Discussion:
The Motorist as Cash Cow (Again)
Add Reply
Peter Walker
2024-10-31 19:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.

Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.

We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
Handsome Jack
2024-10-31 21:02:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits
based on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in
the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air
quality by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a
stored vehicle (parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
Lib Dems? They have form.

Mine did this about five years ago. Residents' parking permits at the time
were £90 a year. Suddenly they were going to be several hundred quid - in
my case £400, as I had a diesel car of the kind the government had
encouraged us to buy just a few years earlier. There was a consultation
notice but it was not circulated locally, only in a local free newspaper
that nobody reads. It went straight to a draft traffic management order
without ever going before a council committee. The proposal had not
appeared in the Lib Dem's election literature the previous year. Nor were
any parking charge increases proposed for anywhere else in the borough -
just on residents in a controlled zone who had no practical alternative.
No extra charges for commuters, buses, lorries, delivery vans etc.

In the end there was a revolt, hundreds of people went to the council
committee meeting and caused such an uproar that the arseholes had to back
down. But, like night and the Jesuits, they'll be back.
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-31 23:30:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits
based on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in
the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air
quality by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a
stored vehicle (parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
Lib Dems? They have form.
As do Labour. And the Tories. I wouldn't pin your hope on party politics
fixing this, if you think it's something that needs fixing.
Peter Walker
2024-11-01 01:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits
based on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first
in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air
quality by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a
stored vehicle (parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
Lib Dems? They have form.
It's actually an SNP council, Glasgow, but I hadn't considered that, I
had thought it the bright idea of permanent staff instead, they have form
for that here. Objections are due imminently and I am in 2 minds whether
to get my articulate trousers on or to give in and treat it as the
inevitable lip service to consultation that it always is with this bunch.

Encouragement welcome.
Post by Handsome Jack
Mine did this about five years ago. Residents' parking permits at the
time were £90 a year. Suddenly they were going to be several hundred
quid - in my case £400, as I had a diesel car of the kind the
government had encouraged us to buy just a few years earlier. There
was a consultation notice but it was not circulated locally, only in a
local free newspaper that nobody reads. It went straight to a draft
traffic management order without ever going before a council
committee. The proposal had not appeared in the Lib Dem's election
literature the previous year. Nor were any parking charge increases
proposed for anywhere else in the borough - just on residents in a
controlled zone who had no practical alternative. No extra charges for
commuters, buses, lorries, delivery vans etc.
My sympathies, IMV it is incoming vehicles rather than resident ones that
are the issue, 80% of resident spaces remain filled here in the daytime
so it's clear that we already make use of the city's sustainable
transport options on a daily basis (ooh, my articulate pants are settling
in . . . ).
Post by Handsome Jack
In the end there was a revolt, hundreds of people went to the council
committee meeting and caused such an uproar that the arseholes had to
back down. But, like night and the Jesuits, they'll be back.
Bait & switch will be another angle to consider, sold as a means to
reclaim spaces from unofficial park & ride commuters, now used as a
captive revenue generator. Immoral rather than unlawful however (if it
saves the life of one child . . justification).
Mark Goodge
2024-10-31 22:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
Post by Peter Walker
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.

Mark
JNugent
2024-11-01 02:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
Excellent point. I'd had have made it if you hadn't.
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
The distinction to be made is between parking (something done at the
other end of the journey from home) and garaging (done at home).

Those who use their own property for garaging (whether in an actual
garage or on a driveway or hardstanding) are paying (or, as the case may
well alternatively be, have paid) for that facility.

There is no logical reason why anyone should be given exclusive or
near-exclusive use of any part of the public highway, with the rest of
the population being the ones who are excluded from it, when everyone
has the right to use it.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Roland Perry
2024-11-01 17:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay
it if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere
else to park your car.
The distinction to be made is between parking (something done at the
other end of the journey from home) and garaging (done at home).
Those who use their own property for garaging (whether in an actual
garage or on a driveway or hardstanding) are paying (or, as the case
may well alternatively be, have paid) for that facility.
There is no logical reason why anyone should be given exclusive or
near-exclusive use of any part of the public highway, with the rest of
the population being the ones who are excluded from it, when everyone
has the right to use it.
Most residential highways were originally constructed at the expense of
the initial residents, by the developers (and then later "adopted" by
the council. So they have some bragging rights.

And I'm not quite following the thing about "exclusive use" (for
on-street parking) when that's exactly what Residents' Parking Permits
are for. And that's before we have special bays for "Doctors" and so on.
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
2024-11-01 08:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
Post by Peter Walker
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
You're missing the point that it's totally irrational to charge extra on
the basis of pollution for something that is not polluting at all when
using that service.
Mark Goodge
2024-11-01 14:30:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
You're missing the point that it's totally irrational to charge extra on
the basis of pollution for something that is not polluting at all when
using that service.
It will need to proceed under power to reach or leave that space, though.
Unless the owner is proposing to push it everywhere.

In any case, given that it's a charge for a service, the providers of the
service are perfectly entitled to price it however they want, so long as
they don't discriminate unlawfully in the process. If they charged extra for
women drivers, or cars registered outside the UK, it would be unlawful. But
it's not unlawful to charge extra for a particular type of vehicle.

Whether that's rational or not is primarily to do with how effective the
pricing structure is at generating revenue. I suppose, from a taxpayer's
perspective, you could argue that giving a discount to a particular type of
vehicle is an unreasonable subsidy and that everyone should pay the same
price in order to maximise revenue to the council. But that's a political,
rather than legal, argument.

Mark
Roland Perry
2024-11-01 08:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Walker
2024-11-01 10:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits
based on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first
in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air
quality by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a
stored vehicle (parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being
parked at home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
Exactly! As I stated up-thread, the residents' parking area retains 80%
occupancy during the daytime so it's clear that the vast majority of
residents are not using their vehicles to commute and therefore do not
generate emissions.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to
park your car.
I know it wasn't your comment but in scaling the charge by emissions it
is effectively a duplication of Vehicle Excise Duty and so amounts to a
tax by another name. VED is of course colloquially known as road tax.
Scaling it by vehicle emissions means that it is no longer a service but
a penalty.
Post by Roland Perry
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
We actually had a somewhat symbiotic relationship with incoming commuters
in the morning who took up free spaces from those departing and used
transport links into the city centre but vacated the spaces in time for
the few homecoming commuters to park up. First vote turned down the RPZ
but pressures from displaced parkers from adjacent zones forced a
turnaround on that. Improvements in on-street parking to increase
parking capacity such as one-way traffic to allow slant parking were made
conditional on the adoption of residents' scheme.
GB
2024-11-01 11:23:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
       generates no emissions at all.
That's a particularly poor argument, as nobody pays road tax and
insurance unless they plan to drive the car.

I assume that nobody here is actually in favour of pollution, or denies
the risks to health?

So, it follows that the aim of the councillors is reasonable. If you can
suggest a *better* way of achieving that aim, within the council's
limited powers, you should explain what it is.
Roland Perry
2024-11-01 18:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Roland Perry
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
       generates no emissions at all.
That's a particularly poor argument, as nobody pays road tax and
insurance unless they plan to drive the car.
Nobody? Really... You need to insure a car on your drive just as much as
on the road outside your house. Because it can still be stolen,
vandalised, catch fire etc. The scheme for VED suspension, popularly
known as SORN, has one month granularity and is basically a complete
pain in the *arse. As of course is suspending insurance for shortish
periods. If you have a reasonable expectation of needing to drive the
car just once in the next 6-8 weeks, you just leave it insured and
taxed.
Post by GB
I assume that nobody here is actually in favour of pollution, or denies
the risks to health?
False dichotomy.
Post by GB
So, it follows that the aim of the councillors is reasonable. If you
can suggest a *better* way of achieving that aim, within the council's
limited powers, you should explain what it is.
Use their powers to not charge someone more for parking across their
drive, than on their drive (using pollution as the excuse).
--
Roland Perry
Theo
2024-11-02 11:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by GB
Post by Roland Perry
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
       generates no emissions at all.
That's a particularly poor argument, as nobody pays road tax and
insurance unless they plan to drive the car.
Nobody? Really... You need to insure a car on your drive just as much as
on the road outside your house. Because it can still be stolen,
vandalised, catch fire etc.
No you don't. If it's kept off the public highway then insurance is
entirely discretionary. You can decide that insurance is worth it to you
against the cost of replacing the car, but that's your own private risk
calculation. You can (and I have) had a car off the road with no insurance
on it.
Post by Roland Perry
The scheme for VED suspension, popularly
known as SORN, has one month granularity and is basically a complete
pain in the *arse. As of course is suspending insurance for shortish
periods. If you have a reasonable expectation of needing to drive the
car just once in the next 6-8 weeks, you just leave it insured and
taxed.
It is possible to buy insurance on a per-day or per-hour basis. So if you
do want to drive it very sporadically then it could make economic sense to
do that. A number of people do - eg classic cars which are garaged in
the winter and only driven during the summer (some classics are exempt from
VED but not all).
Post by Roland Perry
Post by GB
So, it follows that the aim of the councillors is reasonable. If you
can suggest a *better* way of achieving that aim, within the council's
limited powers, you should explain what it is.
Use their powers to not charge someone more for parking across their
drive, than on their drive (using pollution as the excuse).
Parking across their own drive would be an obstruction, of course. (I think
even if you own the drive that's being obstructed).

ISTM the council is entitled to vary the charge based on the nature of the
vehicle - a scooter should pay less than a bus. While the engine type
doesn't immediately translate to the amount of parking space it's going to
use, they could for example give a discount as an incentive for cleaner
vehicles - and one man's discount is another man's charge for the
non-eligible.

Theo
Roland Perry
2024-11-03 17:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Theo
Post by Roland Perry
Post by GB
Post by Roland Perry
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
       generates no emissions at all.
That's a particularly poor argument, as nobody pays road tax and
insurance unless they plan to drive the car.
Nobody? Really... You need to insure a car on your drive just as much as
on the road outside your house. Because it can still be stolen,
vandalised, catch fire etc.
No you don't. If it's kept off the public highway then insurance is
entirely discretionary. You can decide that insurance is worth it to you
against the cost of replacing the car, but that's your own private risk
calculation.
I said "because it can still be stolen, vandalised, catch fire etc."

NOT 'Because it would be against the law'.
Post by Theo
You can (and I have) had a car off the road with no insurance
on it.
Yes, the last couple of years I've had three different cars on my drive,
uninsured (two belonging to me and one to a friend) but they were all
waiting for a scrap merchant to pick them up.
Post by Theo
Post by Roland Perry
The scheme for VED suspension, popularly
known as SORN, has one month granularity and is basically a complete
pain in the *arse. As of course is suspending insurance for shortish
periods. If you have a reasonable expectation of needing to drive the
car just once in the next 6-8 weeks, you just leave it insured and
taxed.
It is possible to buy insurance on a per-day or per-hour basis.
It's extremely expensive. I could insure my car for a whole year for
less than about ten separate days worth. And there's all the
form-filling involved, too.
Post by Theo
So if you do want to drive it very sporadically then it could make
economic sense to do that.
*VERY* sporadically.
Post by Theo
A number of people do - eg classic cars which are garaged in
the winter and only driven during the summer
I expect there are specialist policies for that, not per-day ones.
Post by Theo
(some classics are exempt from VED but not all).
Bit of a swerve there!
Post by Theo
Post by Roland Perry
Post by GB
So, it follows that the aim of the councillors is reasonable. If you
can suggest a *better* way of achieving that aim, within the council's
limited powers, you should explain what it is.
Use their powers to not charge someone more for parking across their
drive, than on their drive (using pollution as the excuse).
Parking across their own drive would be an obstruction, of course. (I think
even if you own the drive that's being obstructed).
But allowed under the law.
Post by Theo
ISTM the council is entitled to vary the charge based on the nature of the
vehicle - a scooter should pay less than a bus. While the engine type
doesn't immediately translate to the amount of parking space it's going to
use, they could for example give a discount as an incentive for cleaner
vehicles - and one man's discount is another man's charge for the
non-eligible.
I've not seen a scheme which differentiated at all, but would not be
surprised if some loony councils started giving EVs cheaper resident's
parking. Although it's very inconvenient to have an EV and no off-street
parking (because of the arrangements for charging), so it's a limited
market.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
2024-11-01 14:32:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.

Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese system
whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road you have to be
able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to park it.

Mark
Roland Perry
2024-11-01 19:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Nor can one parked on the drive !!!!
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an absurd
strategy.
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese system
whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road you have to be
able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing, with many,
MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED BY FORMER COUNCILS.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
2024-11-01 21:18:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Nor can one parked on the drive !!!!
Yes, but if they've got a drive they don't need to rent a resident's parking
space.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an absurd
strategy.
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to pay for a
parking space.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese system
whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road you have to be
able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing, with many,
MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED BY FORMER COUNCILS.
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could open a car
park on

Mark
Roland Perry
2024-11-02 07:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Nor can one parked on the drive !!!!
Yes, but if they've got a drive they don't need to rent a resident's parking
space.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are discussing that amount of
extra pollution created by a car parked on the road outside a house,
versus on the drive. Which is likely to be zero, or even negative.
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an absurd
strategy.
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to pay for a
parking space.
What people are complaining about is the council seizing what used to be
free parking, and starting to charge for it.
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese system
whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road you have to be
able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing, with many,
MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED BY FORMER COUNCILS.
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could open a car
park on
In most places with residents' parking schemes the is NO such land
available. Pretty much every WW2 bombsite has now been redeveloped, for
example (although last time I was there, one remained in Peterborough
city centre).
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2024-11-02 15:33:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking
permits based on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not
the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air
quality by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a
a stored vehicle (parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being
parked at home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the
highway) generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Nor can one parked on the drive !!!!
Yes, but if they've got a drive they don't need to rent a resident's
parking space.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are discussing that amount of
extra pollution created by a car parked on the road outside a house,
versus on the drive. Which is likely to be zero, or even negative.
That is of less importance than you suggest. It's clear that you regard
it as a central issue (and I'm not saying that your thinking is totally
unreasonable), but you are comparing apples and oranges. The council
cannot charge you or me for parking on our own driveways. But they have
the legal power to charge on whatever basis they think fit when it comes
to street-parking or parking in a council-owned car-park.

That is the straightforward matter of it and many share your distaste
for such the detail of meddling in private affairs whilst accepting that
charges may need to be made.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay
it if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere
else to park your car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an absurd
strategy.
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to pay for a
parking space.
What people are complaining about is the council seizing what used to be
free parking, and starting to charge for it.
Every street parking meter, every pay and display machine, every parking
attendant (neé traffic warden) was brought into being on that basis:
what had been free parking is now charged for. It isn't novel.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese system
whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road you have
to be able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing, with many,
MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED BY FORMER COUNCILS.
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could open
a car park on
In most places with residents' parking schemes the is NO such land
available. Pretty much every WW2 bombsite has now been redeveloped, for
example (although last time I was there, one remained in Peterborough
city centre).
Other residential locations are available.

I wouldn't live in an urban centre either. Well, not unless I had
absolutely no choice.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Roland Perry
2024-11-03 20:43:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking
permits based on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned.
Not the first in the UK. Sound bites from councillors stress
that they wish to improve air quality by taxing the greatest
polluters but ignore the idea that a a stored vehicle (parked
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not
being parked at home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the
highway) generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Nor can one parked on the drive !!!!
Yes, but if they've got a drive they don't need to rent a resident's
parking space.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are discussing that amount of
extra pollution created by a car parked on the road outside a house,
versus on the drive. Which is likely to be zero, or even negative.
That is of less importance than you suggest. It's clear that you regard
it as a central issue (and I'm not saying that your thinking is totally
unreasonable),
I responding to the earlier assertion that the council was charging
people to park on the road, because it creates "more pollution".
Post by JNugent
but you are comparing apples and oranges. The council cannot charge you
or me for parking on our own driveways. But they have the legal power
to charge on whatever basis they think fit when it comes to
street-parking or parking in a council-owned car-park.
That is the straightforward matter of it and many share your distaste
for such the detail of meddling in private affairs whilst accepting
that charges may need to be made.
Why do charges *have* to be made, in the name of pollution etc - it's
just a cash-cow.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to
pay it if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere
else to park your car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an absurd
strategy.
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to pay for a
parking space.
What people are complaining about is the council seizing what used
to be free parking, and starting to charge for it.
Every street parking meter, every pay and display machine, every
parking attendant (neé traffic warden) was brought into being on that
basis: what had been free parking is now charged for. It isn't novel.
What's novel(-ish) is the extension of the schemes from a few central
largely non-residential roads, into the suburbs.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese system
whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road you
have to be able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing, with many,
MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED BY FORMER COUNCILS.
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could
open a car park on
In most places with residents' parking schemes the is NO such land
available. Pretty much every WW2 bombsite has now been redeveloped,
for example (although last time I was there, one remained in
Peterborough city centre).
Other residential locations are available.
See previous remarks about uprooting one's whole life.
Post by JNugent
I wouldn't live in an urban centre either. Well, not unless I had
absolutely no choice.
Are you conflating my indicative example of Peterborough with the
concept of "urban centre"? I lived very happily a few hundred yards
from Brentwood Station for several years. There was no Residents'
Parking scheme for the simple reason the busy road had yellow lines,
but I had two off-street car parking places.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2024-11-03 21:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking
permits based on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned.
Not  the first in the UK.  Sound bites from councillors stress
that they wish to improve air  quality by taxing the greatest
polluters but ignore the idea that a  a stored vehicle (parked
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not
being  parked at home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the
highway) generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Nor can one parked on the drive !!!!
Yes, but if they've got a drive they don't need to rent a resident's
parking space.
 Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are discussing that amount of
extra pollution created by a car parked on the road outside a house,
versus on the drive. Which is likely to be zero, or even negative.
That is of less importance than you suggest. It's clear that you
regard it as a central issue (and I'm not saying that your thinking is
totally unreasonable),
I responding to the earlier assertion that the council was charging
people to park on the road, because it creates "more pollution".
Yes, I know. Several people (moi included) have responded to that in
various wayss.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
but you are comparing apples and oranges. The council cannot charge
you or me for parking on our own driveways. But they have the legal
power to charge on whatever basis they think fit when it comes to
street-parking or parking in a council-owned car-park.
That is the straightforward matter of it and many share your distaste
for such the detail of meddling in private affairs whilst accepting
that charges may need to be made.
Why do charges *have* to be made, in the name of pollution etc - it's
just a cash-cow.
There, I think, we will differ.

In order for residents to benefit from a RPZ, others have to suffer for
it, by reason of not be ing able to use the zone for parking.

Isn't that so?

I can concede that the "emissions" issue contains its own internal
contradictions, but at base, it is not unreasonable for the local
authority to seek to make sure that a RPZ is fully paid for by its
beneficiaries and not by its victims.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to
pay  it if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding
somewhere else to park your car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of
parking in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an
absurd strategy.
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to pay
for a parking space.
Another point which could have been made here is that climbing the
housing ladder often involves moving onward and upward to property with
bigger and better facilities, including a garage and/or a parking space
off-road.

That is frequently, perhaps usually, achieved without moving so fdar as
to disrupt the things you mentioned. I have lived within the same
district council area since late 1982 (and have moved several times).
Not a single child had to change primary or secondary school.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
 What people are complaining about is the council seizing what used
to be  free parking, and starting to charge for it.
Every street parking meter, every pay and display machine, every
parking attendant (neé traffic warden) was brought into being on that
basis: what had been free parking is now charged for. It isn't novel.
What's novel(-ish) is the extension of the schemes from a few central
largely non-residential roads, into the suburbs.
Well... true!

But if the sainted residents of a terraced street don't want a RPZ (and
the attendant detriment to others), they need to say so. Or not to make
a fuss about stranger parking in the first place.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese
system whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road
you have  to be able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to
park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing, with
many, MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED BY FORMER
COUNCILS.
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could
open  a car park on
 In most places with residents' parking schemes the is NO such land
available. Pretty much every WW2 bombsite has now been redeveloped,
for  example (although last time I was there, one remained in
Peterborough  city centre).
Other residential locations are available.
See previous remarks about uprooting one's whole life.
See previous remarks about it not needing a shift from one town to another.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
I wouldn't live in an urban centre either. Well, not unless I had
absolutely no choice.
Are you conflating my indicative example of Peterborough with the
concept of "urban centre"?
My dad lived in Peterborough at one time. I can't say I'm totally
familiar with the place, but it does have a central area with all the
usual dacilities and difficulties.
Post by Roland Perry
I lived very happily a few hundred yards
from Brentwood Station for several years. There was no Residents'
Parking scheme for the simple reason the busy road had yellow lines,
but I had two off-street car parking places.
That's the way to go!
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Roland Perry
2024-11-12 06:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
The council cannot charge you or me for parking on our own
driveways. But they have the legal power to charge on whatever basis
they think fit when it comes to street-parking or parking in a
council-owned car-park.
That is the straightforward matter of it and many share your
distaste for such the detail of meddling in private affairs whilst
accepting that charges may need to be made.
Why do charges *have* to be made, in the name of pollution etc -
it's just a cash-cow.
There, I think, we will differ.
In order for residents to benefit from a RPZ, others have to suffer for
it, by reason of not be ing able to use the zone for parking.
Isn't that so?
When I lived in Cambridge 20yrs ago the charge for RP permits was
modest, but getting day-permits for tradesmen etc was a nightmare.
(One of my neighbours out Ely-way is a builder and he refuses work
in Cambridge, which will tend to push up prices for residents wanting
work done there.) I was also a little put out by the way the City was
zoned, so I couldn't for example easily go visit friends in a different
zone, by car.
Post by JNugent
I can concede that the "emissions" issue contains its own internal
contradictions, but at base, it is not unreasonable for the local
authority to seek to make sure that a RPZ is fully paid for by its
beneficiaries and not by its victims.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to
pay  it if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding
somewhere else to park your car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of
parking in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an
absurd strategy.
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to
pay for a parking space.
Another point which could have been made here is that climbing the
housing ladder often involves moving onward and upward to property with
bigger and better facilities, including a garage and/or a parking space
off-road.
That is frequently, perhaps usually, achieved without moving so fdar as
to disrupt the things you mentioned. I have lived within the same
district council area since late 1982 (and have moved several times).
Not a single child had to change primary or secondary school.
I lived in four different houses in Rushcliffe (it was 'complicated')
and the third (and one I stayed in longest) was outside the catchment
area for the childrens' secondary school. But once your foot is in the
door they can't disenfranchise you. The catchment areas for primary
schools are even smaller.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
 What people are complaining about is the council seizing what used
to be  free parking, and starting to charge for it.
Every street parking meter, every pay and display machine, every
parking attendant (neé traffic warden) was brought into being on that
basis: what had been free parking is now charged for. It isn't novel.
What's novel(-ish) is the extension of the schemes from a few
central largely non-residential roads, into the suburbs.
Well... true!
But if the sainted residents of a terraced street don't want a RPZ (and
the attendant detriment to others), they need to say so.
One resident can't veto the scheme though.
Post by JNugent
Or not to make a fuss about stranger parking in the first place.
FSVO "stranger". At one place there was RPZ which meant our nanny
couldn't park in the street, and she was there 5 days a week, also of
course wanting to take the children out on trips.

Cambridge has a policy of pulling up the ladder, and won't issue permits
to 'new' residents if the house has just been built, converted into
flats or whatever. Not all residents are equal!
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese
system whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road
you have  to be able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to
park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing,
with many, MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED
BY FORMER COUNCILS.
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could
open  a car park on
 In most places with residents' parking schemes the is NO such land
available. Pretty much every WW2 bombsite has now been redeveloped,
for  example (although last time I was there, one remained in
Peterborough  city centre).
Other residential locations are available.
See previous remarks about uprooting one's whole life.
See previous remarks about it not needing a shift from one town to another.
A place like Cambridge, in order to move to a house outside the RPzones,
you'd pretty much be forced to uproot much of your life.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
I wouldn't live in an urban centre either. Well, not unless I had
absolutely no choice.
Are you conflating my indicative example of Peterborough with the
concept of "urban centre"?
My dad lived in Peterborough at one time. I can't say I'm totally
familiar with the place, but it does have a central area with all the
usual dacilities and difficulties.
Central Peterborough is a reasonable place to live. Walking distance to
the station, shops etc.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
I lived very happily a few hundred yards from Brentwood Station for
several years. There was no Residents' Parking scheme for the simple
reason the busy road had yellow lines, but I had two off-street car
parking places.
That's the way to go!
I moved from there to a small town in Oxfordshire, 200yr old house on
the High St. Again, yellow lines, but two off-street parking places in a
sort of courtyard. And a third space the neighbours rarely used, so we
could borrow it.
--
Roland Perry
Pamela
2024-11-12 11:47:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Another point which could have been made here is that climbing the
housing ladder often involves moving onward and upward to property
with bigger and better facilities, including a garage and/or a
parking space off-road.
That is frequently, perhaps usually, achieved without moving so far
as to disrupt the things you mentioned. I have lived within the same
district council area since late 1982 (and have moved several times).
Not a single child had to change primary or secondary school.
I lived in four different houses in Rushcliffe (it was 'complicated')
and the third (and one I stayed in longest) was outside the catchment
area for the childrens' secondary school. But once your foot is in the
door they can't disenfranchise you. The catchment areas for primary
schools are even smaller.
I'm told families move to Rushcliffe mainly to be in the catchment area of
the local schools. Although I was brought up there many years ago (Lady
Bay), I can't say the schools then were all that notable but it was a
different era.

I still have relatives in West Bridgford but few have moved as much as you.
Four moves is a lot. Presumably not all were within WB. Nice area and not
like Nottingham city which is now effectively bankrupt.
Roland Perry
2024-11-12 17:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Another point which could have been made here is that climbing the
housing ladder often involves moving onward and upward to property
with bigger and better facilities, including a garage and/or a
parking space off-road.
That is frequently, perhaps usually, achieved without moving so far
as to disrupt the things you mentioned. I have lived within the same
district council area since late 1982 (and have moved several times).
Not a single child had to change primary or secondary school.
I lived in four different houses in Rushcliffe (it was 'complicated')
and the third (and one I stayed in longest) was outside the catchment
area for the childrens' secondary school. But once your foot is in the
door they can't disenfranchise you. The catchment areas for primary
schools are even smaller.
I'm told families move to Rushcliffe mainly to be in the catchment area of
the local schools.
There's only really one state secondary which qualifies for that...
Post by Pamela
Although I was brought up there many years ago (Lady Bay), I can't say
the schools then were all that notable but it was a different era.
... and Lady Bay isn't in its catchment area.
Post by Pamela
I still have relatives in West Bridgford but few have moved as much as you.
Four moves is a lot. Presumably not all were within WB.
Yes, all in West Bridgford. Moved into a six month rental while we sold
previous family home elsewhere. But it took longer than expected, so
took a second six months on another rental. Finally got it all done and
bought a family home. Then we wanted to move back to Cambridge area once
both of the children had done the A-levels, and so went into rental
again while we sold the WB house and bought one in Cambs.
Post by Pamela
Nice area
It has its good and bad bits.
Post by Pamela
and not like Nottingham city which is now effectively bankrupt.
--
Roland Perry
Pamela
2024-11-13 13:38:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Pamela
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Another point which could have been made here is that climbing the
housing ladder often involves moving onward and upward to property
with bigger and better facilities, including a garage and/or a
parking space off-road.
That is frequently, perhaps usually, achieved without moving so far
as to disrupt the things you mentioned. I have lived within the
same district council area since late 1982 (and have moved several
times). Not a single child had to change primary or secondary
school.
I lived in four different houses in Rushcliffe (it was
'complicated') and the third (and one I stayed in longest) was
outside the catchment area for the childrens' secondary school. But
once your foot is in the door they can't disenfranchise you. The
catchment areas for primary schools are even smaller.
I'm told families move to Rushcliffe mainly to be in the catchment
area of the local schools.
There's only really one state secondary which qualifies for that...
Post by Pamela
Although I was brought up there many years ago (Lady Bay), I can't say
the schools then were all that notable but it was a different era.
... and Lady Bay isn't in its catchment area.
AIUI the best state school in the area is West Bridgford School, still
sometimes referred to by its 1970s name as "The Comp" but you may not
mean that because Lady Bay is in its catchment area. My relatives
noticed that over the years other state schools in the area have
produced exceptionally creative rankings using skewed exam data but none
were particularly academic or good.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Pamela
I still have relatives in West Bridgford but few have moved as much as
you. Four moves is a lot. Presumably not all were within WB.
Yes, all in West Bridgford. Moved into a six month rental while we
sold previous family home elsewhere. But it took longer than expected,
so took a second six months on another rental. Finally got it all done
and bought a family home. Then we wanted to move back to Cambridge
area once both of the children had done the A-levels, and so went into
rental again while we sold the WB house and bought one in Cambs.
All the moving sounds disruptive. I'm not sure I would have coped well
with it.
Roland Perry
2024-11-14 08:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Pamela
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Another point which could have been made here is that climbing the
housing ladder often involves moving onward and upward to property
with bigger and better facilities, including a garage and/or a
parking space off-road.
That is frequently, perhaps usually, achieved without moving so far
as to disrupt the things you mentioned. I have lived within the
same district council area since late 1982 (and have moved several
times). Not a single child had to change primary or secondary
school.
I lived in four different houses in Rushcliffe (it was
'complicated') and the third (and one I stayed in longest) was
outside the catchment area for the childrens' secondary school. But
once your foot is in the door they can't disenfranchise you. The
catchment areas for primary schools are even smaller.
I'm told families move to Rushcliffe mainly to be in the catchment
area of the local schools.
There's only really one state secondary which qualifies for that...
Post by Pamela
Although I was brought up there many years ago (Lady Bay), I can't say
the schools then were all that notable but it was a different era.
... and Lady Bay isn't in its catchment area.
AIUI the best state school in the area is West Bridgford School, still
sometimes referred to by its 1970s name as "The Comp"
That's the one.
Post by Pamela
but you may not
mean that because Lady Bay is in its catchment area.
Is it? Don't think it was when I was a governor there 15-20yrs ago. The
north-east boundary being the Radcliffe Road/Grantham Canal.
Post by Pamela
My relatives noticed that over the years other state schools in the
area have produced exceptionally creative rankings using skewed exam
data but none were particularly academic or good.
The other state school locally is the ex-secondary modern.
Post by Pamela
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Pamela
I still have relatives in West Bridgford but few have moved as much as
you. Four moves is a lot. Presumably not all were within WB.
Yes, all in West Bridgford. Moved into a six month rental while we
sold previous family home elsewhere. But it took longer than expected,
so took a second six months on another rental. Finally got it all done
and bought a family home. Then we wanted to move back to Cambridge
area once both of the children had done the A-levels, and so went into
rental again while we sold the WB house and bought one in Cambs.
All the moving sounds disruptive. I'm not sure I would have coped well
with it.
The actual process of moving was pretty easy, the bit which was a strain
was all the house-hunting (both for rental where there was a distinct
shortage of family-sized houses, and for the purchases where there was a
much bigger selection). Top-top: don't go to view a prospective rental
property taking the dog, if they have a "no pets" policy.

In each case one of the benefits was overlapping the tenancies, so it
didn't have to be all done in a single day. Then you also have
absurdities like the rental agreements say you UST NOT leave anything in
the wheelie bins, but what if you aren't moving out *on* bin-day. What
happens then?
--
Roland Perry
Pamela
2024-11-16 11:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Pamela
AIUI the best state school in the area is West Bridgford School, still
sometimes referred to by its 1970s name as "The Comp"
That's the one.
Post by Pamela
but you may not mean that because Lady Bay is in its catchment area.
Is it? Don't think it was when I was a governor there 15-20yrs ago.
The north-east boundary being the Radcliffe Road/Grantham Canal.
Kudos for your involvement with such high functioning school.
Roland Perry
2024-11-16 17:00:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Pamela
AIUI the best state school in the area is West Bridgford School, still
sometimes referred to by its 1970s name as "The Comp"
That's the one.
Post by Pamela
but you may not mean that because Lady Bay is in its catchment area.
Is it? Don't think it was when I was a governor there 15-20yrs ago.
The north-east boundary being the Radcliffe Road/Grantham Canal.
Kudos for your involvement with such high functioning school.
Thanks. I was a 'parent governor' and the only governor who didn't have
a demanding day-job. I was self employed and living close to the school,
so got volunteered to do about 10x as much work as any of the others
(especially supervisory work that needed attendance between 8am and
6pm).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
2024-11-03 13:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Yes, but if they've got a drive they don't need to rent a resident's parking
space.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are discussing that amount of
extra pollution created by a car parked on the road outside a house,
versus on the drive. Which is likely to be zero, or even negative.
No, we're not. We're discussing the pricing of residents' permits. If you've
got an off-road parking space then this discussion is entirely orthoganal to
you.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to pay for a
parking space.
What people are complaining about is the council seizing what used to be
free parking, and starting to charge for it.
As I've said elsewhere, residents' permits schemes are practically never
implemented unless the residents themselves want them.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could open a car
park on
In most places with residents' parking schemes the is NO such land
available. Pretty much every WW2 bombsite has now been redeveloped, for
example (although last time I was there, one remained in Peterborough
city centre).
You could buy a property and demolish it.

Mark
JNugent
2024-11-02 15:18:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
Nor can one parked on the drive !!!!
Yes, but if they've got a drive they don't need to rent a resident's parking
space.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Probably not, as otherwise they wouldn't need the Resident's Permit
scheme at all - it's strong evidence of a drastic shortage of parking
in the zone.
Well, if it really matters, they could move.
And get different jobs, put their kids in different schools, no longer
be near their families, friends and support groups. No, that's an absurd
strategy.
[To: RP]
Not really, and certainly not realistically.

I have moved house three times in the last forty-two years (the last
time thirty-two years ago). Every one of those four dwellings was in the
catchment area of the same secondary school(s). The maximum distance
between any two of them (by road) was about six miles.
Post by Mark Goodge
Well, the other alternative is to not complain when you have to pay for a
parking space.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Personally, I'd be quite happy with the UK adopting the Japanese system
whereby in order to register a vehicle for use on the road you have to be
able to demonstrate that you have somewhere to park it.
That's Uber-preposterous, given the current state of housing, with many,
MANY, of the off-street parking opportunities BANNED BY FORMER COUNCILS.
It would be a business opprtunity for people with land they could open a car
park on
I remember a proposed scheme in Liverpool (maybe twenty years ago, seen
from afar), entitled "Pathfinders". It was aimed at regenerating
terraced street areas which had come down in the world. One part of the
proposal was to demolish every house (about forty-three dwellings) on
one side of the street where five generations of family members
(including, at times, myself) lived over a period of about 1946 to about
2015.

The purpose? To provide car-parking spaces for the larger houses (many,
unfortunately, in HMO use, which is a disaster for parking provision,
especially where there are yellow lines double yellow lines) on the
adjacent "street" which is a major radial route, part of A57. I don't
know what the financial arrangements would have been, but it attracted a
lot of opposition and was abandoned.

But it was courageous.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Spike
2024-11-01 16:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[…]
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Roland Perry
<sigh> A stored vehicle (parked using a residents permit on the highway)
generates no emissions at all.
It can't get there without emissions, though.
[…]

A fair system, which is doubtless what councillors don’t appear to want in
their unseemly rush to raise money, would be to base the parking permit
charge on a) the actual vehicle mileage as shown on the MoT certificate,
and b) its gCO2/km rating. These are available online. Those responsible
for newer vehicles could self-certify, to be checked at their first MoT and
any shortfall made up and with penalties added.
--
Spike
Spike
2024-11-01 09:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
If you ned a resident's permit to park it, though, it's not being parked at
home. It's being parked on the public highway.
Post by Peter Walker
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Mark
It’s clear that the idea that ‘the heaviest polluters pay most’ doesn’t
support the rezzies parking charge, otherwise a heavily-polluting vehicle
that doesn’t move from its spot 24/7/365 and therefore doesn’t pollute,
shouldn’t pay anything.

A fair system, which is doubtless what councillors don’t appear to want in
their unseemly rush to raise money, would be to base the parking permit
charge on a) the actual vehicle mileage as shown on the MoT certificate,
and b) its gCO2/km rating. These are available online.
--
Spike
Les. Hayward
2024-11-01 10:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it if you
don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else to park your
car.
Mark
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
Jon Ribbens
2024-11-01 14:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Spike
2024-11-01 16:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[…]
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
It appears that land will soon become available from the selling-up of
family-held farms, due to the ‘change’ that is about to sweep the country.
--
Spike
Roger Hayter
2024-11-01 21:17:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
[…]
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
It appears that land will soon become available from the selling-up of
family-held farms, due to the ‘change’ that is about to sweep the country.
It will be snapped up by the big agricultural companies, keen to get their
hands on the subsidies that go with it.
--
Roger Hayter
miked
2024-11-04 23:30:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
It appears that land will soon become available from the selling-up of
family-held farms, due to the ‘change’ that is about to sweep the country.
It will be snapped up by the big agricultural companies, keen to get their
hands on the subsidies that go with it.
Are the subsidies going to continue? Didnt the old tory govt introduced
a new agricultural policy last spring that would gradually reduce them
with the idea of getting eventually phasing them out entirely.

mike
Les. Hayward
2024-11-01 17:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Fortunately I have four acres to park on. The problem is that clever
schemes such as the one I mentioned have the rather undesirable effect
of ruining business in the area, apart from being a damned nuisance to
local residents. I have never been comfortable about either the legal or
moral issues regarding councils seizing streets as revenue-raising car
parks.
Jon Ribbens
2024-11-01 19:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Fortunately I have four acres to park on. The problem is that clever
schemes such as the one I mentioned have the rather undesirable effect
of ruining business in the area, apart from being a damned nuisance to
local residents. I have never been comfortable about either the legal or
moral issues regarding councils seizing streets as revenue-raising car
parks.
Surely both legally and morally, the council is the democratically
elected representative of the people, so them deciding what to do
with public land is far preferable to random individuals just
arbitrarily seizing bits of of it for their private use?
Roland Perry
2024-11-02 07:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Fortunately I have four acres to park on. The problem is that clever
schemes such as the one I mentioned have the rather undesirable effect
of ruining business in the area, apart from being a damned nuisance to
local residents. I have never been comfortable about either the legal or
moral issues regarding councils seizing streets as revenue-raising car
parks.
Surely both legally and morally, the council is the democratically
elected representative of the people, so them deciding what to do
with public land is far preferable to random individuals just
arbitrarily seizing bits of of it for their private use?
Sadly yhose elected representaives have form for doing completely
bonkers things that most of the citizens don't agree with - not even
those whose party political allegiance is the same as that controlling
the council.

You can't get them out of office until the next elections, and by them
people might have other policies which trump(sic) those they have a chip
on their shoulder about.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
2024-11-01 21:19:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Fortunately I have four acres to park on. The problem is that clever
schemes such as the one I mentioned have the rather undesirable effect
of ruining business in the area, apart from being a damned nuisance to
local residents. I have never been comfortable about either the legal or
moral issues regarding councils seizing streets as revenue-raising car
parks.
I don't know about your council, but where I live they will only implement a
residents' parking scheme if at least 80% of the residents of the street
vote for it.

Mark
Roland Perry
2024-11-02 07:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Fortunately I have four acres to park on. The problem is that clever
schemes such as the one I mentioned have the rather undesirable effect
of ruining business in the area, apart from being a damned nuisance to
local residents. I have never been comfortable about either the legal or
moral issues regarding councils seizing streets as revenue-raising car
parks.
I don't know about your council, but where I live they will only implement a
residents' parking scheme if at least 80% of the residents of the street
vote for it.
That's a useful way of reducing the conflict, but do the residents fully
take into account aspects of the policy such as "no new permits for
incomers" and so on?

My daughter lives in a large social housing complex in London, and all
the surrounding streets are either no-parking or residents-only. When
the development was built, it was stipulated that none of the residents
would be allowed a permit, and on-site there's allocated parking for
about 1% of the tenants.

Now that this new development dominates the local scene, I bet they
won't re-run that referendum.

ps The closest pay-for parking is at a supermarket about a mile away.
Which is expensive, and only sufficient for actual customers. My
work-around, when visiting by car is essential**, is a different and
closer supermarket with 1hr free parking (you can't pay for more).

pps In many other countries they'd have built a massive underground
carpark underneath the accommodation, but UK Housing Associations
aren't into that kind of thing.

** What is "essential", well things like delivering furniture, or
accompanying my late wife who was in a wheelchair, or actually getting
there at all when there's a train strike, or on a Sunday morning when
they can't be bothered to run any trains.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2024-11-02 08:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Fortunately I have four acres to park on. The problem is that clever
schemes such as the one I mentioned have the rather undesirable effect
of ruining business in the area, apart from being a damned nuisance to
local residents. I have never been comfortable about either the legal or
moral issues regarding councils seizing streets as revenue-raising car
parks.
I don't know about your council, but where I live they will only implement a
residents' parking scheme if at least 80% of the residents of the street
vote for it.
That's a useful way of reducing the conflict, but do the residents
fully take into account aspects of the policy such as "no new permits
for incomers" and so on?
My daughter lives in a large social housing complex in London, and all
the surrounding streets are either no-parking or residents-only. When
the development was built, it was stipulated that none of the residents
would be allowed a permit, and on-site there's allocated parking for
about 1% of the tenants.
Now that this new development dominates the local scene, I bet they
won't re-run that referendum.
ps The closest pay-for parking is at a supermarket about a mile away.
Which is expensive, and only sufficient for actual customers. My
work-around, when visiting by car is essential**, is a different and
closer supermarket with 1hr free parking (you can't pay for more).
pps In many other countries they'd have built a massive underground
carpark underneath the accommodation, but UK Housing Associations
aren't into that kind of thing.
** What is "essential", well things like delivering furniture, or
accompanying my late wife who was in a wheelchair, or actually getting
there at all when there's a train strike, or on a Sunday morning when
they can't be bothered to run any trains.
Update: I'm going to add Xmas Eve, Xmas Day and Boxing Day (& maybe the
day after), for times when trying to use public transport would be
futile.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2024-11-02 15:20:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Fortunately I have four acres to park on. The problem is that clever
schemes such as the one I mentioned have the rather undesirable effect
of ruining business in the area, apart from being a damned nuisance to
local residents. I have never been comfortable about either the legal or
moral issues regarding councils seizing streets as revenue-raising car
parks.
I don't know about your council, but where I live they will only implement a
residents' parking scheme if at least 80% of the residents of the street
vote for it.
In reality, they are not the people who should have all of the say on
such matters.

Others are prejudiced by RPZs and should also be consulted and entitled
to vote.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Mark Goodge
2024-11-03 14:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
I don't know about your council, but where I live they will only implement a
residents' parking scheme if at least 80% of the residents of the street
vote for it.
In reality, they are not the people who should have all of the say on
such matters.
Others are prejudiced by RPZs and should also be consulted and entitled
to vote.
Yes, but the point is that other people aren't complaining about the cost of
them. And, at least in my experience, other road users are informed in
advance and given the opportunity to comment. The 80% of residents in favour
is just one necessary condition, there are others. The question of where
displaced parking will go is an important consideration; one well-known
consequence of implenting an RP system is that it simply shifts the problem
to other residential streets. And sometimes, that's actually a worse place
for it to be an issue. So it isn't a given that a scheme will be implemented
even if the residents are 100% in favour.

Mark
JNugent
2024-11-03 17:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
I don't know about your council, but where I live they will only implement a
residents' parking scheme if at least 80% of the residents of the street
vote for it.
In reality, they are not the people who should have all of the say on
such matters.
Others are prejudiced by RPZs and should also be consulted and entitled
to vote.
Yes, but the point is that other people aren't complaining about the cost of
them.
Are they actually given a formal opportunity to do so?

I for one have never been consulted in any form about a proposes RPZ.
Post by Mark Goodge
And, at least in my experience, other road users are informed in
advance and given the opportunity to comment.
How?

If I were consulted, I would object to every scheme on the basic
principle that the highway is for everyone.
Post by Mark Goodge
The 80% of residents in favour
is just one necessary condition, there are others. The question of where
displaced parking will go is an important consideration; one well-known
consequence of implenting an RP system is that it simply shifts the problem
to other residential streets. And sometimes, that's actually a worse place
for it to be an issue. So it isn't a given that a scheme will be implemented
even if the residents are 100% in favour.
There are better imaginable "solutions". You have more than hinted at that.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Mark Goodge
2024-11-04 20:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
I don't know about your council, but where I live they will only implement a
residents' parking scheme if at least 80% of the residents of the street
vote for it.
In reality, they are not the people who should have all of the say on
such matters.
Others are prejudiced by RPZs and should also be consulted and entitled
to vote.
Yes, but the point is that other people aren't complaining about the cost of
them.
Are they actually given a formal opportunity to do so?
Well, they wouldn't be complaining about the cost of them, since they're not
paying for them!

If you mean are they given a formal opportunity to respond to a
consultation, the answer is yes - like any other TRO, it has to be published
in advance and sufficient time given for people to comment before it can be
implemented. But, of course, it's impossible to personally contact every
driver who might possibly park in the street, so the notification has to go
out through the normal publicity channels - via the media, social media and
the highway authority's website.
Post by JNugent
I for one have never been consulted in any form about a proposes RPZ.
Post by Mark Goodge
And, at least in my experience, other road users are informed in
advance and given the opportunity to comment.
How?
A notice has to be put up in the street giving details of the proposed
scheme, so anyone who does park there should see it. It will also be on the
highway authority's website and media feeds.
Post by JNugent
If I were consulted, I would object to every scheme on the basic
principle that the highway is for everyone.
That's not a valid objection. At least, it's not a valid objection to any
specific scheme. If you would like the law changed so that RP schemes are
outlawed, that's a perfectly legitimate aim. But that's not relevant to the
highway authority. The highway authority has to follow the law as it is, not
as you or others might like it to be.
Post by JNugent
Post by Mark Goodge
The 80% of residents in favour
is just one necessary condition, there are others. The question of where
displaced parking will go is an important consideration; one well-known
consequence of implenting an RP system is that it simply shifts the problem
to other residential streets. And sometimes, that's actually a worse place
for it to be an issue. So it isn't a given that a scheme will be implemented
even if the residents are 100% in favour.
There are better imaginable "solutions". You have more than hinted at that.
There are sometimes better solutions. There aren't always better solutions.

As a local councillor, I do get informed of proposals for new Residents'
Parking schemes and, if it's in my ward, I have a direct say on them. I
can't veto them (or impose them), but my opinion does carry weight. And,
FWIW, I do take a lot of persuading that an RP scheme is appropriate. My
test for whether it's an acceptable solution broadly revolve around these
requirements:

1. The overwhelming majority of householders living in the street must
support it (this is a requirement of the highway authority anyway, but I
fully agree with it).

2. The householders in the street must genuinely have no available
off-street parking either on their own property or within reasonable walking
distance of their property. Some people want residents' parking as well as
their own back yard. I don't think that's a good enough reason.

3. The problem experienced by the householders must be significantly more
than merely not being able to park in front of their own house. If they can
park in their own street then I wouldn't normally consider that a problem.
It only becomes a problem if they're having to park several streets away.

4. The likely effects of displaced parking as a consequence of the scheme
have been analysed and are not expected to create the same but worse issue
in nearby streets.

And, not a requirement as such because it doesn't always apply, but it is an
important consideration, particularly if any of the above are borderline:

5. The parking by non-residents is causing other problems in addition to
those experienced by residents. For example, traffic in residential streets
generally follows a broadly tidal flow, out in the morning and back in the
evening. If a significant number of people are heading in the opposite
direction in order to park in those streets (and then go home afterwards),
that can overload junctions and generate congestion which ripples out well
beyond the residential area itself. Also, daytime is typically when
tradesmen and delivery vans visit, and they also need somewhere on the
street to pull over in order to work or deliver. If they can't do that, then
that has a knock-on effect on their work as well as risking double-parking
which, again, creates congestion and safety issues.

So RP schemes can be justified, but there is, in my opinion, a high bar to
doing so. It has to be a genuine need, not just a want.

Mark
Adam Funk
2024-11-07 12:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
5. The parking by non-residents is causing other problems in addition to
those experienced by residents. For example, traffic in residential streets
generally follows a broadly tidal flow, out in the morning and back in the
evening. If a significant number of people are heading in the opposite
direction in order to park in those streets (and then go home afterwards),
that can overload junctions and generate congestion which ripples out well
beyond the residential area itself. Also, daytime is typically when
tradesmen and delivery vans visit, and they also need somewhere on the
street to pull over in order to work or deliver. If they can't do that, then
that has a knock-on effect on their work as well as risking double-parking
which, again, creates congestion and safety issues.
I think part of the problem there comes from the way councils are told
to regulate and enforce parking. It seems obvious to me that it would
be in the public interest to provide designated short-term parking
spaces for deliveries even in places where parking is otherwise
heavily restricted (for policy reasons), and to let delivery and trade
vehicles use resident-designated spaces with a time limit (maybe using
a clock-display like the one on a blue badge). Instead, we have a
situation where they often have no practical choice but to park
illegally and hope for the best.

New York City has a system where businesses that agree in advance not
to dispute parking violations get a discount on the fines!

<https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/commercial-fleet-program.page>
Mark Goodge
2024-11-08 14:57:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mark Goodge
5. The parking by non-residents is causing other problems in addition to
those experienced by residents. For example, traffic in residential streets
generally follows a broadly tidal flow, out in the morning and back in the
evening. If a significant number of people are heading in the opposite
direction in order to park in those streets (and then go home afterwards),
that can overload junctions and generate congestion which ripples out well
beyond the residential area itself. Also, daytime is typically when
tradesmen and delivery vans visit, and they also need somewhere on the
street to pull over in order to work or deliver. If they can't do that, then
that has a knock-on effect on their work as well as risking double-parking
which, again, creates congestion and safety issues.
I think part of the problem there comes from the way councils are told
to regulate and enforce parking. It seems obvious to me that it would
be in the public interest to provide designated short-term parking
spaces for deliveries even in places where parking is otherwise
heavily restricted (for policy reasons), and to let delivery and trade
vehicles use resident-designated spaces with a time limit (maybe using
a clock-display like the one on a blue badge). Instead, we have a
situation where they often have no practical choice but to park
illegally and hope for the best.
Where I live, loading is permitted in RP areas (and loading means the same
there as it does when used as a justification for parking on yellow lines),
so delivery vans won't be ticketed so long all they're doing is making
actual deliveries. It's just parking which is prohibited without a permit.

Commercial vehicles which need to park for longer (eg, a plumber's van
parked outside a customer's house while they work) can buy a daily trade
permit for a fiver. I think that's a reasonable fee, given that it's almost
always a lot less than they'll be charging their customers and, if they
really need to, they can include it in their bill.

And, because it's an RP zone, you can pretty much guarantee that there will
be space on the street during the working day for delivery vans and
tradesmen. So in that sense the system is working as intended.
Post by Adam Funk
New York City has a system where businesses that agree in advance not
to dispute parking violations get a discount on the fines!
<https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/commercial-fleet-program.page>
I don't think that would be legal in the UK. Sometimes, tickets are issued
in error, and people always have the right to appeal against them. I don't
think it would be acceptable to create a system which allows people to trade
away their right to justice.

Mark
Adam Funk
2024-11-08 16:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mark Goodge
5. The parking by non-residents is causing other problems in addition to
those experienced by residents. For example, traffic in residential streets
generally follows a broadly tidal flow, out in the morning and back in the
evening. If a significant number of people are heading in the opposite
direction in order to park in those streets (and then go home afterwards),
that can overload junctions and generate congestion which ripples out well
beyond the residential area itself. Also, daytime is typically when
tradesmen and delivery vans visit, and they also need somewhere on the
street to pull over in order to work or deliver. If they can't do that, then
that has a knock-on effect on their work as well as risking double-parking
which, again, creates congestion and safety issues.
I think part of the problem there comes from the way councils are told
to regulate and enforce parking. It seems obvious to me that it would
be in the public interest to provide designated short-term parking
spaces for deliveries even in places where parking is otherwise
heavily restricted (for policy reasons), and to let delivery and trade
vehicles use resident-designated spaces with a time limit (maybe using
a clock-display like the one on a blue badge). Instead, we have a
situation where they often have no practical choice but to park
illegally and hope for the best.
Where I live, loading is permitted in RP areas (and loading means the same
there as it does when used as a justification for parking on yellow lines),
so delivery vans won't be ticketed so long all they're doing is making
actual deliveries. It's just parking which is prohibited without a permit.
Commercial vehicles which need to park for longer (eg, a plumber's van
parked outside a customer's house while they work) can buy a daily trade
permit for a fiver. I think that's a reasonable fee, given that it's almost
always a lot less than they'll be charging their customers and, if they
really need to, they can include it in their bill.
And, because it's an RP zone, you can pretty much guarantee that there will
be space on the street during the working day for delivery vans and
tradesmen. So in that sense the system is working as intended.
Sounds reasonable.
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Adam Funk
New York City has a system where businesses that agree in advance not
to dispute parking violations get a discount on the fines!
<https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/commercial-fleet-program.page>
I don't think that would be legal in the UK. Sometimes, tickets are issued
in error, and people always have the right to appeal against them. I don't
think it would be acceptable to create a system which allows people to trade
away their right to justice.
I'm not surprised.
JNugent
2024-11-01 18:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
Exactly (though I would amend your "park" to "garage").
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Roland Perry
2024-11-01 19:04:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
2024-11-01 21:19:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
Then you got an incredibly good bargain, for upkeep in perpetuity at public
expense. And then you want to park on it too!
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
2024-11-02 07:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
Then you got an incredibly good bargain, for upkeep in perpetuity at public
expense. And then you want to park on it too!
First of all it doesn't require maintenance - the council doesn't even
maintain through-roads ten times the age, littered with potholes.

Secondly, I'd prefer to have it as reserved parking for me, and pay any
necessary maintenance as it arises - the way one does for the drive.
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
2024-11-02 09:40:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
Then you got an incredibly good bargain, for upkeep in perpetuity at public
expense. And then you want to park on it too!
First of all it doesn't require maintenance - the council doesn't even
maintain through-roads ten times the age, littered with potholes.
Secondly, I'd prefer to have it as reserved parking for me, and pay any
necessary maintenance as it arises - the way one does for the drive.
The tragedy of the commons! If everyone along the road used the area from the
property line to the centre of the road for parking or other private
enterprises then there would be no way to ever drive to your property.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
2024-11-02 15:55:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
Then you got an incredibly good bargain, for upkeep in perpetuity at public
expense. And then you want to park on it too!
First of all it doesn't require maintenance - the council doesn't even
maintain through-roads ten times the age, littered with potholes.
Secondly, I'd prefer to have it as reserved parking for me, and pay any
necessary maintenance as it arises - the way one does for the drive.
The tragedy of the commons! If everyone along the road used the area from the
property line to the centre of the road
Not needed all the way to the centre for parking, there are very few
roads that narrow.
Post by Roger Hayter
for parking or other private enterprises then there would be no way to
ever drive to your property.
Not every road has houses both sides, which raises the interesting
question of who would have rights on the part from the centre line to a
verge then brick wall around some unconnected person's property.
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
2024-11-02 17:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
Then you got an incredibly good bargain, for upkeep in perpetuity at public
expense. And then you want to park on it too!
First of all it doesn't require maintenance - the council doesn't even
maintain through-roads ten times the age, littered with potholes.
Secondly, I'd prefer to have it as reserved parking for me, and pay any
necessary maintenance as it arises - the way one does for the drive.
The tragedy of the commons! If everyone along the road used the area from the
property line to the centre of the road
Not needed all the way to the centre for parking, there are very few
roads that narrow.
Post by Roger Hayter
for parking or other private enterprises then there would be no way to
ever drive to your property.
Not every road has houses both sides, which raises the interesting
question of who would have rights on the part from the centre line to a
verge then brick wall around some unconnected person's property.
An academic point, as having ownership of the subsoil below a public highway
(and by no means all developers actually sell the land that way) grants you no
useful rights more than, say, me over said highway. It is absolutely
irrelevant. Otherwise perhaps the owner of a property on the other side of the
road, especially on a corner, might be able to rent out half a dozen parking
places apart from the ones in front of his house.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
2024-11-03 15:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
Then you got an incredibly good bargain, for upkeep in perpetuity at public
expense. And then you want to park on it too!
First of all it doesn't require maintenance - the council doesn't even
maintain through-roads ten times the age, littered with potholes.
Secondly, I'd prefer to have it as reserved parking for me, and pay any
necessary maintenance as it arises - the way one does for the drive.
The tragedy of the commons! If everyone along the road used the area from the
property line to the centre of the road
Not needed all the way to the centre for parking, there are very few
roads that narrow.
Post by Roger Hayter
for parking or other private enterprises then there would be no way to
ever drive to your property.
Not every road has houses both sides, which raises the interesting
question of who would have rights on the part from the centre line to a
verge then brick wall around some unconnected person's property.
An academic point, as having ownership of the subsoil below a public highway
(and by no means all developers actually sell the land that way)
Who *do* they sell the land to, then (genuine question).
Post by Roger Hayter
grants you no useful rights more than, say, me over said highway. It is
absolutely irrelevant.
But neither should the council have the power to use it as a form of
paid-for on-street parking.
Post by Roger Hayter
Otherwise perhaps the owner of a property on the other side of the
road, especially on a corner, might be able to rent out half a dozen parking
places apart from the ones in front of his house.
Why not? Swings and roundabouts. As it happens my house has a double
garage (as usual full of anything but cars) and in front sufficient
off-street parking for three cars if they want to come and go easily,
and four if I pack them in. The other half of the semi has no garage and
just enough space for one car. This is just a historical accident
arising from the shape of the plots.
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
2024-11-03 18:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Les. Hayward
Post by Mark Goodge
It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. You don't have to pay it
if you don't want to. You have the choice of finding somewhere else
to park your car.
I can't entirely agree. Everyone already pays for the upkeep of the
roads and what annoys me is those councils who 'commandeer' quiet back
streets where there are no traffic problems whatever, and then install
'pay with dismay' machines to park there. Weymouth being a prime example.
I think the point is that if you want to park your car, you should
buy some land to park it on.
I did buy some land, from the developer. Who tarmaced it at my expense,
then handed it over to the council for "adoption".
Then you got an incredibly good bargain, for upkeep in perpetuity at public
expense. And then you want to park on it too!
First of all it doesn't require maintenance - the council doesn't even
maintain through-roads ten times the age, littered with potholes.
Secondly, I'd prefer to have it as reserved parking for me, and pay any
necessary maintenance as it arises - the way one does for the drive.
The tragedy of the commons! If everyone along the road used the area from the
property line to the centre of the road
Not needed all the way to the centre for parking, there are very few
roads that narrow.
Post by Roger Hayter
for parking or other private enterprises then there would be no way to
ever drive to your property.
Not every road has houses both sides, which raises the interesting
question of who would have rights on the part from the centre line to a
verge then brick wall around some unconnected person's property.
An academic point, as having ownership of the subsoil below a public highway
(and by no means all developers actually sell the land that way)
Who *do* they sell the land to, then (genuine question).
Sometimes they keep it (as the Londonderry estate in mid-Wales did round here
when they sold off all the useful land but not the river bed and the public
highways) but otherwise they give it to the council.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
grants you no useful rights more than, say, me over said highway. It is
absolutely irrelevant.
But neither should the council have the power to use it as a form of
paid-for on-street parking.
Why? It is a public highway like any other and the council has all the rights
granted to it over public highways. With respect, what is special about you as
an owner of the land under a public highway as apposed to, say, the Duke of
Westminster?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
Otherwise perhaps the owner of a property on the other side of the
road, especially on a corner, might be able to rent out half a dozen parking
places apart from the ones in front of his house.
Why not? Swings and roundabouts. As it happens my house has a double
garage (as usual full of anything but cars) and in front sufficient
off-street parking for three cars if they want to come and go easily,
and four if I pack them in. The other half of the semi has no garage and
just enough space for one car. This is just a historical accident
arising from the shape of the plots.
Because it is a public highway under the control of the highways authority!
--
Roger Hayter
Theo
2024-11-04 10:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Who *do* they sell the land to, then (genuine question).
Sometimes they keep it (as the Londonderry estate in mid-Wales did round here
when they sold off all the useful land but not the river bed and the public
highways) but otherwise they give it to the council.
Sometimes they try to auction it:
https://www.mchughandco.com/Auctions/Details.aspx?aid=1189&pid=5bd70f93-7e0f-4416-8255-65f1a9e4a303

Most of those are 'withdrawn' from auction, but it seems like this one sold
for £1:
https://www.mchughandco.com/Auctions/Details.aspx?aid=1184&pid=074b14fd-54a8-4db3-a8d9-426054e4302c

or £1000, with some bits of garden thrown in:
https://www.mchughandco.com/Auctions/Details.aspx?aid=1174&pid=63691b6e-94a7-49da-b7b8-91867f15bd7d

(if you buy it for the garden, I'm not sure what you then do with the road?)
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
grants you no useful rights more than, say, me over said highway. It is
absolutely irrelevant.
But neither should the council have the power to use it as a form of
paid-for on-street parking.
Why? It is a public highway like any other and the council has all the rights
granted to it over public highways. With respect, what is special about you as
an owner of the land under a public highway as apposed to, say, the Duke of
Westminster?
Does the freeholder get *any* rights or responsibilities to it, as in the
above examples? If buy that piece for £1, do I bear any maintenance costs?

(I suppose there might be air or mineral rights, but not very useful in a
residential cul de sac)

Theo
Roger Hayter
2024-11-04 12:58:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Theo
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Who *do* they sell the land to, then (genuine question).
Sometimes they keep it (as the Londonderry estate in mid-Wales did round here
when they sold off all the useful land but not the river bed and the public
highways) but otherwise they give it to the council.
https://www.mchughandco.com/Auctions/Details.aspx?aid=1189&pid=5bd70f93-7e0f-4416-8255-65f1a9e4a303
Most of those are 'withdrawn' from auction, but it seems like this one sold
https://www.mchughandco.com/Auctions/Details.aspx?aid=1184&pid=074b14fd-54a8-4db3-a8d9-426054e4302c
https://www.mchughandco.com/Auctions/Details.aspx?aid=1174&pid=63691b6e-94a7-49da-b7b8-91867f15bd7d
(if you buy it for the garden, I'm not sure what you then do with the road?)
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roger Hayter
grants you no useful rights more than, say, me over said highway. It is
absolutely irrelevant.
But neither should the council have the power to use it as a form of
paid-for on-street parking.
Why? It is a public highway like any other and the council has all the rights
granted to it over public highways. With respect, what is special about you as
an owner of the land under a public highway as apposed to, say, the Duke of
Westminster?
Does the freeholder get *any* rights or responsibilities to it, as in the
above examples? If buy that piece for £1, do I bear any maintenance costs?
(I suppose there might be air or mineral rights, but not very useful in a
residential cul de sac)
Theo
I suppose that if the area were ever redeveloped, and the existing highways
officially closed, the buyer may then be the lucky owner of a ransom strip in
the middle of the development. But it seems extraordinarily unlikely.
--
Roger Hayter
Clive Page
2024-11-04 18:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Walker
My city council is proposing to charge for residents' parking permits based
on the emissions status of the vehicle concerned. Not the first in the UK.
Sound bites from councillors stress that they wish to improve air quality
by taxing the greatest polluters but ignore the idea that a stored vehicle
(parked at home) generates no emissions at all.
We already pay for the privilege of using cars on the public road via
Vehicle Excise Duty (Car Tax) so I wonder if there is any mileage in
claiming that this is double taxation and therefore immoral or unlawful?
Well local councils maybe. But our new Government seems to be trying very hard to get us to switch from public transport to using cars: rail fares to go up by more than the inflation rate (again), Railcards up by £5 (nearly 10%), bus-fare cap up from £2 to £3. But fuel duty frozen again. I was so confident that fuel duty would rise in the budget that I filled up my car in advance, and judging by the extra-long queues, lots of other motorists thought the same. We hadn't fully taken on board that the current Government thinks that public transport users are the cash cows, not motorists. Now we know better.
--
Clive Page
Loading...