London SE1 community website

Refused resident's parking permit in zone C1- Bankside

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 4 of 5
Friday 19 September 2014 10.45pm
I didn't say you didn't 'need' a car (though need of course is all relative and we often say need when we mean want). I said no one was 'entitled' to a car.

We are, in my view, 'entitled' to healthcare, public safety, education, decent welfare, right of legal redress for wrongs, freedom of association and expression, habitable dwellings, but not cars... If you lived in the wilds of Wales, I'd add them, but not SE1.
Saturday 20 September 2014 11.08am
Brendan D wrote:
I didn't say you didn't 'need' a car (though need of course is all relative and we often say need when we mean want). I said no one was 'entitled' to a car.
We are, in my view, 'entitled' to healthcare, public safety, education, decent welfare, right of legal redress for wrongs, freedom of association and expression, habitable dwellings, but not cars... If you lived in the wilds of Wales, I'd add them, but not SE1.

Funnily enough, I use my car to drive us to the wilds of Wales. In the 8th richest country in the world (depending which chart you consult), healthcare, public safety, education, decent welfare, right of legal redress for wrongs, freedom of association and expression, habitable dwellings should be a given. It is not for anyone to decide whether I am entitled to a car or not. There's is no law that prohibits me from having one, and if councils say I don't need a parking space because I don't need a car but their motivation is Pure self-interest that doesn't benefit me as a tax-paying resident in anyway, then I have a responsibility to question that. In this current political climate, I actually question anything the powers that be decide, as their duplicity has reached levels that are beyond outrage. It's a bit like Blair's 45 minute nuclear deployment claim: wool being pulled over eyes.
Saturday 20 September 2014 12.05pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
It's a bit like Blair's 45 minute nuclear deployment claim

Edward. Please refer to the OP and see where you've ended up. Maybe you stop now before Hitler gets mentioned?

If you do refer to the OP, you'll see a link. On the page the link takes you to it clearly states the council's reasons for the source of the OP's complaint;

Quote:
we are acutely aware that the demand for parking outstrips the available on-street parking spaces in many areas.

No mention of trying to stop you driving your car. No mention of people with cars not being 'entitled' to own them.

If they're being duplicitous, I presume you're saying there would be enough parking if this rule was relaxed? I get the feeling if it was relaxed you'd be on here telling us you have to drive around for half an hour trying to find a parking space, and that you were 'entitled' to find one within 5 minutes.
Saturday 20 September 2014 4.43pm
Car Parking = The Iraq War - Best SE1 post ever!

You can own a car, a caravan, a combine harvester, or whatever you want, so long as you keep in on your property, if you want to leave it on public property then we all get a say by electing a council that manages that public property.
Saturday 20 September 2014 4.55pm
Seems rather discriminatory that some are able to park on the street while others are banned from doing so. If new developments all had basement parking and priced it accordingly this problem would be solved...no?
Saturday 20 September 2014 6.09pm
I think there is a level of unnecessary social engineering at play, however. Southwark has a policy of limiting the number of parking spaces which can be built in new developments while at the same time restricting the access to on street parking by the potential residents of such developments. If there is a constrained resource, surely there has to be a better means of allocating it than basing it on the construction date of the property. While I can see the difficulty in removing a permit from someone who already holds one, it's hard to see the justification in determining that new applicants who have bought a property built 10 years ago can acquire one (despite living in a development which might have a higher provision on onsite parking) whilst someone acquiring a relatively new build (subject to limited onsite parking) cannot.

I can see the justification of retarding the growth in the number of vehicles but this seems a cack handed means of approaching it.

And to be clear, I do not advocate allocating the permits on an auction basis.
Saturday 20 September 2014 6.26pm
When you ration any product or resource you get these kind of distortions and inequalities. Surely if you pay council tax and you own a car you have as much right as anyone to park near your home?
Saturday 20 September 2014 8.05pm
The alternative to rationing is queuing, which in this case would take the form of people circling streets hunting a parking space which doesn't exist. That doesn't help anyone.
Saturday 20 September 2014 10.09pm
I think Southwark Council policy is to keep traffic levels low and reduce the number of residents' cars in the borough (otherwise they wouldn't restrict on-site parking in new developments). See here - Transport Policy.

Is there a lot of traffic in Southwark? I would say yes - it can be hard to get around at a reasonable speed by car, and traffic problems slow down buses, which are a big (the biggest?) form of public transport in a borough with few tube stations far south of the river. Limiting new parking spaces from being created helps restrict the increase in traffic.

The finite resource of on-street parking spaces needs to be allocated fairly, and I can't see how the current allocation system is unfair. As far as I know, the rules were there before anyone impacted by them coughed up cash to develop/buy/rent. Not to say it's not a pain in the rear, because it's definitely challenging to have a car-less life.

I think to change the car policy without creating gridlock and bus misery in Southwark would require coming up with bold and expensive new ideas like underground roads or razing buildings for a a 6-lane cross-London motorway.
Monday 22 September 2014 12.22pm
I’d wholeheartedly agree with marcusm on this one. Clearly, permits cannot be distributed unchecked and limitlessly, nor is it realistic to strip existing permit holders either. However, the rather arbitrary system being employed doesn’t make any sense. New applicants for permits should be treated equally whether they live in council, historic or new build housing as it more accurately aligns supply/demand. To say that a new tenant/owner of a property over 10 years old has more right to a parking permit than a new tenant/owner of a new build is utter nonsense.

Yes that would mean it would need to become a 1 in 1 out scenario, and probably costs more closely aligned with the cost of administration but that’s wholly reasonable. It should also mean that longer term residents to the area gain more of the benefit over short-term transitory tenants if there’s actually a wait list. Afterall, how is it sensible that people like myself who’ve lived here for 5 years (in a new build) have no opportunity to secure street parking whereas someone who’s lived in the area for 3 months in an older property gets parking permit subsidised by everyone’s council tax (regardless of one’s view on whether this subsidy is implicit/explicit).

Meanwhile, encouraging one to rent/purchase an older home for the express reason to gain a chance to park hardly seems a sensible idea…
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 4 of 5

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions