They call this listening?

[Dizzy]

 

[Coffee]

So funny BJ

 

 

The trouble we seem to have is that the only people who tend to stand for a position of a councillor have a fixation with green issues, public transport, national and party politics and cycling; probably because the vast majority of the working population in the town that have to fund all the nonsense and pay for these crazy schemes just don't have the time to get involved and are reduced to moaning about it on here....

 

It is because most councillors belong to the big three parties and are carring out policies that their superiors order

[Evil Sid]

See that the electrical building that was on the corner near to the town hall has been demolished to make for................A NEW CAR PARK Hooray!!!!

[Bazj]

Another car park???? In a town full of car parks and in a town where the council are trying to get us to use buses....

 

 

I see the coherent and integrated travel management policy has gone out of the window then!!!

[Dizzy]

Must admit it does look better now the buildings gone and you can see the lovely old building with all the white windows now that was behind it but I agree, why on earth do they need another car park around there?  

 

It's going to be another CCP (privately owned) pay and display apparently for 35 cars (short stay).   I wonder how much they will charge ?  Less than short stay in the multi storey ? 

[boris1066]

The building came down rather stealthily.It seemed to be under renovation one minute and then next, scaffolding gone  along with the rest of the structure. Perhaps future use will target the Bank Quay commuters ???

[Steve Parish]

If the developers had wanted to put something else on the site (and they might eventually) I'm sure that would have been preferable - but they've applied for a car park, and (by and large) the planning system doesn't allow for refusing development just because there's enough supply already. We're trying to put in conditions to keep it short stay.

I may have precipitated the demolition anyway, as I complained about (1) the downspouts leaking and vegetation growing on the bricks, (2) the unlawful advertising, and (3) the flytipping round the back. They say they'll put in a dwarf wall to match the wall round Bank Park.

As to the Stockton Heath car park, I do believe Cllr Murphy has secured a compromise. First hour will continue to be free, but no return within 2 hours OR you can pay 50p and stay for 2 hours.

[Bazj]

I thought you lot were trying to actively discourage car travel into town Steve? Hence all of the bike lanes and loss making bus company!

 

also.... what about the huge pay rises for the directors in the council? Any Comment?

[grey_man]

Steve. There is absolutely no need to change the original parking arrangements. They supported local businesses and the medical centre, kept parking off the side streets and made a surplus. That's not a compromise. It's a farce. You lot seriously won't be happy until Stockton Heath is like Bridge Street. It's absolute and utter stupidity on the part of the council.   

 

The council has looked at car parking in Stockton Heath and thought 'well this seems to be working. It supports shops, residents and the medical centre. Absolutely nobody has a problem with it. Even makes a surplus so doesn't even cost us anything and actually adds to the coffers. I know. Let's change it until it doesn't work.' 

 

The fact that a local councillor is going along with this nonsense makes it even worse. 

[asperity]

It didn't take long for the aware to take advantage of the new (free) car park!

[Dizzy]

It didn't take long for the aware to take advantage of the new (free) car park!

 

You are right there Asp.  I went past 4 times this afternoon and it was almost full each time.  

 

I wonder if you can get clamed or fined for parking on someone's land before signs go up or pay and display goes in.  Anyone know cos if not I might park there tomorrow as I need to go into the town centre and might even pop to the museum and library for the afternoon if it's free to park  

[observer]

Keep your eyes open for the clamping van!

[Coffee]

Which building got pulled down, I can not think?

[Dizzy]

This one Coffee.  The town hall is just out of shot on the left.

 

[Steve Parish]

For your edification, Pickles has just produced draft guidance on parking.

 

• Recent reviews on how to revitalise ailing high streets have recommended more, and cheaper, parking in town centres
• The draft National Planning Practice Guidance includes new guidance on parking which says that planners ‘should not penalise motorists’ through reducing parking provision
• However, the guidance also instructs planners to consider the needs of vulnerable road users first, and puts drivers at the bottom of this list, arguing that the aim should be to create streets that are attractive public spaces
• The economic benefits of providing more parking are contested – while the government says that the ‘anti-car dogma’ of councils is hurting local economies, another study reports that pedestrians spend two to six times more in their local shops compared with people arriving by car

 

I append in full comments from the Local Government Information Unit, which basically says the government wants councils to pursue mutually exclusive policies!

 

Your local councillors will of course try and find a sensible compromise....  (and the final paragraph, if applied to Stockton Heath, makes the point that if local residents drive to the village rather than walk or get a bus, they add to the congestion that makes the village one of the worst places in Warrington for car-sourced pollution).

 

Comment

 

What are local planning authorities to make of this latest chapter in the government’s drive to ‘end the war on the motorist’?

 

The sections on parking need to be put into their wider context in the guidance. The NPPG reiterates that the aim of travel plans is to ‘promote and encourage sustainable travel’. Councils have tried to achieve this, in broad terms, by attempting to promote public transport, make it easier to walk or cycle and, in some places, by restricting how easy it is to drive.

 

This isn’t a case of local authority planners deciding to pursue an ‘anti-car’ agenda. The NPPG – government advice, remember – instructs planners to ‘consider the needs of the most vulnerable users first: pedestrians, then cyclists, then public transport users, specialist vehicles like ambulances and finally other motor vehicles’ (not forgetting, of course, that some people will find driving the only realistic option for short journeys because of disabilities, something which the existing parking arrangements cater for).

 

The revised guidance also now states that travel plans ‘should not be used to justify penalising motorists’. But how can planners be reasonably expected to  achieve the requirements of travel plans without placing at least some curbs on driving?

 

As Peter Walker pointed out in The Guardian:

‘There’s no reason why “drivers” need necessarily be pitted in battle against “cyclists” in policy matters, not least because they – I, we – are very often the same people. But speak to any cycle campaigner and they’ll say that a real increase in bike use needs to be driven in two ways – the carrot of safe riding infrastructure et al and the stick of making driving slightly less attractive.’

Across a range of policy concerns that planners are supposed to be addressing – tackling climate change, improving air quality, encouraging high quality design, promoting healthy communities –  restricting (and, by implication, ‘penalising’) car use is seen as one of the important tools in the mix. All of these policy objectives remain critical to planning for sustainable development.

 

Interestingly, on the same day that the NPPG was published, the government put out its response to the April 2013 All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling report. In it the government reiterates that designers should ‘place a high priority on meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users, so that growth in these modes of travel is encouraged.’ There is a finite amount of space to allocate to different ways of getting around, and prioritising some modes will surely restrict opportunities for others.

 

Even within the parameters of revitalising the economic fortunes of high streets, it’s not clear that a blanket instruction to provide more/cheaper parking will work. The evidence, at the very least, is mixed. In its press release the government quoted at length from a report by the Association of Town and City Management and the British Parking Association:

‘A number of factors have come together to create an almost perfect storm which prohibits access to traditional urban centres for car users… parking provision must be planned effectively to benefit towns and high streets, and is linked to vitality of the high street.’

In contrast, though, a separate review commissioned by Living Streets found that there are significant economic benefits of investing in walking environments (such as town centres and high streets), including increases in residential and commercial property values, increases in rental income and benefits to the local economy by attracting new businesses and events. It also noted a study where retailers on a high street in Bristol overestimated the proportion of shoppers arriving by car ‘by almost double’ (41 per cent compared to the actual 22 per cent). More recently the campaign group cited evidence that shows pedestrians spend 2 to 6 times more in local shops than people arriving by car.

 

The political reality is that parking is a highly sensitive issue in many wards. The Cycling Commissioner for London, Andrew Gilligan, declares that parking is the ‘third rail of local politics – touch it, and you die’. The rhetoric accompanying the release shows which side of the argument Eric Pickles is on. But the overall direction of the guidance remains clear that local transport policy, within a context of achieving sustainable development, is about promoting lower carbon, more active ways of getting around in environments that are well-designed and favour public transport users, walkers and cyclists. None of these modes need more space allocated to parking (except, perhaps, for more park and ride schemes, but that is a different matter).

 

Elected members must look carefully at the evidence before necessarily reaching a conclusion that providing more parking will improve local economic fortunes. One thing it will achieve is more congestion: and that is unlikely to create the kind of vibrant, inviting and economically active streets that the guidance calls for elsewhere.

[Dizzy]

As to the Stockton Heath car park, I do believe Cllr Murphy has secured a compromise. First hour will continue to be free, but no return within 2 hours OR you can pay 50p and stay for 2 hours.

 

Ok so am I understanding it right about SH car park.....  

 

1) WBC reduce the 2 hours free to 1 hour free and charge 50p for upto 2 hours.

 

2) 5000 people sign a petition and virtually all traders complain.... so WBC come to a compromise and decide to get rid of free parking all together and charge 30p for up to 2 hours from the start of parking.

 

3) That didn't go down too well... so this Cllr Murphy has now secured a compromise ... of putting it back to 1 hour free with a 50p charge for up to 2 hours WHICH IS WHAT the traders and 5000 signatories complained about in the first place.

 

That is soooo funny

[Bazj]

When in doubt.... waffle

 

Steve. would you be prepared to back a scheme to fine cyclists for not using cycle lanes when they are provided? Otherwise why bother spending council tax payers money on building lanes and painting huge green squares at every traffic light system that aren't being used?

 

 

For your edification, Pickles has just produced draft guidance on parking.

 

• Recent reviews on how to revitalise ailing high streets have recommended more, and cheaper, parking in town centres
• The draft National Planning Practice Guidance includes new guidance on parking which says that planners ‘should not penalise motorists’ through reducing parking provision
• However, the guidance also instructs planners to consider the needs of vulnerable road users first, and puts drivers at the bottom of this list, arguing that the aim should be to create streets that are attractive public spaces
• The economic benefits of providing more parking are contested – while the government says that the ‘anti-car dogma’ of councils is hurting local economies, another study reports that pedestrians spend two to six times more in their local shops compared with people arriving by car

 

I append in full comments from the Local Government Information Unit, which basically says the government wants councils to pursue mutually exclusive policies!

 

Your local councillors will of course try and find a sensible compromise....  (and the final paragraph, if applied to Stockton Heath, makes the point that if local residents drive to the village rather than walk or get a bus, they add to the congestion that makes the village one of the worst places in Warrington for car-sourced pollution).

 

Comment

 

What are local planning authorities to make of this latest chapter in the government’s drive to ‘end the war on the motorist’?

 

The sections on parking need to be put into their wider context in the guidance. The NPPG reiterates that the aim of travel plans is to ‘promote and encourage sustainable travel’. Councils have tried to achieve this, in broad terms, by attempting to promote public transport, make it easier to walk or cycle and, in some places, by restricting how easy it is to drive.

 

This isn’t a case of local authority planners deciding to pursue an ‘anti-car’ agenda. The NPPG – government advice, remember – instructs planners to ‘consider the needs of the most vulnerable users first: pedestrians, then cyclists, then public transport users, specialist vehicles like ambulances and finally other motor vehicles’ (not forgetting, of course, that some people will find driving the only realistic option for short journeys because of disabilities, something which the existing parking arrangements cater for).

 

The revised guidance also now states that travel plans ‘should not be used to justify penalising motorists’. But how can planners be reasonably expected to  achieve the requirements of travel plans without placing at least some curbs on driving?

 

As Peter Walker pointed out in The Guardian:

Across a range of policy concerns that planners are supposed to be addressing – tackling climate change, improving air quality, encouraging high quality design, promoting healthy communities –  restricting (and, by implication, ‘penalising’) car use is seen as one of the important tools in the mix. All of these policy objectives remain critical to planning for sustainable development.

 

Interestingly, on the same day that the NPPG was published, the government put out its response to the April 2013 All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling report. In it the government reiterates that designers should ‘place a high priority on meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users, so that growth in these modes of travel is encouraged.’ There is a finite amount of space to allocate to different ways of getting around, and prioritising some modes will surely restrict opportunities for others.

 

Even within the parameters of revitalising the economic fortunes of high streets, it’s not clear that a blanket instruction to provide more/cheaper parking will work. The evidence, at the very least, is mixed. In its press release the government quoted at length from a report by the Association of Town and City Management and the British Parking Association:

In contrast, though, a separate review commissioned by Living Streets found that there are significant economic benefits of investing in walking environments (such as town centres and high streets), including increases in residential and commercial property values, increases in rental income and benefits to the local economy by attracting new businesses and events. It also noted a study where retailers on a high street in Bristol overestimated the proportion of shoppers arriving by car ‘by almost double’ (41 per cent compared to the actual 22 per cent). More recently the campaign group cited evidence that shows pedestrians spend 2 to 6 times more in local shops than people arriving by car.

 

The political reality is that parking is a highly sensitive issue in many wards. The Cycling Commissioner for London, Andrew Gilligan, declares that parking is the ‘third rail of local politics – touch it, and you die’. The rhetoric accompanying the release shows which side of the argument Eric Pickles is on. But the overall direction of the guidance remains clear that local transport policy, within a context of achieving sustainable development, is about promoting lower carbon, more active ways of getting around in environments that are well-designed and favour public transport users, walkers and cyclists. None of these modes need more space allocated to parking (except, perhaps, for more park and ride schemes, but that is a different matter).

 

Elected members must look carefully at the evidence before necessarily reaching a conclusion that providing more parking will improve local economic fortunes. One thing it will achieve is more congestion: and that is unlikely to create the kind of vibrant, inviting and economically active streets that the guidance calls for elsewhere.

 

 

[grey_man]

For your edification, Pickles has just produced draft guidance on parking.

 

• Recent reviews on how to revitalise ailing high streets have recommended more, and cheaper, parking in town centres
• The draft National Planning Practice Guidance includes new guidance on parking which says that planners ‘should not penalise motorists’ through reducing parking provision
• However, the guidance also instructs planners to consider the needs of vulnerable road users first, and puts drivers at the bottom of this list, arguing that the aim should be to create streets that are attractive public spaces
• The economic benefits of providing more parking are contested – while the government says that the ‘anti-car dogma’ of councils is hurting local economies, another study reports that pedestrians spend two to six times more in their local shops compared with people arriving by car

 

I append in full comments from the Local Government Information Unit, which basically says the government wants councils to pursue mutually exclusive policies!

 

Your local councillors will of course try and find a sensible compromise....  (and the final paragraph, if applied to Stockton Heath, makes the point that if local residents drive to the village rather than walk or get a bus, they add to the congestion that makes the village one of the worst places in Warrington for car-sourced pollution).

 

Comment

 

What are local planning authorities to make of this latest chapter in the government’s drive to ‘end the war on the motorist’?

 

The sections on parking need to be put into their wider context in the guidance. The NPPG reiterates that the aim of travel plans is to ‘promote and encourage sustainable travel’. Councils have tried to achieve this, in broad terms, by attempting to promote public transport, make it easier to walk or cycle and, in some places, by restricting how easy it is to drive.

 

This isn’t a case of local authority planners deciding to pursue an ‘anti-car’ agenda. The NPPG – government advice, remember – instructs planners to ‘consider the needs of the most vulnerable users first: pedestrians, then cyclists, then public transport users, specialist vehicles like ambulances and finally other motor vehicles’ (not forgetting, of course, that some people will find driving the only realistic option for short journeys because of disabilities, something which the existing parking arrangements cater for).

 

The revised guidance also now states that travel plans ‘should not be used to justify penalising motorists’. But how can planners be reasonably expected to  achieve the requirements of travel plans without placing at least some curbs on driving?

 

As Peter Walker pointed out in The Guardian:

Across a range of policy concerns that planners are supposed to be addressing – tackling climate change, improving air quality, encouraging high quality design, promoting healthy communities –  restricting (and, by implication, ‘penalising’) car use is seen as one of the important tools in the mix. All of these policy objectives remain critical to planning for sustainable development.

 

Interestingly, on the same day that the NPPG was published, the government put out its response to the April 2013 All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling report. In it the government reiterates that designers should ‘place a high priority on meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users, so that growth in these modes of travel is encouraged.’ There is a finite amount of space to allocate to different ways of getting around, and prioritising some modes will surely restrict opportunities for others.

 

Even within the parameters of revitalising the economic fortunes of high streets, it’s not clear that a blanket instruction to provide more/cheaper parking will work. The evidence, at the very least, is mixed. In its press release the government quoted at length from a report by the Association of Town and City Management and the British Parking Association:

In contrast, though, a separate review commissioned by Living Streets found that there are significant economic benefits of investing in walking environments (such as town centres and high streets), including increases in residential and commercial property values, increases in rental income and benefits to the local economy by attracting new businesses and events. It also noted a study where retailers on a high street in Bristol overestimated the proportion of shoppers arriving by car ‘by almost double’ (41 per cent compared to the actual 22 per cent). More recently the campaign group cited evidence that shows pedestrians spend 2 to 6 times more in local shops than people arriving by car.

 

The political reality is that parking is a highly sensitive issue in many wards. The Cycling Commissioner for London, Andrew Gilligan, declares that parking is the ‘third rail of local politics – touch it, and you die’. The rhetoric accompanying the release shows which side of the argument Eric Pickles is on. But the overall direction of the guidance remains clear that local transport policy, within a context of achieving sustainable development, is about promoting lower carbon, more active ways of getting around in environments that are well-designed and favour public transport users, walkers and cyclists. None of these modes need more space allocated to parking (except, perhaps, for more park and ride schemes, but that is a different matter).

 

Elected members must look carefully at the evidence before necessarily reaching a conclusion that providing more parking will improve local economic fortunes. One thing it will achieve is more congestion: and that is unlikely to create the kind of vibrant, inviting and economically active streets that the guidance calls for elsewhere.

 

....and if that doesn't work - basically annoying people in cars enough so they either shop at Tesco or walk - we'll order some more planters to put up outside the boarded up shops. 

 

Steve. Here's a straight question deserving a straight answer. Why do you think Tesco don't charge people to use their car park?

 

And for your bonus question, how are you planning to make a similar surplus from councillor and staff parking to the one you expect from residents? Or is that going to continue to operate at a loss, subsidised by residents?

[grey_man]

Come on Steve. Answer a straight question for once.

 

Here's another. Are you and officers from WBC planning to meet with Tesco to tell them where they're going wrong with their car parking? You could take all that stuff you've just written and ask them to make it company policy. You can tell them that providing more cheap parking won't help them and the best thing they can do is start charging to park at their shops. You can reassure them that people won't simply go somewhere else but will instead continue to shop at their stores except they'll get there on bikes and by foot instead.  You can tell them that people will spend more money, even if they have to make a number of trips to walk home with the bags. You can tell them that people walking and cycling will make their shops 'vibrant, inviting and economically active'.

 

I tell you what, set the meeting up and I'll even come with you and record their reaction. Is it a deal? 

[observer]

If they can make these stores charge for plastic bags, why can't they charge  for parking too?!

[asperity]

Well that stands logic on its head!!

[observer]

Errm, big picture Asp: why do you think Town Centres are dying?

[asperity]

Big picture? What have plastic bags got to do with car parking?

[observer]

Establishes the principle of levying a charge on S/Markets.

[Dizzy]

Not just supermarkets though... the very nice young lad in Argos told me the other day that they may be charging 5p per carrier bag soon too.

 

Crikey.... considering the amount of carrier bags I'm still going through at the moment to double bag all my bin waste to try and stop all the damn flies it could cost me a fortune. Saying that I can always buy more cheap none biogradable bin sacks from JTF and ATJ as they did seem to work better the other week in addition to the carrier bags. 

 

ANYWAY BACK TO PARKING... sorry I digressed...

 

I'm told that some (maybe all I don't know) residents in Stockton Heath have received flyers/letters from Cllr Murphy about the changing parking charges in Stockton Heath with some sort of opinion form to fill in and send back.

 

Has anyone had one and if so what does it say or what is being proposed now? 

 

Are any other people going to be consulted too or just those who get a flyer through their door who live in the councillors 'patch'.?

 

I just googled who he was and nowt on his pages about it and I don't know why but I always thought he was a Lib Dem or Conservative... not that it makes any difference of course.