrangements have been made for these displaced people? What are their alternatives? Self-Financing. Of course the scheme will be self-financing. Once introduced the Council will be able to charge what they like. Visitors' Permits. Many of our friends who visit regularly live too far away to walk / are not on any bus route/ are elderly and cannot walk any distance. Our free permits would be rapidly used up and we would then be paying even for people dropping by for a cup of tea. Again outrageous. Building Works. The proposal is silent on how visiting workmen/ tradesmen/ cleaners would be accommodated. Building works lasting a week with 5 men could use up a quarter of a household's allocation. Family Weddings/ gatherings/ funerals. Again the proposal is silent on how these reasonable and normal domestic occurrences will be accommodated without rapidly using up a household's visitors' permits. Flat conversions. Where a house has been converted into,say, three flats, will this property be treated as 3 dwellings or as one house for parking permit allocation? This is not clear given the cuttent information. Parking permit restrictions. The proposal seems to say that in certain circumstances a house might be restricted to 2 cars or even 1 car. My wife works 30 miles out of Bristol in Somerset in a place impossible to get to by public transport. I work from home and have to visit clients and building sites, sometimes several in a day. Most if not all of them 12. 13. would be impossible to get to by public transport. My 30-year-old daughter lives at home and has a car for business, which often takes her out of Bristol. If our house were 'restricted' to 1 or 2 parking permits, what is supposed to happen to the cars without permits in relation to our lawful occupations? Parking Space. Will permits be sold to cover the number of cars in a particular street or to all comers? If I am not allowed to park in adjoining streets but my street is full, where am I supposed to park? Yellow Lines. Reports I have read say that yellow lines will be extended. How is this supposed to help create more parking spaces? The whole process needs to be stopped, re-thought and proper house-tohouse consultations made in the proposed trial areas to ascertain exactly what the issues are and show clearly how any proposal will solve them. Yours faithfully David King. Clifton Wood Road. STATEMENT NO S60 Dear Sirs, Proposed pilot scheme for CPZ in Clifton and particularly Clifton Wood Until the details of the proposal for a controlled parking zone are completely stated I do not believe that anybody is in a position to approve or disapprove of them. Once they are made clear there should be a detailed public consultation so that we might see whether or not they are suitable for our individual areas, and then be allowed to vote. As you may be aware there are differing parking problems citywide. No one scheme would be suitable for the whole of this chosen area of the city. Many people will have sent you their detailed comments and questions. We need to have proper public knowledge of proposals and an opportunity to vote. And, please, no more sneaky, so-called consultation when everyone is on holiday! Yours faithfully Christine King Clifton Wood Road Bristol BS8 4TA STATEMENT NO S61 Residents' Parking Schemes I would like to register my support for the principle of the proposed Residents' Parking Schemes. In particular I would urge the Council to give ample opportunity to those currently outside the proposed pilot scheme areas to opt in to the scheme. Displaced parking will cause an intensification of existing problems in these areas and it would be unfair not to allow people in such peripheral areas the chance to opt-in. I also urge the Council to consider the option described in the blog post below which would allow households to opt-in or out of the scheme on an individual basis rather than a collective one. I believe this would go some way to reduce the divisive nature of the current proposals. http://greenbristolblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/residents-parking-democraticoption.html Chris Hutt, Victoria Square, BS8 4EU. STATEMENT NO 62 We are writing in support of the proposed Residents Parking Zone pilot scheme for our area. We have lived in Richmond Hil for the last 3.5 years and in Clifton for over 20 years. The car parking situation in that time has become steadily worse and we believe that some action MUST be taken on this. Over the Christmas period we have visited London (Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) and Brighton. In both places, a residents parking scheme was successfully in operation, as it is in many central areas of towns and cities across the UK. This did not stop us being able to find parking, either free during specified hours or using Pay and Display spaces (which were also free during night-time hours and parts of weekends - unlike Bristol!). However, residents were able to park somewhere within their local area and this seems quite reasonable to us. We understand that, living in a high-density residential area within the centre of the city, parking may not be available immediately outside our house. We would simply like to know that we would be able to park somewhere reasonably nearby. Like many others in Clifton and other central areas, we have made private arrangements for parking of our own car. However, we face a continual problem when guests or trades people come to our house. The RPZ pilot offers an opportunity to try another way that we wholeheartedly support. We would be grateful if you would include this statement in your consultation for the Call-In meeting which we understand will be held on 05 January 2009. We are keen to join with our neighbours and others in our local area to support the YES TO RPZ CAMPAIGN in our area. With thanks Tomas Hazelle Samir Gautama Hope Villa Richmond Hill STATEMENT S63 Please count this as a vote in favour of the proposed residents parking scheme - bring it in for the whole of Clifton as soon as possible. Many thanks Jane Phillips Richmond Hill Clifton Bristol BS8 1BA STATEMENT NO S64 We address this statement to the Call-in Committee, in support of the pilot residents' parking scheme proposed for the Brandon Hill/Clifton Wood area. As long-standing residents of Clifton Wood, we suffer daily from the commuter traffic which uses our streets as a free car park. On week day mornings the roads are blocked by bad-tempered commuters fighting over parking, their minds focused on space-hunting rather than on the safety of school-children and pedestrians. Visitors, residents and trades people find it impossible to park later in the day. Since we have been living here, we have noticed a significant increase in the problem and it will only get worse as new developments open down on the Harbourside and elsewhere. We welcomed the consultation exercise performed by the Council and, along with a majority of local residents in this area, responded positively to the proposal, in spite of the draconian measures proposed. Much has been made of the supposed inadequacies of the consultation, however our impression was that, if anything, it risked under-estimating the 'yes' vote. Since the consultation, the council has addressed many of the concerns raised by residents and we are very happy that the pilot should go ahead. The scheme was accepted by a majority of local residents, passed by the scrutiny committee and recommended for action by cabinet. We object to any unnecessary delay in implementation resulting from calls to bring this scheme in front of the council yet again. The objectors to the scheme do not represent the local residents and should not override the wishes of those who are directly affected by the scheme. Rebecca Gunson Clifton Wood Road STATEMENT NO S65 Hello, I am definitely NOT in support of the Residents Parking Zone. Firstly I agree something does need to be done, but those involved seem to think that Parking Zones are the only solution when it is clear that at best they provide mixed results. Paying for the 'chance' to park is nothing more than a lottery and the system is easy to manipulate to ensure money will be made. Making roads clearer ( as with the yellow lines already in use ) has lead to an increase in traffic and the size of vehicles using these roads. This will inevitably lead to structural problems with the highway, utility services and perimeter walls. Modern technology should be able to provide a self financing solution in many areas, with residents not having to pay for the woes of poor planning over many years. Number plate recognition cameras have a unique roll in this and cost virtually nothing to maintain Many areas within this area are not served at all by public transport, which especially for the elderly or disabled leave the car as essential. Should a scheme come along that :a) allocates a space or spaces per household (according to road space available), b) provides allocated and close pay and display visitors parking at reasonable rates, c) is enforced automatically via cameras which can also assist in crime fighting, I would consider changing my position. Considering the high Council Taxes in this area, Installation and running of such a system should be inclusive. We get precious little return as it is. Sincerely T Greenland STATEMENT S66 Residents' Parking Scheme in Kingsdown I reside at 23 Somerset Street Kingsdown. I support the introduction of this scheme as soon as possible. Cars are parked on the pavements and make walking difficult and for some, dangerous. Parked cars are stacked at corners preventing access to streets and obstruct emergency vehicles. Doing nothing is not an option because the situation will worsen. The proposals are well constructed. The "no" supporters will obstruct any scheme, whatever its merits. The number of responses from households in this ward demonstrate the effectiveness of the consultation. This ward voted "yes", it wants to change the appearance of its streets and to reduce car dominance. John Frenkel STATEMENT NO S67 To whom it may concern I am writing to advise you that I am all for the proposed parking permit scheme in Kingsdown. I am a resident on Kingsdown Parade and find it impossible to park my car. I am so fed up with commuters and students parking on our streets on a daily basis, I usually have to park at least a 10 minuet walk away from my house! I really hope the scheme goes through! Yours faithfully Charlotte Hazelby CSPR 83 Kingsdown Parade Kingsdown Bristol BS6 5UJ STATEMENT NO S68 Dear Sir or Madam, I have been reading the information on the RPS sent out to residents recently, and I am concerned that one point appears to have been overlooked in the information provided by both sides of the argument. Many of the residences in the areas surrounding the centre of Bristol are multiple or shared occupancy, but the proposed scheme only allows two permits per household. In our household, for example, there are three residents, all with cars. The proposed scheme would therefore cause us a major problem. We are all single people and therefore have a need to own our own cars. I believe that this will also apply to many other residences in the area. Shared houses are an efficient and environmentally-friendly way of living and furthermore we also pay council tax which reflects the number of rooms in our house through it's estimated value. I therefore do not see why people living in shared residences should be penalised by the proposed scheme. What is the objective of the limit of two permits? Would it not be more appropriate to allow a maximum of one permit per council tax payer? Regards, Martin Cott. STATEMENT NO S69 Hello, Happy new year I got a note from my door from the Keep the Parking Free group saying I should let you know my feelings on the proposed Kingsdown RPZ, so I am: in my household we are in favour of it. * * * * I live on the Kingsdown side of Cotham Road, Cabot Ward, within the current proposed zone. I generally cycle to school and work so would have nothing to directly gain by more parking. An easier walk or cycle would be appreciated. My wife does drive during office hours, but she parks the car in the riveway. Back when the previous proposals came out (2003?) we were against them. We were initially against the proposal, which I opposed in the summer survey, primarily because the shiny leaflet that came through the door was so inflexible. It said "7x24 was all you will get, do you want it?", as if the decision had already been made. Voting against this was the only way to stop such an excessive proposal from going through. Also, I am of the belief that parking illegally should be enforced today, without waiting for residents to pay extra. When the news came out that a modified proposal of 5x8 hours and auditable expenditure, we became in favour of the plans. Because if deployed over a wide area they could reduce commuter traffic flow, and that would have a tangible benefit for the area. Not in parking but in traffic, pollution, and quality of life. The keep-the-parking-free leaflet irritates me as it is being driven by people outside Kingsdown, fighting for their right to park in the area, and on any pavement or corner they could find. If they had tried to park in Kingsdown during working hours, they would see that nobody can visit or park there today, therefore a weekday only zone offers little but benefits. 1. Some businesses in the area will need extra support - the garage in Oxford Street springs to mind. They need to be "grandfathered in" with the ability to park customer cars in the street. 2. Short -stay parking outside the Cotham Road South shops is needed to stop the zebra crossing retaining this role. see: http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/cotham-road-south As a lot of this photographic dataset is from evening 6-7 pm journeys past, it is clear the short term parking may need to extend into the early evening and Saturdays. 3. Kingsdown Parade is going to be trouble. As you can see from the Bristol Traffic dataset, cars use the pavement here, even on Christmas day http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/kingsdown-parade The road is too narrow for cars to park on-road on both sides, so just as with parts of Montpelier, this pavement is becoming part of the carspace rather than pedestrian space. 4. It does not make sense for half of Fremantle Square to be in the zone, and half out. All residents should be consulted on their option. Regardless of the outcome, enforcement of bike-lane-access and oneway rules would be useful in this square -there is no need to await the rollout of an RPZ.: http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/fremantle-square 5. Cotham Road (my road) needs to decide whether to be fully in or out. It was marked up for a parking zone 5 years ago, so rollout costs are less. But there are more multi-occupancy houses than Kingsdown, and more off-street parking, all groups who may resist the proposal. It just doesn't make sense for the opposite side of the road to be out of the zone, as that assumes that those people only park on one side of the road. In reality, both sides of the road and Hartfield Drive get used by residents. One side-effect of the turning rolling out residents parking is that it will actually be easier for parents dropping their kids off at Cotham Grammar or the Steiner School to find a parking space. If this makes it easier for coaches to use the coaches-only parking area in Cotham Road, this is good; if it encourages driving to school it is bad. Similarly, the fact that residents will be able to return home to a parking space may also encourage driving to school. I propose that monitoring of the effects of the pilots should look at their impact on the number of parents driving to school -both schools in/near the parking zones, and in schools used by parents in the area. Needless to say, I would gladly help in pre/post questionnaires and surveys and other aspects of monitoring needed to assess the impact of the zones. -Steve Edward Bowditch Ltd – Clifton Heights – Triangle West – Bristol – BS8 1EJ Ian Pagan Democratic Services Manager Room 220 The Council House College Green Bristol BS1 5TR 2nd January 2008 Dear sirs, OSM Call-In Panel - Public Forum submission I note that at least two councillors believe the recent decision to introduce the “Residents Parking Scheme” for Clifton (Brandon Hill) and Kingsdown has been reached in a deficient manner. I both operate a business and reside adjacent to the pilot scheme areas. Since originally proposed the scheme has caused the most exceptional, acute, long-term distress possible for many local residents and businesses especially with regards to the consultation. I believe the following factors make this decision deficient and lacking in democratic credibility: • • • • • No consultation of major employers and businesses adjacent to affected areas. Within Clifton (Brandon Hill) students who were largely absent when questionnaires issued in July 2008, even though they constitute the largest (or even majority) group in area. 54.9% of respondents are quoted as supporting scheme – however no response rate is given. Most likely this was very low, which in any event would exclude the large and student population in multiple halls of residence (Clifton Hill House, Manor Hall, etc.). For many students from remote rural areas, private motor transport is essential. The response rate in Clifton (Brandon Hill) is not a representation of all legitimate residents in the affected area. Multiple households have reported receiving no questionnaire, which might explain the seemingly low response rate of only 25%. On inquiry with relevant Bristol Council office, no duplicates were issued even if requested. Curiously although most statistics are quoted rounded to decimal places, the response rate statistic is not, which leads me to believe the actual response rate lies somewhere between 20 to 25%. Furthermore I cannot find any evidence of an independent audit taking place of the questionnaire responses and general conduct of survey. The proposed pilot schemes have substantially changed from that on which consultation was originally conducted. The recent February 2008 Citizens’ Panel Report clearly doesn’t demonstrate enough support for such a radical, fundamental change in parking policy. An average of only ~20% of respondents reported there was never enough parking at any time of day. I’d also like to take this opportunity to express my concerns regarding these proposals in general: • Increased taxation, especially affecting students, businesses and other legitimate users vital to local economy. Dramatic change in economic environment since scheme proposed – rapid and ongoing fall in sterling value, households and businesses cannot cope with additional cost. • • • • • • • • • • Huge loss of road space due to driveway space converted to “double lines”, and further conversion to pay-parking bays. This reduction will lead to increased congestion and pollution from those seeking non-existent spaces, causing critical time delays to deliveries and other public services. Strong disadvantage imposed on local high-street retailers, such as the recently liquidated Woolworths, causing a further shift to out-of-town malls and business parks – where facilities will never serve local residents. Massive increase in additional street furniture (white & yellow road paint for parking bays and double lines, parking pay meters, signage, constant presence of tow trucks and traffic wardens) is totally out of keeping with the period Georgian/Victorian character of proposed areas. The historic architecture and beauty of Clifton/Redland/Kingsdown is a major reason many residents and businesses are located here. No credible public mass transport network alternative exists, unlike other cities in Northern Europe with similar schemes such as London or Hamburg. No evidence scheme would actually improve parking situation for residents. Negative environmental impact – if parking is in fact easier for residents, this will only encourage unnecessary short motor journeys with a negative result through increased traffic and corresponding pollution. Ample excess parking already provided in Clifton (Brandon Hill) by council run car park on Jacobs Wells Road – which permanently has empty spaces. Perhaps the council should make space available in this car park to local residents, or revise charges down to make better use of available infrastructure as opposed to attempting to maximize short-term revenue? Implied that 20mph zones could be introduced. These are often accompanied by dangerous speed ramps, which have been reported by trade unions and others to cause serious long term injuries and chronic pain, as well as increase ambulance journey times. “Improve access for emergency vehicles” – Obstruction would be a criminal offence and the police regularly issue tickets and arrange for vehicles to be towed. If regular obstruction is an issue, complete parking bans should be introduced, not a residents permit scheme. “Obstruction and safety at junctions” – No evidence this exists, or that this scheme would have any effect. Junction safety can already be enforced through the Highway Code. Given the seriousness of this matter I hope the Call-In Panel agrees to refer the matter to Full Council for full democratic debate. Yours faithfully, Edward Bowditch STATEMENT S71 Democratic Services Bristol City Council 11 Jacobs Wells Rd Clifton Bristol BS8 1DX 30th December 2008 Dear Sirs Pilot RPZ – Brandon Hill We are unable to attend the public meeting on 5th January but would like to express our support for the proposed residents parking scheme in this area. We are however concerned that the number of spaces available to residents will be reduced, particularly when the limited waiting regulations do not apply in the evenings and at weekends. Whilst not expecting a guaranteed parking space, we would hope to be able to find one within a few hundred yards of home when returning, for example, from work or a shopping trip. This is often impossible because we have to compete for spaces with commuters, shoppers and students. We also think that the limited waiting area towards St Georges Rd provides sufficient space for visits to local businesses and shops and should therefore be retained. Yours faithfully Mr & Mrs H. Leaman STATEMENT NO S72 CALL IN SUB-COMMITTEE – 5 JANUARY 2009 I am writing in support of the proposed Residents Parking Scheme and urge the Call-in Panel to take no further action so that the pilot schemes can go ahead . The consultation has been thorough and there is more to come. During the consultation process 51% of people in Kingsdown voted in favour of a scheme. The Council has listened carefully to the public at its consultation meetings and made many changes to the original plans. There will be an opportunity for further consultation before the pilot schemes are implemented. The decision to call-in the RPS initiative is anti-democratic. Councillors Eddy and Abrahams have not been elected as Councillors in the Kingsdown or Clifton Wood wards. They should not, therefore, be allowed to influence developments in wards where they have no mandate. Deborah Davinson STATEMENT NO S73 Call in Sub-Committee 5th January 2009 Resident's Parking scheme Clifton proposed pilot area We have supported the Call-in because the Council’s earlier consultation was flawed. In the interests of democracy, we request that no action is taken until there has been fair and proper public consultation. The consultation must include all residents within the Clifton pilot area and from the adjacent roads and encourage active engagement with those residents. Consultation must also include full information and should address specific issues. Such issues are: impact on local businesses and trades, doctors, schools and sheltered housing as well as access for supply vehicles within the pilot zone and adjacent areas. We would expect that, as local councillors, we would be closely involved at all stages and receive regular reports back. Reports should be made to our local neighbourhood partnership Clifton, Clifton East and Cabot at all stages of the process. Barbara Janke Brain Price Councillors for Clifton ward Simon Cook Mike Popham Councillors for Clifton East ward STATEMENT NO S74 Dear Sir/Madam, I understand that a Call-in meeting is scheduled for 5th January at the Council House on the residents parking scheme proposed for Brandon Hill (including Cliftonwood). I am unable to attend this meeting and am therefore writing to provide the council with my support for this scheme. I frequently work from home and have come to recognise the commuter cars that quickly arrive each morning and fill Southernhay Avenue for the rest of the day. It has got to the stage where I now often decide not to leave the house solely on the basis that when I return I will probably not be able to park. I suffer from long-term recurrent back pain and which is aggravated if I arrive home with heavy grocery/work bags, etc and have to carry these some way to my front door. I feel it is unacceptable that residents' movements and health are influenced by commuter parking when there are car parks, park-and-ride schemes and public transport available. Southernhay Avenue also has a particular problem every Thursday evening from an early hour when it again becomes packed with non-residents' cars presumably in an attempt to park out of the way of the refuse trucks that arrive on a Friday morning. The only way for me to be able to park anywhere near my house on a Thursday evening is to leave work at around 4pm which is clearly not acceptable. This problem has also stopped me from attending my local Thursday evening art class and means that it is not possible to take advantage of late night opening hours of shops, hair dressers, etc. As a single female I do not feel that walking alone at that time of night - particular through the unlit areas - is an option available to me. To me the way to manage the limited parking resource in Bristol is simple. We are all responsible for the choices we make and need to accept the implications of those choices. If someone chooses to: (a) live in an area with limited parking, then they should accept a restriction on the number of cars per household (b) commute to Bristol city centre, then they need to plan their arrangements using public transport and/or public parking facilities The current situation is unsustainable in practicality; environmentally unacceptable; and has a human cost. I am therefore in support of the residents parking scheme as I believe it will: (a) enhance the quality of life for residents whose movements may otherwise be restricted or health impacted (b) correct the unsustainable and insensitive practice of multi-car households in areas where parking resource is limited (c) improve environmental accountability by forcing households, commuters and students to rethink the choices they make on how to get from home to workplace As well as the environmental and practical benefits, protecting our limited resource would enhance the quality of life for residents by changing the little things that make a lot of difference. Yours faithfully, B Morgan Southernhay Avenue, Cliftonwood STATEMENT NO S75 Statement on Residents' Parking Zones Cllrs Mark Wright & Alex Woodman (Cabot) We will not repeat here the extensive points made in our previous statements to Scrutiny and Cabinet regarding the Cabinet paper and the long story so far, although we very much hope that officers will revisit those points. It is not surprising that many people have been left feeling aggrieved at the process so far. The fact that leading questions and partial options appeared in the first consultation means that those who oppose an RPZ scheme feel the consultation was biased against them. The fact that only a ridiculously draconian 24/7 scheme was offered means that those who support an RPZ scheme feel that the consultation was biased again them! No one is left happy. We support those therefore, who say that no scheme should be imposed without a fair and proper public consultation. The consultation in Kingsdown produced figures of over 50% in favour and under 20% against, and we would be surprised if those figures were substantively changed in future; but nevertheless, the local community must feel that it has been clearly and fairly demonstrated that there is support. We remain supportive of the principle that residents in areas that back RPZs should get them. Officers drawing up the scheme should show more willingness to take on board suggestions made by ward councillors and the local community than they have done previously. We would like to see these guarantees written into the Cabinet report. We are however disappointed at the apparent attempts by the Conservative Party to politicise the issue. We are also not supportive of those who feel that parts of the city should have a veto over other areas taking measures to improve their own quality of life. This is an illogical viewpoint that would lead to total deadlock on most issues – everywhere - if applied in other fields of life. The recent rhetoric of the Conservative Party appears to be opposition to the principle of RPZs, even if local communities support them in their area. We do not support that position, which is a denial of local community democracy. STATEMENT S76 Statement to Residents Parking Call-In Meeting – 5th January 2009 Councillor Neil Harrison (Liberal Democrat, Cotham Ward) Due to a long-planned holiday, I am regrettably unable to attend the call-in meeting, so please accept this statement concerning Residents’ Parking Zones (RPZs). My views about the consultation on RPZs undertaken in July 2008 are well-known, having been made in public on a number of occasions. The consultation was shambolic in both the approach taken and the materials used. It did not give residents a reasonable opportunity to express their views on what is always going to be a contentious topic. Unforgivably, local councillors were not involved in the consultation in any way. I do not agree with those who say that the consultation was biased in favour of adopting RPZs. Rather, the bias was polarising, forcing opinions to the extremes, when my experience, in Cotham Ward at least, is that residents’ views are rather more nuanced and complex. The process was further undermined by the actions of officers who reportedly gave residents the impression that it was a ‘done deal’. The revised RPZ plans that were presented to Cabinet in November 2008 were significantly different (and more appropriate) than those in the original consultation. In fact, they tallied much more closely with the proposals that I and my Liberal Democrats colleagues had been making prior to and during the consultation period. The principles of different solutions for different areas and the folly of 24/7 operation had been accepted. As such, I believe that the plans in the November 2008 cabinet papers form a sensible basis for an on-going dialogue around the issue of RPZs. In principle, I believe that RPZs have the potential to offer significant gains in quality of life for local residents; they work well and are broadly popular in many other towns and cities. Bristol needs to have the same conversation with its residents as these other communities have had. I believe that Bristol City Council should have a worked-up residents’ parking scheme available for discussion. I do not agree with those who are opposed to the idea at all costs or those who want the ability to veto RPZs in areas other than their own. I believe that residents (along with businesses and community organisations) should have the ability to opt-in to RPZs where they have majority support. Equally, I do not believe that residents should have RPZs imposed open them against their will. I also do not believe that RPZs should be used as a revenue-raising exercise for the Council, and I am confident that this is not the intention within the current plans. The July 2008 consultation was deeply flawed. At best, it has given the Council some idea about those areas where there is significant support for RPZs, although I have no confidence in the boundaries as currently defined, given the paucity of the data collection exercise which was used to create them. Moving forwards, I believe that the following steps need to be taken : 1. A re-consultation needs to be undertaken based around the two proposed pilot zones, but covering a larger area than the proposed boundaries, to seek the views of residents on the November 2008 plans (which are quite distinct from the July 2008 plans on which the initial consultation was based). This should comprise more than simply a repeated questionnaire, including public meetings and the involvement of local councillors and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Only if there continues to be majority support for RPZs should plans progress. 2. A clear project plan needs to be developed and published, detailing how any pilot zones would be managed. In order to be a ‘pilot’ in the true sense, there needs to be (a) defined measures of success, (b) periodic evaluation, (c) a defined pilot timeframe, and (c) an exit strategy. None are currently laid down in the RPZ plans. Specifically, if it is found after a period of time (perhaps two years) that the RPZs are not offering benefits to residents, they should be removed. 3. The plans need to incorporate measures to mitigate against knock-on effects of the implementation of RPZs on surrounding areas due to the displacement of vehicles. This would include the protection of pavements, dropped kerbs, driveways and corners, including both physical measures (e.g. yellow lines) and enforcement. It is important that RPZs do not create additional problems for residents outside the zones. 4. The finalised detailed plans need to worked up with the full involvement of the local community, but then need to be brought back to Cabinet for final approval, giving residents in the affected areas a final chance to register their opposition in public and to seek to amend or dispose of the proposal. If these four conditions are met, I am happy that the plans should proceed to the next stage. This does not mean that I support the inevitable implementation of the two pilot zones as defined in the November 2008 plans. It means that I want to see a “fair and proper consultation” (to use the phrase of the Keep Parking Free campaign) before zones are put into place. However, if that consultation results in the finding that residents in certain areas do indeed want to be part of an RPZ, then I would support them in their aspirations. Regrettably, the ‘call-in’ process is likely to serve to polarise debate even further, causing antagonism between neighbours – like many councillors, I am being lobbied by both those for and against. The Conservatives contributed little or nothing to the discussion about RPZs prior to the November 2008 Cabinet meeting, despite ample opportunities. They have now used the call-in process to make political capital for themselves, sadly demonstrating once again that they are keen on opportunistically seeking to take credit, but not responsibility, for how the city is governed. STATEMENT S77 We wish to register our Approval in Principle of the proposed RPS for Kingsdown. There are many key issues which require working out in detail, which could either make the scheme exemplary, or otherwise ineffective and unnecessarily intrusive. The Principles we wish to see guiding the project are; 1; the scheme must be targetted to eliminate commuter parking and displacement parking for the hospital & university. 2; single car per household must be given the highest priority. 3; businesses which require some space for customer parking must be accommodated. 4; the Conservation Area status covering the area must guide the detailed implementation of the scheme. (minimal road markings, especially on setts; signs fixed to walls & railings wherever possible; sensitive location of other related street furniture). 5; residents should be involved in the detailed design of the scheme. We and a number of residents have already offered to help with surveys & design. Yours Sincerely Richard & Joan Guise Somerset St Kingsdown PS Why is there no enforcement of the double line 'no parking' on lower Horfield Road by the bus stop & new hospital extension? This causes road obstruction & inconvenience for bus users. STATEMENT NO S78 Statement to the call in committee 5th Jan 2009 regarding residents parking in kingsdown Please will you read my statement if I am unable to attend the meeting due to childcare issues. I live within the proposed pilot resident parking zone of Cotham/Kingsdown. I see the problem as not only a parking one, but also a traffic and environmental one. Around the boundary of my house there is enough room to park nine cars. During the weekdays I cannot get one space here, or anywhere within acceptable walking distance of my home. However at evenings and weekends I have my pick of spaces. Therefore it is very evident to me that the weekday parking problems are caused by commuters taking advantage of free parking. Hence I support a Residents Parking Scheme in Kingsdown. And from opinions that I have gathered from local friends and neighbours I believe there to be a lot of support if the scheme is right. Like it or not the consultation demonstrated a majority in favour of the most draconian residents parking. There will be a lot more in favour of something more locally approved. I do not approve of the way that the results from the consultation are currently being endlessly called into question, and being used as a political tool. It is a great waste of money, time and energy that could be put to good use elsewhere. Thank you. Hilary Jelbert Fremantle Road STATEMENT S79 I am writing to express my support for the proposed Residents' Parking Scheme in Kingsdown. The current situation degrades the environment, ties up valuable police time, impedes normal working for service vehicles, and in the worst cases has prevented emergency vehicles from responding effectively to calls. It is clear that action of some sort must be taken, and the proposals appear to offer the best solution. Paul Robinson 21a Somerset St STATEMENT NO S80 I fully support the RPZ and question the motives or understanding of anyone who would oppose it. The NO campaign complains about a biased consultation. As a resident of Jacobs Wells Road the only bias I saw was the relentless propaganda leaflets and posters for the NO campaign. We must embrace positive change and not let this opportunity to solve traffic problems slip through our hands. Regards Graham Jennings STATEMENT S81 I wish to lodge the full support of the Highbury Residents Association for the Council's proposals to introduce Residents' Parking in our area. The Highbury Residents' Association represents the views of the permanent residents in Highbury Villas, Tyndalls Park Mews and the top of St Michaels Hill. This is an area with a high student population and limited parking control. We are also a favourite parking spot for those that work in Bristol - including the BRI and University. Like the majority of Kingsdown residents - who are in the "front line" for commuter and student parking - we wish to see this scheme introduced as soon as possible. The difference in the parking situation in our area over the Christmas period is stark. The usual problems we experience of double parking and prevention of access for emergency vehicles and rubbish collection are gone and it is possible to park both safely and legally. The quality of the area is also significantly improved. The Residents' Association has already written to the Council to fully support this scheme and to put forward our area for one of the pilots. Once again, please take this as our full support for these proposals which we see as the only way to start to control the use of the private car in Bristol. To leave the situation as is currently stands, with no controls in place in areas such as ours, is just not an option. Yours sincerely Liz Dunn STATEMENT NO S82 Parking has significantly worsened in Clifton Wood over the 29 years I have lived here. Commuters now queue to get into the street from 7.00am and do not leave until early evening. They often park badly which means we are often unable to receive deliveries from companies and some Council Services. Street cleansing, drain cleansing, refuse collection, recycling and general road maintenance sometimes do not take place due to lack of access and if not for the patience and skill of the drivers might be missed more often. Emergency vehicles are frequently unable to gain access as well. The situation can not be allowed to "sort itself out" it needs strong persuasion to encourage drivers to use the Park & Rides that are already in operation and provide a demand for more to be built. I have taken part in the previous attempts to introduce a CPZ which have been stopped by the "NO" group, most of whom do not live on the front line as we do. Their main concern seems to be that if we resolve our problem they might have a problem in future. That should not be a reason to refuse us our solution. At the Call-In meeting on 5th of January I urge you to vote Yes to continuing discussions on the CPZ and introducing the two trial zones. Sincerely Simon Banbury Bellevue Crescent STATEMENT NO S83 Residents Parking Scheme - Kingsdown CALL – IN SUB-COMMITTEE – 5 JANUARY 2009 Please would you consider this statement at the meeting on January 5th 2009. As a resident in Kingsdown I would gladly pay £30 for the RPS service. It would be such a relief not to have cars jostling for a space outside my house every morning from 7am onwards. There is such competition for a space between commuters that they wait with their engines on until someone will move, or they will just drive around. This is a question about the amenity of the residents, not of the commuters or the students, so it is entirely correct that that the vote is by the residents of the area affected, not the commuters. The motive of the no campaign is actually their ability to have a free all-day car park outside our homes. We as residents see the fee as something we would welcome for the provision of this excellent service. Yours faithfully Dr. Cameron Dunn Highbury Villas Kingsdown BS2 8BX STATEMENT NO S84 As a resident of Bellevue Crescent in Clifton Wood for the last 25 years I am writing to request there should be no further delay in creating a Resident's Parking Scheme for my local area. I have written on this in detail in my previous letters, statement’s to the City Council both verbal and written, letters to the press and photographic evidence of the need on the website www.yestorpz.info <http://www.yestorpz.info/> . I list below the reasons for Clifton Wood & Brandon Hill to have a resident's parking scheme. Complete gridlock of the local area with commuter parking/City of Bristol college students & tutors parking. The entire area under discussion is a free car park for whoever comes to town, day & night. We are on the edge of the current controlled parking zone for the city & are suffering because of it. Major chaos on bin-collection days, we pay our council-tax & can't get bins emptied if access is blocked by poor parking. Emergency access is prevented by vehicles left on street corners & damage to property has occurred because of it. Council Policy is to tackle congestion through managing commuter parking, providing better neighbourhoods as a result. The present situation is UNSUSTAINABLE! I would like to have the opportunity to speak on this matter at the Call-in Meeting on 5/01/09. Helen Tierney. Bellevue Cres. STATEMENT S85 In haste, due to the time limit, imposed before the Call n meeting on Monday January 5th, I am writing to register that my husband and I are in support of the Residents Parking Scheme pilot scheme proposed for the Kingsdown area (specifically including Fremantle Road. We feel it is in line with recommended principles for generally controlling car use as an environmental and health measure and is also becoming essential for ease of access for any residents in the area. Yours Shelley Davies Trevor Davies STATEMENT NO S86 Please record our strong support for the introduction of a residents parking scheme for Kingsdown, subject to a full review after one year. Yours Ben Hamilton-Baillie & Jennifer Hill Kingsdown Parade BS6 5UF STATEMENT NO S87 Dear Sir/Madam, In anticipation of the meeting scheduled for the 5th of January, I would like to send a statement of opposition to the RPZ. I do not support the RPZ for a number of reasons: * Impact on local businesses: One of the key reasons for living in this area are the excellent local businesses on our doorsteps; the pubs, restaurants, deli's, and myriad other small traders that make the area unique. Such variety and choice is not paid for entirely by the local residents but by other Bristolians and visitors who come to the area. An RPZ would deter these visitors from 'nipping to' or 'swinging by' these often small, independent shops and they'd be pushed towards the large supermarkets and out of town shopping centres with their free parking. In my own area (that I know of) Jamesons, Fresh and Wild, New Heights, Hamptons, Quinton House pub and Le Monde restaurant (not to mention the Post Office) have all closed recently so making it harder to customers to frequent these businesses seems the last thing we would want to do. * Sufficient spaces for residents: If the aim is to improve availability of spaces for residents this will at best improve the lot for those in the RPZ but simply move the parking density through the displacement of cars making things equally worse for others. At worst it will have no impact - let's be realistic, the average Clifton street is full of converted flats so the fundamental nature of the area will mean parking is always in short supply. * Environmental Impact: As well as the actual increase in car miles going to the large out of town shopping malls as mentioned above, commuter traffic/parking (which seems to be a main focus of the scheme) wouldn't be reduced. Making people walk a couple of hundred metres more (when they park in the next few streets further out not covered by the RPZ) isn't a particularly large stick to make people switch to the bus. Perhaps a local carrot to go with existing central governments tax-based sticks would be a better approach to achieve this change? * Timing and financial Impact: Clearly an additional cost to local households is the last thing that is wanted in the present economic climate when all the government initiatives are around putting more disposable income in peoples pockets. * Aesthetic Impact: Clifton is of course a beautiful part of Bristol. The bright white and yellow painted lines on roads, parking signs every few 10's of metres, traffic wardens, meter machines and so on that are part and parcel of an RPZ will detract from the look and feel of the area as surely as graffiti or the unsympathetic modern buildings would. * Psychological Impact: There is also the nature of these new additions to the street scene: they will be placing more restrictions on what ordinary Bristolians can do and reminding us of this every time we walk down the street. Personally I would like to feel relaxed and 'at home' in my neighbourhood rather than reminded of rules, enforcements and penalty fines everytime I walk down the street. Access for emergency services is the main altruistic argument that I have seen for RPZs but this is already a requirement and one backed up in law already so RPZs tackle that issue are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. So in summary, an RPZ would be a huge use of time, energy and resources at a cost to local residents (when they least want new financial burdens) and which would have a detrimental impact on not just the look and feel of one of Bristol's most beautiful historic areas but also on the exact type of business, retail and residential mix that we should be encouraging. And despite this high cost (and one which is not easy to reverse) it would not fundamentally alter the experience of residents in the zone (and I speak from personal experience from the implementation/extension of the scheme in Bath) and would displace cars into surrounding areas making their situation worse. I imagine that many, if not the majority of residents are like me and live in this area precisely because of the positives mentioned above that would be adversely affected by the RPZ (beautiful surroundings, abundant local independent shops, bars and restaurants, proximity to city centre, etc). Many thanks for your time, I hope this well-meaning but deeply flawed proposal can soon be put aside in favour of more positive improvements to the city! Regards, Mr RJ Burton 10 Richmond Hill PS - although it does not directly bear in the relative merits of an RPZ, I would also like to take the opportunity to express my disappointment in the leadership of the council department that released such an obviously slanted and biased survey on the RPZ. This is hardly good PR for local government democracy and was ultimately a waste of the opportunity (and cost) of the survey. The resultant report was also heavily biased, ultimately containing insufficient raw information to enable Councillors to make an independent decision. This should be raised in any 'lessons learnt' sessions if there is an opportunity. STATEMENT NO S88 Please go ahead with the residents parking scheme. I live in Alfred Place and I am over 60 and I can almost never park in my street. Even when the students are away the parking is taken up by hospital staff and people using us as a car park when they walk into town. People park on corners and on pavements, and it is sometimes impossible to access certain streets. I pay my rates, and I do feel I am badly served by the situation. I sometimes have to carry heavy things quite a long way to my house. I think you should be firm and support the residents of this tiny street. Caroline Hunt STATEMENT NO S89 Please record this email as strong support in favour of the proposed scheme. It is a sensible attempt to deal with the present problem. Best wishes. Giles Woodward. Giles Woodward Consultant Barcan Woodward Solicitors Gloucester Road Horfield Bristol BS7 8TP 02/01/2009 12: 49 TRANSPORT PLANNING 0117-9036540 The Call-in Committee Bristol City Council College h Bristol BS 1 5TR PAGE 23 =IQ 1 Ambra Vale South Clifton Wood Bristol BS8 4RN . 29 D D m Sirs,, 2008 Residents P~rkinrr.Zone- Clifton Wood I am writing in support of the proposed RPZ. Ambra Vale South is a narrow cul-de-sac, made even mrmwm having raised the pavements on both sides of the street to cars on them. It is a side street off the narrow and steep eses baa the busy Hutwells Road. One Monday morning a few weeks ago, 1bas waiting at South with Ambra Vale while my husband de-frosted the reversed it out of our street While I was e t i n g , a flood professionals h v e up Ambra Vale to use our residential stre& ride. They either walk into the centre h m here or catch Clifton Wood is R very wnvenient parking place for students Bfistal College in St George's Road. L At the junction of Ambra Vale and Hotwells Road are student flats 'th allocated parking spaces mder the building. The students have to pay for the allocated spaces s, sometimes and some prefer to avoid these charges by leaving their cars in our for weeks on end. ~ S O shoppers , h 02 d Clifton Wood a very convenient, k e All of this has caused immense parking problems for the difficultiesfor the 2 repychg lorries which week and for the rubbish lorry which wmes once a runadcable drivihg skills of thc lorry drivers that addition,emergency vehicles have sometimes no fatalities. We have been notifiedby leaflets through the door that the aligned themselves with the "NO" campaign. I cannot under live in Clifton or outside Bristol and are completely oblivious to suffered by the residents of Clifton Wood.If any one of them week with me monitoring our problems, I would be p available. I Yours FaiWly, Telephone G Fax. 01 17 927 6206 I 02/01/2009 12: 49 0117-9036540 TRANSPORT'PLANNING PAGE ' 03 ss, 02/01/2009 12: 49 0117-9036540 TRANSPORT PLANNING I PAGE 04 SOUTLNILLE SMALL BUSINESSESS AND WORKERS STATEMENT TO SPECIAL CALL IN MEETING RE PROPOSED RESIDENTS PARKING PERMITS SCHEME Paul Haynes Avonside Guest House 106 Coronation Road Southville Bristol BS3 1A.X I represent a group of 15 small businesses in Southville, for the past year we have been meeting to discuss the proposed residents parking scheme. We are aware that there are no proposed schemes for the Southville area but would like to bring to your attention our view on any scheme as we are so concerned about the impact on any community. When you look at the figures of people in the pilot areas who responded to wanting this scheme they are only a small number compared to the people who will have to pay to use the compulsory scheme. This alone needs to be revisited and further consultation needs to happen in the pilot areas before money is spent on design. In the current economic climate it is madness to impose this to residents and businesses. I attended all of the previous Scrutiny and Cabinet meetings and the residents who are in favour who submitted statements were wanting the scheme for some of the following reasons: ' 'To ensure emergency vehicles can get down streets in the night which are currently blocked by parked cars' Why cant the roads be cleared and yellow lined now, this is the Councils responsibility and nothing to do with residents scheme. Also at night only residents were parked there as commuters would have gone home. 'I run a business fiom home and this scheme would create parking spaces for my customers to be able to park to use my services' I can understand why this business person wants the scheme but would this help his neighbours who want the scheme to be able to park by their homes. By the time parking spaces are lost to pay and display bays, businesses given 'bespoke parking solutions' I cant see that the residents will be able to park. This is a city wide issue it may start in 2 areas but the problem will grow and spread into all areas of the city and all citizens will be affected if they have to pay at a metre every time they leave their parking zone. Use the examples of other Cities, enable good value public transport fist and the commuter parking will solve its self and this will be to the benefit of the whole city. What is the rush to bring this in? what secret deadline.are the council working to? Paul Haynes STATEMENT FOR SPECIAL CALL IN MEETING RE RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME 05/01/09 Mrs A Haynes Allington Rd Southville Bristol Ref: Residents Parking Scheme Dear Sirs I simply request that today you take the opportunity to ensure that the wider impact on the city is taken into account The statistics and percentages in the 17/11/08 report are not open and transparent therefore any decision to go ahead with the pilot will be based on mis-information. Call in group this is your chance to show the citizens of Bristol that the decision making processes in Bristol City Council are robust and that members of the public can have a real impact and involvement into those processes. How can the consultation results which do not include the majority of the Students who live in the areas be used to pilot? Why cant the pilot areas be asked again before thousands of pounds are used drawing up the scheme. Hear our voice today and recommend this whole scheme is approached in a different way, a way the citizens of Bristol want. STATEMENT TO SPECIAL CALL IN GROW MEETING RE RESIDENTS PARKING 05/01/09 Mr J Ward Ashton Bristol Ref: Residents Parking Scheme Dear Sirs The statement I would like to make is that I cannot understand why Bristol City Council is rushing ahead with this Residents Parking Pilot with out proper consultation. I cannot find a reference in the report, produced on 17/11/08,to any deadlines that this project must adhere to, therefore it only makes sense to take the time to get this scheme right. Please do not allow the pilot areas to commence with out further consultation with the city as a whole. . John Ward ~ STATEMENT FOR SPECIAL CALL IN GROUP RE RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME 05/01/09 Mrs Paul Bristol Ref: Residents Parking Scheme Dear Sirs The cost to those in the pilot areas could be many hundreds of pounds per household, but what will the cost of the scheme be, per person, for the council tax paying people of Bristol in general when they have to pay to park every where, as this scheme is bound to spread to all areas eventually. This is a city area issue please use your vote to take this to full council so each councillor can represent the people who voted for them. STATEMENT FOR SPECIAL CALL IN GROUP RE RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME 05/01/09 Mrs Wilson Bristol Ref: Residents Parking Scheme Dear Sirs Having attended the previous 2 meeting at the council hse regarding this scheme I would ask that you look very closely at the financial side of this, the first report stated that the cost per house hold would be £100 for visitor passes and a higher cost for permits and that the cost would be nil to the council tax payer as the scheme would be self funding. In the next report the cost of visitor permits had reduced to £50 and the cost of permits had reduced as well as the hours of operation (I assume reduction in pay and display income come with this.) yet still stating the scheme would be self hnd-ing. How can this be? Please look very closely it seems that some hiding of the truth is going on here and this meeting is the last chance to bring the truth out into the open. Mrs Wilson STATEMENT FOR SPECIAL CALL IN GROUP RE RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME 05/01/09 Mrs Bye Bristol Ref: Residents Parking Scheme Dear Sirs . I have been closely following the meetings and documents of the Scrutiny and Cabinet out comes for this scheme, I'feel that the large sums of money proposed to set this scheme up, although funded through the 'spend to save' post could be better spent on providing affordable public transport. Has any study been undertaken to discover which type of commuters are parking where and why, perhaps this scheme would not solve any problems. Southville Bristol Question for Council Meeting 5'h January 2009 2"' January 2009 Ref: Proposed RPS Dear Sirs Why will a scheme that operates for 2 hours per day between, say, 12pm and 2 pm not work (section 17 of the Report). The logic from the report suggests that commuters will park their car in a CPZ in the morning then, at some time before 12pm, leave their place of work to walk to their car move their car to some unspecified location and then return to work before once again returning some time before 2pm to move their car back to Ws original parking space in the CPZ The logic here is flawed for the following reasons: How many workers have the benefit of being able to take 2 lunch breaks over a 2 hour period Even with flexible working arrangements who would consider using the whole of their lunch hour everyday to move their car. Where is the unspecified location where the car will be moved to? and If there is such a bountiful choice of car parking then is there a need for the scheme? The scheme is being designed to deter commuter parking. Commuters arrive between 7am and 9am and leave between 4:30pm and 6:OOpm. There is not a massive wave of commuters at or after lunchtime. Please provide clarification of the perceived problems of the ' 2 hours per daf option. Note if there is concem about commuters moving their cars during lunchtime the scheme could operate from loam - 12pm. Yours Faithfully 75 Hamilton Road Southville Bristol BS3 1NZ Question for Council Meeting 5'h January 2009 Ref Residents Parking Scheme 2ndJanuary 2009 Dear Sirs Please advise the number and details of parking surveys that have been carried out in the proposed pilot areas. (Brandon Hill and Kingsdown) What were the dates and times of the surveys? I would expect that separate surveys for moming and evening and for weekday and weekend parking patterns were performed. In addition please advise the ratio of car spaces that will be available in each of the areas compared to the number of households. Please advise the number of permits that will be sold for each available space? Yours Faithfully Julie Dodd Glanville Guest House 122 Coronation Road Southville Bristol Question for Council meting srnJanuary 2889 Residents' Parking Schemes 2"6January 2009 Dear Sirs Can you please advise us how you will provide for the visitors to guest houses within the pilot zones and in subsequent areas where the RPS is rolled out. The background to the question is as follows. Bristol City Council has a high aspirations in terms of tourism for the city. The local plan recognises the importance of tourism. Section 10.2.2 states that "tourism is important in generating economic activity and new job opportunities." Currently demand for budget accommodation outstrips supply . The Local development plan (and alterations) also recognises that there is a specific shortage of budget accommodation in Bristol. Indeed the adopted plan specifically singles out the need to encourage guest houses. 10.4.3.6 within the Section 'Tourism" states: "[als part of the Council's commitment to the expansion of the tourism industry it is essential to provide a full range of visitor accommodation and associated facilities to meet the needs of all tourists. Proposals for guest houses will generally be favoured. The success of the tourism strategy will depend as much on the first impression a tourist has of the city, how easy it is to obtain information and accommodation, as on the experience of the visiting attractionsn. In our area existing guest houses have operated successfully alongside residents for well over 30 years. Ready made solutions do exist as illustrated in current CPZ's operated by Bath, Exeter, Plymouth and York for example. The guests are recognised as visitors and daily, weekly or annual visitor permits are issued accordingly. Guest houses in the CPZ are simply providing accommodation for many 'visitors" to Bristol. Typically permits are made available at a rate of 1 per day per bedroom. Unfortunately a response to the above question that states that individual areas will be dealt with on a case by case basis is neither appropriate or helpful in this case. Unlike the impacts on residents a CPZ scheme is not simply a costly inconvenience. Instead a badly designed scheme that does not provide forguest house visitor parking is the death knell for these family run businesses taking away the income for a family and further reducing the availability of accommodation for visitors to Bristol. In order to remove the stress and uncertainty, and to allow us to plan our future we need assurances that the guest houses affected will be given permits to allow their guests to park. Yours faithfully Greg Clark Amy Clark 121 Coronation Road Southville Bristol Question for Council Meeting 5'" January 20009 Ref: Proposed RPS Scheme zndJanuary 2009 Dear Sirs If a resident cannot find a place to park in their zone, where will they park? How far from their house will they have to park and will there be an additional cost for this? Ilive in an area not particularly affected by commuter parking, where I can usually park within a few doors from my house. I am concerned that, having paid for a parking permit, with reduced spaces available, there will be nowhere to park. I have 3 children and often have a car full of shopping, prams, car seats etc and I will not be able to unload the car miles from my house. I seek assurance that having paid for a permit I will be able to park close to my house (as I can at the moment). Yours faithfully Amy Clark Amy Clark 121 Coronation Road Southville Bristol Question for Council 5'" January 2009 2ndJanuary 2009 Ref: Residents Parking Scheme Dear Sirs and d The schemes due to be introduced in Kingsdown and Brandon Hill have been s ~ ~ t i n i s e changed to take into account residents' requirements and concerns. Will this level of scrutiny and ability to change the detail of the scheme be applied to all the schemes if they are implemented in Bristol? I seek your assurance that the Council will consult with residents' and business owners in each area of Bristol before implementing a CPZ so that the scheme can be tailored to each particular area. The parking requirementsvary from area to area (indeed sometimes varying street by street) these need to be considered and responded to before implementing a CPZ. In other areas of the country where CPZs have been introduced the first couple of pilot schemes introduced received a great deal of scrutiny and public input (and changes to the detail as a result of this). However, as the CPZs were rolled out throughout the city the subsequent schemes did not receive such attention and residents were not able to impact on the detail of the CPZ This has resulted in residents being very unhappy and the CPZs not solving the parking problems in such areas and not meeting residents' requirements. Yours faithfully Amy Clark 'I Statement for Call in meeting January Sm 2009 at 5.30 p.m. Having spoken to business owners within the Kingsdown pilot zone, it is clear that people are still entirely unaware of any scheme, pilot or otherwise? What is clear, is that those with businesses, big and small, do not want the pilot zones or the scheme because they know it will affect their ability to trade in an already treacherous climate. Surely, the aim of the council must be to help businesses thrive and not put obstacles, likeafewer (and metered) parking spaces, in the way of people spending with the businesses within our communities? For the many businesses that are desperately trying to keep their head above water, this scheme means they are sure to go under. Even with a very questionable and tiny margin apparently in favour of the pilot, how many businesses are the council prepared to sacrifice to introduce this scheme? June Jeff reys Hillside, Clifton. Statement for Call in meeting January Sth 2009 at 5.30 p.m. What benchmarks have you put in place to measure any parking improvements and the overall success of the scheme? Sue Paterson Clifton, Bristol Statement for Call in meeting January 5" 2009 at 5.30 p.m. If the council wanted us to believe that the consultation was anything other that a flawed attempt to introduce a money-raising scheme under the radar, why was the consultation conducted during the summer and in the absence of those to whom it mattered most i.e. the students, lecturers and employees who were on their summer break? Julie Ellis Gloucester Row, Clifton. Statement for Call in meeting January 5'" 2009 at 5.30 p.m. It is clear that the scheme will reduce the number of spaces available while not guaranteeing residents a space. It also seems clear that there is no written strategy whatever to get people off cars and on public transport. If there is please could the council direct me to this strategy paper because I would iike to learn about how the scheme will reduce C02 emissions, offer alternative and greener forms of transport to commuters and residents, and how this parking scheme fits into an overall plan. I ask, because I have heard no mention of any grand plan other than introducing a scheme that will not solve the problems it says it will, is unwanted and does very little except introduce another form of tax for an ill-conceived 'service' Simon Fuller Princess Buildings, Clifton. Statement for Call in meeting January 5m2009 at 5.30 p.m. On page 3 of your report you detail your Policy point 2 as 'enabling residents to park more easily'. Given there will be less spaces because of the scheme, that it will not guarantee a space to residents and that there is significant cost to residents both within and outside the scheme, exactly how will the scheme make more easy to park than it is now? Susan Parsons Cotham Gardens, Cotham Statement for Ca in meeting January 5°"2009 at 5.30 p.m. J Campaigners fo?against the proposed scheme share more than we differ, particularly in the way we are united by our willingness to take action. However, on examination of the arguments set forth by the Yes-to-RPS campaigners it seems that their arguments represent fallacy after fallacy. There are already many procedures in place to ensure access to emergency vehicles. Cars parked in 2 way that block access in such situations can be towed. There is no need for a residents' parking scheme to tackle this problem, one that we agree is a problem. Simpl up the phone to the police or council and save us all the millions in costs. Yes, we would agree there will be more double yellow lines. We corr~pletely agree in fact. We agree because more yellow lines solve the problems for which Yesto-RPS want a residents' scheme introduced. By recognising more yellow lines will stop people parking in a dangerous or unthoughtful manner the Yes-to-RPS campaigners effectively negate their argument almost entirely. There will not be more spaces for residents'. This argument by Yes-to-RPS is misleading. With more double yellow lines and paFking meter bays come less spaces. To think otherwise is idiocy. Visitors have no guarantee that they will park more easily. The only guarantee is that their parking will be more costly. Again, to suggest anything else is illogical and misleading. If the scheme is not a tax, what is it? It is a levy to park your vehicle outside your own home. Come on, guys. The scheme is poorly constructed, just like the consultation. Where do commuters go? How do they get to work? On the new Park & Ride scheme? None exists. On the new bicycle lanes? None have been introduced. Where do the cars go? Nowhere, there is no grand plan for getting us off our addiction to cars. There is no insight and there is no leadership. Just a flawed consultation followed by a flawed and unwanted scheme. Kieran Battles York Gardens, Clifton. Statement for Call in meeting January 5fh2009 at 5.30 p.m. cvVce - There are many significant parallels between the consultation process for this scheme and the process that took place in Camden, North London in the midnineties, highlighted in the case of Regina v Camden London Borough Council. Perhaps most notably, is the same manner in which both Camden then and Bristol City council novfie. with such determination to introduce a parking scheme that it becomes introduced illegally. In the case in London, Mr Justice McCullough found that where the local authority failed adequately to consult residents on the introduction of the scheme that it would be illegal and could therefore be quashed. So many councillors have spoken out about the flawed and biased nature of the consultation. So man) residents have petitioned the council about the failure of the consultation to actually consult. Given this, it does beg the question as to whether the do so in council are so adamant to go ahead regardless m a r e I an illegal manner. Nigel Furey Kensington Place, Clifton. Statement for Call in meeting January 5"' 2009 at 5.30 p.m. Given the current economic climate, and the uncertainty about livelihoods are you in such a hurry to spend vast amounts of the council tax we pay you, not on education or health but on parking meters, yellow lines and traffic wardens? Why are you in such a hurry to further burden the hard working, income tax paying, value added tax paying, council tax paying, road tax paying people of Bristol? David Ansell Victoria Walk, Cotham.
© Copyright 2024