Topic ID 3791
quote:Does anyone know any more about this? Little birdy told me colsultation for the above streets will be early Oct?
On Eastherts.gov.uk - [url="http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=5900"]Here[/url]
The following streets won't form part of the initial residents' parking zone, but will be consulted later to see if they want to be included in a new scheme at a later date: Davies Street Railway Place Talbot Street Currie Street Raynham Street Ware Road (part)
Reply ID 55096
I got a letter this week to say that as there are no longer any problems in Park Road, we would NOT be included in consultation. They have obviously never tried to fit anything wider than a bicycle between diagonally parked cars, as we have to every week.[:(]
Reply ID 55097
quote:EH!!!?!? So what about the enforcement of the single yellow line we do have and some response to the parking on the bend of the road which (IMHO) is a hazard as it creates a single lane carriageway and you can't see what's coming. Never mind the problems of the rubbish lorry, etc. trying to get to the top of Park Road. I'm not convinced resident's parking is the only solution; a couple of tins of paint and some double yellows on the bend would at least improve safety.. it's often like a chicane past the bend! Do you have a contact for who we can write to about the on-going issues? Thanks!
Originally posted by newgirl
I got a letter this week to say that as there are no longer any problems in Park Road, we would NOT be included in consultation. They have obviously never tried to fit anything wider than a bicycle between diagonally parked cars, as we have to every week.[:(]
Reply ID 55130
Sorry - I threw the letter away in disgust thinking that there was never any use in making an effort to put your opinions forward to the council. I only got the letter because I objected last time that the yellow line was not going to be enough by itself and that it would cause exactly the problems that we now have. I wasn't saying that residents parking was the answer, just some further lines or restrictions. Councillor Hone lives in Park Road so she may be able to help.
Reply ID 56587
Pleased to see consultation on extending this now up and running. Vote Yes everybody!
Reply ID 56589
Did you notice that on the letter (posted to those who will be in the expansion of zone H3), the return envelope, the back of the response form and the letter itself have three different return postal addresses to use!! how confusing! perhaps a sign of things to come... Anyway, I will also be voting Yes. [:)]
Reply ID 56598
As a resident within these streets I am amazed people are so eager to pay to park outside their own houses! Even with the residents scheme it will still not guarantee you a space. My concern with this has always been that the District Council should be working with the Railway companies in order to provide better parking for commuters and not making residents pay. Why have the restrictions all day and why have them on Saturday? Having spoken to several people parking round these roads in the morning are parking here so they don't have to pay for parking in the town. When you accept a job you must work out how much you are going to pay for travelling. There are lots of people who live here who are very neighbourly but there are some who are not - is having a Resident's Parking scheme going to make any difference to them?
quote:
Originally posted by Andy L
Pleased to see consultation on extending this now up and running. Vote Yes everybody!
Reply ID 56616
quote:Absolutely agree!! but, in reality, that's not going to happen. At the risk of being just outside a parking permit scheme (which would reduce chances of parking anywhere near my own property to 0!) I am voting yes. I do feel sorry for the residents of Tamworth road! I also wish Edwardians all had cars.
Originally posted by Claudia
District Council should be working with the Railway companies in order to provide better parking for commuters
Reply ID 56667
KNM is spot on. The reality is that a parking scheme, while not what any of us want in an ideal world, is the least worst method for giving residents of these streets a chance of parking in the vague vicinity of their houses. The current situation is pretty dire, with people resorting to putting cones and bins outside their houses in an effort to protect 'their' parking spot (which it isn't, it's a public highway). A scheme would at least confine the chaos to people who actually live in the area.
Reply ID 56672
why dont they just create marked bays, with each resident being allowed to park outside their own house and that's it. If you have two cars, well you knew the score with parking before you moved there and having more than one car is just going to inconvenience another household. Simple!
Reply ID 56682
Re: Knew the score - for those that pruchased a house last week (god forbid) I cant argue with that! ... Some residents however will have purchased many moons ago, obviously accepting on-street parking but not accepting the parking schemes in and around Hertford East as they are a change to the surrounding area. E.g. I wouldnt buy a house if I knew in 10 years time there would be new nightclub built next door. (although I'm sure some of discover hertford's forums memebrs would [;)]) Re: Bays - I thought about this too! Some of the areas in the next phase of the parking scheme currently have cars parked on both sides all the way down the street, of which many cars mount the kerb to ensure the road is not blocked for normal traffic (been this way for many years, not ideal but it works). As these roads are quite narrow you could only fit marked bays down one side of the street and would have to stop people parking on the other side (via double yellow) and would therefore displace 50% of residents cars, let alone those who cant get permits. These people would have to park elsewhere and have a knock on effect to parking in surrounding area (ironically we are in this predicament now because of the knock on effect from the first phase of residents parking closer to Hertford East station). It does mention "Parking Bays" in the new proposal but I've no idea how they are going to-do it! Have asked the question and will let you know HDC Parking Service's response. I'll try and scan the map of the proposal and put it on the forums for those that are interested.
Reply ID 56782
According to the plan there will be parking down both sides of Raynham Street - this was my concern initially as you say if a yellow line is put down one side it will knock out more than 50%. When I first moved into the area no-one parked on one side of Raynham Street but obviously many more people with cars have moved in since then. I will also ask the question when I respond. I am not happy about the scheme at all because as far as I am concerned the Council is passing its problems to residents. Re: Bays - I thought about this too! Some of the areas in the next phase of the parking scheme currently have cars parked on both sides all the way down the street, of which many cars mount the kerb to ensure the road is not blocked for normal traffic (been this way for many years, not ideal but it works). As these roads are quite narrow you could only fit marked bays down one side of the street and would have to stop people parking on the other side (via double yellow) and would therefore displace 50% of residents cars, let alone those who cant get permits. These people would have to park elsewhere and have a knock on effect to parking in surrounding area (ironically we are in this predicament now because of the knock on effect from the first phase of residents parking closer to Hertford East station). It does mention "Parking Bays" in the new proposal but I've no idea how they are going to-do it! Have asked the question and will let you know HDC Parking Service's response. I'll try and scan the map of the proposal and put it on the forums for those that are interested. [/quote]
Reply ID 56798
I LOVE the letters we've had from local residents (hand delivered, both letters opposing each other!). - makes for a good morning read/giggle. Perhaps we should have a US style election campaign? I didn't know that the new scheme will be charging MORE for permits then residents in the existing one and there are obviously some areas in the draft proposal that either need to change and/or be clarified but pending some answered questions and a few plan changes from HDC Parking Services - I'm still in favour.
Reply ID 56819
One of those letters may have been mine - done in a bit of a rush, so not up to my normal standard, but anyway.. I'm most definitely opposed to the scheme as it stands, so can't just sit back and let it get railroaded though on the back of resident's apathy and the council's gerrymandering. Probably the ex-punk rocker in me I guess. ;-)
Reply ID 56835
ooh Pez! Now I know which letter is yours.. :) Completely understand some of your concerns, especially the lack of detail on the proposal (which I assume is an initial draft, not a final version?) From your letter Re: people who park in streets outside of the current permit zone to get to work are NOT commuters when they work in Hertford... surely anyone who parks these streets to get to work, no matter what their final destination, is a commuter. Although who can blame them from avoiding multi-story car park charges in Hertford! [;)] Also, If HDC applied permit only down both sides of Currie street, didn't force nose to tail parking, detailed the omitted kerbs and driveways, and kept the same permit price as per the first scheme.. would you still vote no?
Reply ID 56892
Well, if you removed those things that would pretty much remove the proposal anyway, or at least most of it.. :-) But I'd still vote no. Like so many government 'answers' it doesn't address the cause of the problem, it just brushes it out of sight, onto someone else, and/or hits people in the pocket - as if doing that makes everything alright again. It doesn't of course, the problem is still there. It's a terrible solution, where nobody really wins except the council. The residents don't really want it, they're only accepting it because they feel they're being forced into it. It also costs them money. The people who are allegedly causing the problem don't really want to park where they do, they're only doing so because the alternatives are not available or too expensive, and they definitely don't want this solution either because they'll have to go and park further and further away, until it becomes too unattractive to do so. Now, I don't really mind people parking in my street during the day, to be honest. I don't need to, I'm out working. It's a free country (arguably!) and I like to be able to park freely somewhere when I'm out somewhere - on holiday, or shopping, or whatever. So, live and let live, I reckon. It's an irritation, maybe even an annoyance, if I can't park somewhere near the house overnight, but that happens so often round this area anyway. I can kind of live with that, it just goes with the territory when you live in streets developed before the advent of mass-ownership of the car. In Currie Street, certainly at the southern (Ware Road) half, there are more cars owned by residents than can be accomodated at the kerbside at once. And that's assuming that people park 'sensibly' and don't waste vaulable space by bridging two potential parking spaces with one car, as you so often see. So we often park on the yellow lines, in Talbot Street, on Ware Road, in Raynham Street. It kind of works ok most of the time. But if we had to all rush out and move them around on a Saturday - or even weekday - morning to beat the impending deadline for the Controlled Parking start, can you imagine? There'd be wheelie bins and all sorts of other obstacles permanently left in the road. I guess marked bays *might* makes this slightly better, but they have those down the south side of the Tesco end of Railway Street, and they STILL park up on the kerb or over the markings! But anyway, despite the amount of times you see the strategy attempted (think 'Public Transport') you don't improve Bad Things by sabotaging or crippling the alternatives. If the council *really* wanted to do something useful about this they would make it more attractive for people to park where they should. How many parking bays are there at Hertford East station? How much is it to park there? How many houses and flats do the council allow planning permission for, with how many parking spaces? How cheap and convenient is the parking in and around the town? How safe is it for people to park their cars there? Just what are the 'reasons of safety' they keep citing on their proposals? Have we all been living in mortal danger for the last decades? Are we on the verge of seeing a mass-stampede to the offices of Injury Lawyers 4 U? And the cost of these permits - inconsistent as they are - many councils, even small borough councils, do these schemes completely free of charge (just Google for it to see a few), but if the council are meeting 'costs of signs, yellow lines, bay markings' etc then presumably they can produce on demand an exact breakdown of what those costs are, exactly how much they're getting from each affected household, and therefore how long it will take to write down that setup cost to zero, so that the permit charges go down to nothing? Or exactly how many extra traffic wardens they are now employing and will need to employ as a direct consequence? I doubt it. I bet they just stuck their fingers in the air and came up with any old figure - just because in this country every public body has to say "There will be a CHARGE for this service.." There's probably a deeper agenda at the heart of this, on a Green Ticket to do with discouraging people from using cars etc etc blah blah blah but, whatever you feel about that, this is NOT a good component of it. I know the 'planners' will get this through, I'm not naive enough to suppose that for one moment they will change their minds once they're set on it. But at least I can let them know what a bunch of inept, useless, bumbling, incompetent idiots they are. Phew! And I didn't even use my one of my favourite words - gerrymandering - this time either.. Even though that is extremely relevant to this..
Reply ID 56908
Pez, sorry to pick apart your feedback, was a big post!
quote:Certainly no apathy to be found in the area! - we've had a third letter distributed from a resident. Could the next letter (either for or against) include an after eight or something nice? Would get my vote. [^]
Originally posted by Pez
Well, if you removed those things that would pretty much remove the proposal Not sure I understand you here, ... having a permit scheme down both sides of your street... is the same as, having no permit scheme? ..government 'answer'.. nobody really wins.. the residents don't really want it .. being forced into it.. The whole parking scheme came about in the first place due to the plea of residents. This is not a cunning plan by government\council\evil axis forces to squeeze more tax and revenue out of us .. assuming that people park 'sensibly' .. it kind of works ok most of the time .. I agree with you here, at present, it’s not too much of a problem. What I am worried about is that Railway St are almost definitely in favour of extending the scheme (and I don’t blame them). Lets assume residents in Currie St and beyond vote 'no', the permit scheme then gets extended up to but excludes Currie St- as a result this will bring commuter parking a wee bit closer to home yes? This is the last proposal/change to the permit scheme in Hertford East; there will be no more funding or changes once it’s been put in place. So if you vote ‘no’, remain outside of the scheme, and then face problems – chin up, your stuffed! ...But if we had to all rush out and move them around on a Saturday - or even weekday - morning to beat the impending deadline for the Controlled Parking start... All rush out to move cars? Residents would have parking permits that allow them to park 24/7. Either you are not planning on buying a permit if the scheme goes ahead or you have more then 2 cars? Unless I’ve missed something else If the council *really* wanted to do something useful.. They would have built a free multi-storey car park by Hertford East before the initial permit scheme. Oh and also, they would introduce a public fireworks night on Hartham common :) Just what are the 'reasons of safety' they keep citing on their proposals? 'For safety reasons' is mentioned once in the proposal as follows "For safety reasons there will need to be some yellow lines (double and single) put down, especially around the junctions so that drivers can see to pull out and turn and make sure that traffic can move easily, but these will be kept to a minimum". - What’s sinister about that? As long as those markings are made clear in an updated proposal so residents can see what’s going to change before they roll it out I don’t see a problem. ..produce on demand an exact breakdown of what those costs are I would also like to see this! a deeper agenda.. Green Ticket.. Again, the scheme came into existence by request of residents. But I'd still vote no. I'll throw in a bag of worthers original? ooh go-on!
Reply ID 56913
- The parking scheme came about on the pleas of a few residents, in a very small area. The council surveyed the whole area that would be affected, and got a resounding "No". (And now I do get to use one of my favourite words in this context - gerrymandering :-) ) The council then changed the boundaries of their survey, thus ensuring a "Yes" vote, which would then push the problem into the surrounding areas, leaving them to stew on it for long enough before doing another survey in those areas with an increased chance of getting a "Yes" vote there too.. And so on until the whole area they originally surveyed was done. - Why does nobody from outside Currie Street think that the commuter parking problem isn't happening there? It most defintely is already, and has been ever since the phase 1 was put in! That's my point - putting the scheme in does not take the problem away, it just moves it along! - I'd already said that Currie Street residents have more cars than the kerbside can accommodate at once. So there are always a number of them parked in neighbouring streets. Depending on the scope of the permit of course, this could well mean them having to be moved back into Currie Street. Personally, there are only two cars in my household (both needed) but I have two teenagers that won't be long in starting work and may well need their own vehicles. There are also other families in the street already in that position. - Free parking in appropriate areas is not such a ridiculous idea and I'd argue that we should even expect it. Even a free park and ride scheme like many councils operate would be a start. The free fireworks display ain't a bad idea either, as it goes. That way we could take fireworks off general sale. Might stop some of the local yoof from blowing up bins, each other's hoods, people pets' orifices and god knows what else anyway.. But that's another topic. - I can't see how the 'safety reasons' given are not just as applicable now. They have yellow lines on the corners and unrestricted parking in-between. Just putting a restricted parking zone there instead is NOT going to make it any less safe or difficult to see. Especially since, given the hours of operation, there will most likely be FEWER cars parked in those areas when any passing traffic is at its peak. Blimey, that innocent-looking parking bay near the entrance to Holden Close must have been a real accident black spot then, to deserve its full compliment of double-yellow lines! - Apathy? I really can't be bothered with it. ;-) However, given the hundreds of people in the area, when I see more than three letters and a handful of messages on a forum I might start to believe there isn't any. - We must be starting to agree on something, because the replies in this thread are getting shorter again ;-)
Reply ID 56915
quote:Great statement; pretty much sums up most of our ranting! Extra Parking/Free Parking/Park&Ride: If HDC were going to-do this they would have done so instead of (or in addition to) the parking scheme as a whole. It's simply never going to happen. The parking problems, the initial scheme and proposed parking scheme: These are not going to go away either. I simply want the scheme to encompass my street and (as you say) move the problem on! [:I]
Originally posted by Pez
putting the scheme in does not take the problem away, it just moves it along!
Reply ID 56917
I hope when you are voting that you have thought about the restricted visitor aspect. I always found this the most annoying part when I lived in a London CPZ. Everyone - doctors, midwives, plumbers, friends, relatives, people dropping off - HAVE to display a visitors permit. The council dictates how many of these you can have (and pay for) each year and after that you are stuffed. This was the thing that irritated me most but I hadn't fully realised when casting my vote. Personally, I just can't wait to see the effect the whole thing will have on Mead Lane and streets to the South of Ware Road (such as Park Road)- already overflowing with inconsiderate parking. Bad timing that the council is simultaneously doing away with the Baker street car park.
Reply ID 56918
quote:Arguably, PERFECT timing, as it superbly illustrates their attitude and lack of understanding of the problems.
Originally posted by newgirl
Bad timing that the council is simultaneously doing away with the Baker street car park.
Reply ID 56985
Three more leaflets though the letterbox over the weekend, all opposed to the parking scheme.
Reply ID 57006
Of the two other opposing residents letters I've received. A little birdie tells me that they both currently own a number of cars, and one of them has a driveway. Would make sense for those residents to desperately oppose the scheme outright; they have more to loose then the majority of households. I was also VERY disappointed that the letter over the weekend didn’t come with an after-eight, even after my previous hints.... no xmas card for them this year. [^]
Reply ID 57009
It would be easy to suppose that those in favour of a resident parking scheme only own one car, and those that oppose it own 2 or more.
Reply ID 57010
The scheme allows 2 permits/cars per household; I would guess residents in favour of the scheme have 1 or 2 cars, those opposed have either 3+ cars/are planning to have 3+ cars/have private off street parking?
Reply ID 57016
No, I'm not sure it's that. There are only two cars in my household, and at least one of the opponents I know has only one. In fact I don't know many people in the immediate Currie Street area that have more than two cars. The problem is that there's a completely different situation in this area than there was/is in Railway Street. In Railway Street, there are only houses down one side of it, but there's parking available on both sides. People could more or less park where they wanted in the evenings and weekends, so the problems during the day with the commuters etc were more apparent, and the resident's parking scheme in its current state has satisfied their needs. It's the complete opposite in Currie Street and Raynham Street. A few people, who are there during all or part of working hours or who might pop home for lunch, may now also be inconvenienced because of the traffic pushed out from the Railway Street area, but the parking problems for the majority of people are in the evenings and weekends. Neither the council, nor the contractors, Mouchel, seem to have done any kind of survey into this. The proposed parking scheme will do nothing to change the situation, and yet we'll still have to pay the increased Council Tax to implement it. That's my opposition to it anyway. If they can come up with a good plan, I'll listen - I'm all for change if improves things. This doesn't, it makes them worse.
Reply ID 60687
quote:After the Exhibition from East Herts Council last weekend (7th & 9th Feb)... as predicted months ago; Railway St AND Talbot St residents have voted in favour of and will be included in an extended residents parking zone, so... The extended parking scheme now stops right on the doorstep of Currie & Raynham St. If you live on Currie/Raynham St and want these streets to be inside the new zone, contact East Herts Council now! This is your last chance submit your comments to the EHC Parking Service for consideration before they finalise the scheme. Now we know the scheme has moved closer, If enough residents express a change of opinion EHC will have a second round of voting for Currie/Raynham St. A reminder that after this scheme extension, there is no plan or budget to expand or change the scheme any more. This is the Last phase ...you are either going to live on the outer edge of a permit scheme and have parking/commuter hell for years to come, or (in my opinion) have the much lesser of evils, be inside the scheme and have a much, much better chance of parking your mota!. EHC actually wanted more comments from residents at the exhibition (and provided a comment form), if you don't have one and want to contact them either email [url="mailto:[email protected]"][email protected][/url] or write to Dominique Kingsbury, The Parking Service, PO Box 43, Buntingford, Herts, SG9 9WZ - giving your name address and point of view before 22nd Feb.
Originally posted by KingsNeedMead
What I am worried about is that Railway St are almost definitely in favour of extending the scheme (and I don’t blame them). Lets assume residents in Currie St and beyond vote 'no', the permit scheme then gets extended up to but excludes Currie St- as a result this will bring commuter parking a wee bit closer to home yes?
Reply ID 60691
"After the Exhibition from East Herts Council last weekend (7th & 9th Feb)... as predicted months ago; Railway St AND Talbot St residents have voted in favour of and will be included in an extended residents parking zone, so..." Kingsmeadneed Railway Street and Talbot Street votes were a majority in favour, Raynham Street almost evenly split and Currie Street majority opposed. These votes were announced before the Exhibition took place. My argument with Andrew Pulham was how can they bring in a Residents' Parking Scheme street by street - surely it should be looked at in an area of several streets? Didn't really get a convincing answer!
Reply ID 60692
Oops! Apologies, Your right Claudia, it was mentioned in the letter (I've just dug it out to check). I cant remember names, but two of the ECH representatives I spoke to on Saturday both indicated the council would happily include Raynham St and exclude Currie St if that's what residents of those streets wanted. Does seem a bit mad !! If Raynham St tips in favour of the scheme, they should not be held back by the Currie St Mafia! (I'm going to have my tyres slashed and be shot down in public for coining that term)
Reply ID 62000
We are now getting the parking scheme up to currie street? anyone else think they are mad! they should just do it all the way through to the end of tamworth road and be done with it. also they should do something like I have heard other councils do and you get a permit for free for one car and then pay for a permit for your second
Reply ID 65782
I've just heard that the permit fees for small businesses and shops that fall within the new residents parking zone are to be set at £275 per vehicle per year..... That'll help the local economy .....well maybe not. The world's gone mad...........
Reply ID 65785
quote:Where did you hear that? As far as I know the permits are the same price for whoever applies for them, regardless of whether they are a business or not. That having been said, this is a RESIDENTS parking scheme. You have to provide proof of residence to to get a permit. If you are a business you pay the same as a private individual AFAIK.
Originally posted by Mr fixit
I've just heard that the permit fees for small businesses and shops that fall within the new residents parking zone are to be set at £275 per vehicle per year..... That'll help the local economy .....well maybe not. The world's gone mad...........
Reply ID 65787
The information has come direct from the Parking Office at East Herts Council and is correct.
Reply ID 65789
This was lifted from the Dacorum website. BUSINESS PERMITS • One permit per qualifying business will be permitted (see below). • Up to two registration numbers can be printed on the permit provided that they are both operational vehicles (see below). • Only one vehicle can use the permit at a time. • The permit can only be used in the Controlled Parking Zone for which it is issued • Cost of £300 permit/year. The permit scheme only allows one vehicle into the zone at one time, if you need to have two vehicles in the same street at the same time ie working together then it's double the money......... £600.00 per year or (only) £550.00 if you own a business in Hertford.
Reply ID 65792
quote:What has Dacorum Council got to do with Hertford? Or East Herts even?
Originally posted by Mr fixit
This was lifted from the Dacorum website. BUSINESS PERMITS • One permit per qualifying business will be permitted (see below). • Up to two registration numbers can be printed on the permit provided that they are both operational vehicles (see below). • Only one vehicle can use the permit at a time. • The permit can only be used in the Controlled Parking Zone for which it is issued • Cost of £300 permit/year. The permit scheme only allows one vehicle into the zone at one time, if you need to have two vehicles in the same street at the same time ie working together then it's double the money......... £600.00 per year or (only) £550.00 if you own a business in Hertford.
Reply ID 65793
It has a simalar scheme to us and the criteria is the same. And as the version I have seen is on East Herts headed paper it was the quickest way to get the (same) info onto the site.
Reply ID 65795
Interesting. I've just spoken to the department responsible for parking at East Herts District Council and they told me the charge for businesses is the same as for private residents. Does the document you refer to give a date from when these new charges will apply?
Reply ID 65796
Not according to the letter I have in front of me from the Contract manager Mr Dominique Kingsbury, Clearly states a cost of £275 per permit per year for the Zone H3, and will apply when the H3 extension is introduced, The scheme only covers business premises with no off street parking.
Reply ID 65798
A further call to EHDC confirms that you are correct. Seems the council don't know their As from their Es. How they justify the charge is an interesting question though. Given that the tiny number of businesses that fall into CPZs it can't be a revenue raising exercise as the additional income would be relatively insignificant. Also, businesses are getting exactly the same "service" as private residents. And it's not as if businesses have a choice. It's hardly their fault if the location of their premises has a CPZ imposed on it.
Reply ID 65799
You're right, they don't know their A's from their E's. The fee is probably going to be the straw that breaks the camels back as far as small shops within the zone are concerned.