U-turn brings two-for-one parking boost

Swindon Advertiser


THE one-house, one-car parking regime has been officially overturned.
People power forced Swindon Council to do a U-turn on its one-house, one-parking permit rules in the town centre in May.
A special meeting of the council decided to allow all homes in Old Town and the town centre two parking passes per household.

The decision followed a barrage of complaints from homeowners who said they were struggling to sell their houses after the council's one-house, one-parking permit scheme that came into effect on April 3.
The council also received protests from landlords that they were having problems renting their properties because of permit restrictions for newcomers.
Disquiet was also expressed by residents who had recently bought second cars.
The council launched a 28-day public consultation on the proposed rule changes, which has now come to an end.
Old Town and Lawn councillor Fionuala Foley (Con) said then that the council wanted the rules changed as quickly as possible to end parking uncertainty for residents.
After the decision on the rule change, she said the council would knock on doors in affected areas to get a more accurate view of what residents actually wanted.
"We would like people to write in with their views," Coun Foley said.
The residents' parking system has returned to all addresses being allowed at least two permits.

Residents step up fight for parking permits

Leyland Today

RESIDENTS in a busy Leyland road are demanding action to prevent shoppers and restaurant-goers parking outside their houses.
South Ribble Borough Council announced plans for residents' only parking in Ruskin Avenue but locals say the proposals don't go far enough and want the scheme extended.
Karen McKeown says that the problem is as bad at night as it is during the day because people heading to town centre restaurants use it as an unofficial car park.
She said: "Another problem is getting in and out of the street with the cars parking down the left hand side.
"My daughter is disabled and we have a lot of problems with disabled access. The pavements are blocked by double parked cars and the one time I needed the emergency services, the fire engine couldn't get through."
An 81-year-old resident, who asked not to be named, said: "They double park and are up on the pavements every day. I nearly got knocked down with my grandchildren because I was walking down the middle of the road because of the pavement being blocked.
"People who don't live down here are parking and leaving their cars all day.
"All the other streets around here have restrictions, but we just get empty promises. Lorries can't even get through during the days to take our bins away."
Coun Derek Forrest, chairman of the Leyland east area committee, admitted they'd gone back to the drawing board after the public feedback.
"Ruskin Lane is a residential street in the middle of Leyland town centre. "Most of the residents who live there have issues with shoppers parking outside their homes, leaving them little or no space to park their own vehicles.
"The committee, therefore, proposed to introduce a residents' parking permit scheme in line with those we operate in similar areas nearby. This would involve allowing residents only to park outside the residential properties on Ruskin Lane.
"Since advertising the scheme, we have learned that some of the residents would like to see it extended to allow them to also park alongside the two commercial premises at the end of the street.
"Having listened to their comments we now intend to act upon them and have pledged to readvertise the scheme, with their new suggestion included."
19 July 2006

Regions hospitals make £2m out of parking fees

IC Cheshire
By Deborah James




HOSPITAL patients and their visitors paid more than £2m in parking charges across Merseyside and Cheshire in a 12-month period, it emerged yesterday.
The figures were published as part of a report by a committee of MPs that slammed National Health Service charges as "a complete mess".
The Commons Health Select Committee warned prescriptions, dentistry and eye test charges had developed without any "comprehensive, underlying principles" and were "full of anomalies."
MPs also criticised the cost of incoming calls to hospital bedside telephones as insupportable, and recommended mobile phone use be allowed in some hospital areas.
They said hospital car parking fees should be scrapped for patients attending on a daily basis and season tickets should be introduced for frequent visitors.
Across the country, hospitals charged £78m for the use of their car parks, £63m was paid by visitors and £15m by their own hospital staff, in 2004/05.
In Merseyside Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust took the most cash from patients and their visitors, a total of £587,000, making each of its 375 public spaces worth £1,565 a year.
The second most profitable was North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust (Warrington and Halton), which took £430,000 from its 430 public spaces.
Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals took £414,000 from 566 public spaces, and the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust took £370,378 from 504 visitor spaces.
The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Universities Hospital Trust took £252,079 from 139 public spaces.
Last night James Birrell, chief executive at Aintree, said the car parking charges were not unreasonable.
He said the income generated was used to improve security and lighting, had resulted in a reduction in car crime across site, and helped provide more free disabled spaces.
A spokesman for the Royal said the hospital had since closed its car park to the public, and visitors were now directed to a private multi-storey car park, which charges between £2.50 and £4.50.
Several trusts said they had already introduced weekly passes for regular visitors, including at the Women's Hospital..
MPs also criticise the cost of incoming calls to hospital bedside telephones.
The report said: "Incoming calls are a source of anger and distress. They are charged at a very high rate, up to 49p per minute.

"A recorded message, which cannot be skipped, makes incoming calls even more expensive."
Most Merseyside hospitals said they were directed by government to sign up to private telephone providers, which can charge around 10p a minute for an outgoing call and up to 40p incoming.
But some of the region's trusts are already ahead of the MPs' request to allow some mobile phone usage in hospitals, on grounds the signals are unlikely to interfere with clinical equipment.
The Royal has just changed its policy to allow mobile phones in corridors and general areas, and the Women's is considering a similar policy change.
A spokesman for the RLBUHT said: "We still can't allow mobile phones on the wards, for reasons of privacy and to prevent other patients being disturbed.
"Also most mobile phones now include cameras and some people have been found taking unauthorised pictures of patients and staff."
Liverpool's Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, said it would wait for further advice from the Government before reviewing its £50 charge for wigs for cancer patients..
MPs said it was unacceptable that one third of opticians did not sell spectacles within the NHS voucher value.
They recommended all pharmacies, hospitals and GP and dental surgeries make available to patients information on charges to which they might be liable, eligibility for exemption, and possible assistance with costs.
deborahjames@dailypost.co.uk

Yellow lines to end residents parking misery

IC Surrey

YELLOW lines and parking permits are being introduced in the Gardens Estate, Horley, to deter holidaymakers and commuters from leaving cars there.
The controlled parking zone will come into effect next month after years of complaints from residents about their roads being clogged up by cars whose drivers wished to avoid paying car park charges.
For most roads in the area, which extends from Ringley Avenue and Church Road down to the Riverside Estate, the single yellow line restrictions will apply between 10am and noon, Monday to Friday.
In The Crescent, Church Road and Ringley Avenue, the restrictions will apply from 8am to 6pm on weekdays.
The area, where parking problems arise from being near both Horley Railway Station and Gatwick Airport, will get parking bays for residents with permits required between 10am and noon.

Homes with one parking space off the road, such as their driveway,will be entitled to apply for one £20 annual parking permit, while those with no off-street parking can have two.
One-day visitor permits,costing £10 for 25 passes,are also available.There is also parking for disabled blue badge holders.
Riverside resident Tracey Packham said: "I'm quite happy to pay £20 rather than have someone park outside my house. It's frustrating to have to walk to get to your car. We're only allowed 50 visitor permits per year, though."
Horley town councillor for the area, Bernard Kendall, said: "It's long overdue,but at least it's on the move.
"Most residents certainly should welcome it - they've been banging on about it for a long time. Holidaymakers would park in some of the roads for two or three weeks.
"But if the restrictions aren't enforced by wardens then it will negate a lot of the good work done. It might stop the travellers, but not the office workers."
The scheme is run by Surrey County Council, which controls on-street parking,in partnership with Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, which enforces the restrictions.
For more details, telephone Surrey County Council contact centre on 08456 009009 or e-mail Reigate-banstead. highways@surreycc.gov.uk

Free parking for cancer patients needed

Politics.co.uk
Macmillan: Free parking for cancer patients needed
Tuesday, 18 Jul 2006 10:27
Macmillan cancer support has said the government should act now to introduce free parking for all cancer patients visiting hospital regularly, after a health select committee report criticised hospital parking charges.

Chief executive Peter Cardy said the charity had long campaigned on this issue, with its latest report finding the average cancer patient made 53 trips to hospital throughout their treatment, with parking costing an average of £3.87 per visit. "It is unacceptable for patients to pay hundreds of pounds in parking charges to attend hospital for treatment so the committee's recommendation for reduced, or free, parking charges is great news," he said.
Mr Cardy added: "Cancer patients must no longer be forced to pay to attend hospital for life-saving treatment.
"Cancer treatment involves a lot of expensive machinery – a hospital parking meter should not be one of them."

Anger as disputed fines chased up

Glasgow Evening Times
17th July 06
By Jonathan Paisley

Sheriff officers are chasing up motorists who refused to pay parking fines in a controversial scheme which has now been scrapped.
Hundreds of drivers were hit by £30 fines after road bosses introduced pay-and-display meters in Glasgow's west end.
A storm of protest forced the council to lift the restrictions at evenings and weekends.
But people who refused to pay are now being threatened with action.
Driver, Duncan Shields, 50, from Gourock, received a demand from sheriff officers last week for a fine he was given in Woodlands Road in January during the six-month parking trial.
As previously reported in the Evening Times, Duncan was hit with the fine while at the Stand Comedy Club. The sum demanded has now risen to £90.
The letter said payment was due immediately and warned Mr Shields could face 'arrestment or auction' of his effects.
Mr Shields, who is on incapacity benefit after recovering from cancer, said "People power forced the council to think again but sheriff officers are now sending out threatening letters to those caught out."
However, a spokeswoman for Glasgow City Council said,"In Mr Shields case, we have asked sheriff officers to stand down as he has told us he intends to appeal against the original fine.
"We are not in a position to confirm if sheriff officers have been instructed in any other cases."

Councillors weigh up parking fees reaction

Shropshire Star

Controversial new car parking charges in north Shropshire could be given the go-ahead in September despite angry reaction from firms.
North Shropshire District Council is proposing to introduce the new charges in Whitchurch, Wem and Ellesmere.
Some business owners and residents have reacted angrily to the scheme, claiming it could kill trade in the market towns.
People were asked for their views on the proposals, and their responses are currently being compiled by council officers.
Their recommendations will be put before the council’s cabinet on August 8, but the full council will have the final say on September 5.

MP welcomes driver-friendly parking rules

This is Essex
By Rob Pritchard

MP Angela Smith welcomed Government plans to make car parking enforcement more driver-friendly.
Under new Department of Transport guidelines, motorists will be less likely to be clamped, will be given discounts for prompt payment and find it easier to appeal against fines they feel are unjustified or unfair.
Persisent offenders, meanwhile, will be targeted and their details kept on a national database.

Parking attendants will also be given comprehensive training under the new system, which is designed to make parking control fairer and more consistent.
Basildon and East Thurrock MP Mrs Smith, Under Secretary of State in the Government's recently formed Department for Communities, has been a long-time campaigner for fairer parking regulations.
She said: "I have been aware of people being unhappy with parking enforcement in both Stanford-le-Hope and Basildon town centres, where motorists have become very distressed about the way they feel they have been treated.
"People should not park where signs tell them not to, but many people I have spoken to just want to be treated consistently, fairly and courteously.
"I believe the Government has listened to those concerns and I think these changes will go a long way towards changing attitudes and actions."

The new guidelines, which will be enforced from summer 2007, were also welcomed by Basildon Town Centre Management boss Jim Furnival.
The management company has repeatedly come under fire for its employment of private clamping firms in its town centre car parks.
Since April, however, it has stopped using clampers and Mr Furnival believes the new guidelines will help motorists better understand why parking regulations are in place.
He said: "Parking is an emotive subject, and we have to deal with the people who simply don't want to pay. However, these rules should make it easier to sort the whole issue out. We will continue to issue parking tickets, but this is only to ensure people park where they are supposed to."
Ian Robertson, Southend Council's executive councillor responsible for parking, welcomed the overhaul to make the process friendlier for drivers.
He said: "We like to make it as friendly as we can.
"Southend is a friendly town and we just like to keep it that way.
"It's not often you see cars being clamped in Southend.
"We make very little money out of parking penalties because of the cost of attendants. We make almost nothing at all.
"We just want to keep the traffic moving as efficiently as we can."

Scorn for new blueprint on parking enforcement

This is Dorset
By Julie Magee

PLANS to make car parking enforcement in England more motorist-friendly have been branded "a smokescreen".
And there are calls for a higher power to step in if "errant" local authorities fail to follow guidelines unveiled on Wednesday.
The government's proposals include clamping for persistent offenders only, special training for enforcement officers and an easier appeal process.
Transport secretary Douglas Alexander said: "The government is determined to see a parking system that is fairer and more consistent."

But the People's No Campaign spokesman Neil Herron said: "This is just a smokescreen to allow the industry to continue, with some tinkering around the edges.
"It's nothing to do with fairness or justice but everything to do with maximisation of revenue."
The Echo revealed last month how borough parking attendants had issued more than £200,000 worth of illegal parking tickets in the past five years.
The AA Motoring Trust called for powers for a higher authority to step in if parking authorities fail to follow the guidelines.
Paul Watters, the trust's head of road and transport, said: "Guidelines must be properly managed and policed for them to work properly.
"Without teeth to bring errant authorities back into line they will become worthless and undermine public confidence."
Bournemouth council's parking and enforcement manager Gerry Bolland said: "We have, from the outset, endeavoured to operate our parking enforcement regime as a traffic management tool, reducing congestion, providing for kerb space management and contributing to road safety.
"The Traffic Management Act sets out to ensure that all local authorities operate in this manner.
"We welcome these changes and believe they will assist all local authorities to deliver a uniformed and equitable parking enforcement regime."

MOTORISTS' VIEWPOINT
MOTORISTS in Bournemouth gave the new car parking proposals their seal of approval.
Angus Scott, 34, from Southbourne, said: "I think traffic wardens are too quick to pounce on drivers at the end of the day it's all about the council making money.
"There should be some middle ground and motorists shouldn't feel they are being penalised from every direction."

Helen Reid, 24, from Boscombe, said: "I hate getting parking tickets I'd rather tear up the money than give it to the council. I already pay council tax and car tax so I feel I'm paying out enough already."

Bobby Jacobs, 18, from Poole, said: "Traffic wardens are detested by many drivers because they are so unbending.
"If their rules were more relaxed I think motorists would be more tolerant and situations wouldn't become so heated."

Inflexible parking scheme 'reduces quality of life'

Berkshire Today

By Lucy Thorne
Lucythorne@Readingchronicle.Co.Uk

WATCHDOG councillors say Reading's parking permit scheme is too inflexible.
There are too few visitors' permits, the scheme discriminates against the vulnerable, elderly and those with an off-street parking space.
Members of the environment scrutiny panel examined a review of the scheme carried out earlier this year, and backed neighbours' calls to increase the annual number of visitor permits from 40 to 60.
The review highlighted possible new pricing options, some of which would treble the cost of a second permit.
Panel members admitted they had not expected the review to cover permit fees, which they did not consider their responsibility, but they were concerned at the scheme's fairness and scope.
Cllr Richard Stainthorp said: "Certain groups of people are having their quality of life reduced as their friends, professionals and people from the church are no longer coming to see them because of lack of visitors permits, and that seems wrong.
"The scheme was not introduced to discriminate against these people.
"Frequently, but not always, these people are elderly or those with some sort of disability, who rely on friends to keep them company."
Cllr Bet Tickner told the panel some are being penalised if their home had a drive or off-road parking space - automatically making the ineligible for a permit.
And the panel also heard the daily permits for traders cost more to administer than the £1 charge.
Panel chairman and deputy mayor Cllr Chris Maskell said: "We are not here to raise prices, we are here to look at the scheme and decide whether or not anomalies should be addressed.
"Visitor permits are an issue. I would suggest the first two books are free of charge and the maximum number is 60.
"And it seems rather silly to have a £1 charge for traders' daily permits when the administration costs are very much greater."
He said there should be a relaxation for vulnerable residents, and that discrimination against vehicle owners with off-street parking is unfair.

Outrage over Barrow Road parking

Kenilworth Today

Barrow Road resident Martin Krsek is fed up with living in a "public car park".
If he comes home early from work, or uses his car on a Saturday, he finds he cannot park near his own home.
Each side of the street, off Warwick Road, is lined with cars belonging to shoppers who use the two hour free parking time to run their errands - and not pay a penny.

Mr Krsek, a biologist at Warwick University, said: "I bought a house in a beautiful street and then I discovered it's a public car park.
"People who live so close to the town centre should not be punished."

Mr Krsek is frustrated that car parks in Kenilworth are cheaper than in Warwick or Leamington, but still nobody wants to pay to use them.
And he fears the problem will get worse as spaces are lost at Abbey End and Talisman Square.
He has organised a campaign for a meter system with higher rates for non-residents, supported by almost every householder in the street.
Mr Krsek wrote to Kenilworth town councillor Michael Coker (Con, Kenilworth Abbey), who asked for members' support for a more "effective" scheme on July 6.
The town council must lobby Warwickshire County Council to change the system, but it gave unanimous support to the campaign.
Coun Patrick Ryan (Lib Dem, Kenilworth Abbey) said two hours gave shoppers too much time. He advocated a "ferocious" scheme such as that used in York or Durham. There, non-residents have a ten-minute limit.Councillors anticipated an improvement when Warwick District Council takes over enforcing parking from the police in October 2007.

Under so-called decriminalisation, pay and display systems with higher fees will be introduced on residential roads. But some councillors fear the move could be delayed, as has happened in Nuneaton.
County Council traffic projects group spokesman Roger Bennett said he was aware of problems in Barrow Road, but measures to solve them would only be introduced with decriminalisation.
He said higher on street rates would encourage people back into car parks, and added that he believed Kenilworth had enough car park capacity to cope when spaces were lost.

Parking zones kill town centres

Barnet and Potter's bar Times

Most streets in New Barnet, East Barnet and Whetstone are to become part of a gigantic controlled parking zone (CPZ) under new plans unveiled by Barnet Council this week.
The move, which will be heard at a specially convened committee meeting next Wednesday, is set to be forced upon residents purely to fill a hole in the council's parking budget, a senior council source has told this newspaper.
The council report outlines three new zones stretching from Totteridge to Southgate and from Barnet Odeon to Brunswick Park which would raise more than £450,000 a year for the council in parking fines, pay and display income and residents' permits.
Councillor Matthew Offord, cabinet member for transport, dismissed claims the scheme is being introduced to raise revenue.
"The push on the initial consultation is nothing to do with raising revenue, as the schemes will not be a significant income source," he said. "In any case, we would expect that after consultation the size of the schemes would reduce.
"As I keep stressing, parking is not a money-making service in Barnet we have made huge strides this year to improve the service, making it fairer for the motorist, which will result in less income for the council." It emerged last month that revenue from parking fines had dropped by almost £2.8 million over the past two years.
A special meeting of the Chipping Barnet Area Environment sub-committee has been convened solely to discuss the proposal. If accepted, the council will begin consultation and the zones could be rolled out in early 2007.
Revenue figures, provided in the report, show that the council expects an income of £466,000 from the new schemes, including £100,000 a year from parking fines.
But fellow cabinet member, Councillor Brian Coleman, who is also the chairman of the London Assembly has criticised the move.
"It is not required. CPZs are not the answer they are never the answer. It will kill Whetstone town centre parking controls kill town centres."
His fellow Totteridge ward councillor Richard Cornelius agreed, saying: "It should be rejected in my opinion. I do not think it is necessary and I will be making my opinion known."
Councillor Kath McGuirk, Labour's spokeswoman on parking, said she would not be surprised if this was a revenue-raising exercise. "The council appears to ignore the views of residents and ward councillors in consultations. There has been a big reduction within the special parking account and they are claiming that it is not a money making exercise. I wouldn't be surprised if this is revenue raising."
But Mr Offord said that his motivation was to help solve residents' parking problems.
"This meeting is to bring forward the consultation on the CPZs to mitigate the effects parking problems in the area are having on residents and businesses," he said.
"We have received numerous comments from traders in East Barnet Road, Whetstone High Road, Oakleigh Road North, and Gallants Farm Road near Oakleigh Park Station, in particular, who experience problems caused primarily by commuter or all day parking."

Motoring: Parking reforms proposed

4 Car

A more motorist-friendly approach to parking enforcement has been outlined by government officials. Under the new plans, councils will only be able to wheel-clamp persistent offenders, traffic wardens (to be renamed 'civil enforcement officers') will undergo extra training and the appeals process will be made easier.
Most crucially, enforcement and fines will be dealt with by councils rather than the police, effectively decriminalising parking offences.
The plans have been welcomed by the RAC Foundation as a 'fairer regime' than the current system. 'Over-zealous enforcement, confusing signs and lines, and the belief that councils are using parking fines to raise revenue rather than keep the traffic moving are all issues motorists raise with us,' said director Edmund King.
However, not all MPs were positive about the guidelines: chairman of the Commons Transport Committee Gwyneth Dunwoody said that it was 'a shame and an opportunity missed' to not allow the police to withdraw completely from parking enforcement, nor to create a single nationalised system standard across all local authorities.

'Ticket targets' are under fire

Milton Keynes today

JUST as the Government proposes council parking enforcement should be 'motorist friendly' the Citizen can reveal wardens in Milton Keynes are operating ANOTHER bonus scheme for dishing out more penalty notices.
NCP wardens can be nominated 'Top Dog of the Week' and win cinema tickets or extra time off.
The new rewards system, apparently the brainchild of local NCP bosses, has this week come under fire from some of its employees, hard-pressed motorists and Milton Keynes Council.
"It started a few weeks ago to try to make us give out more penalty tickets," said a warden.
Another revealed how the highest daily penalty notice totals are written on a whiteboard in the canteen at NCP's Upper Fourth Street office under the heading 'Top Dog', or for female workers 'Top Cat'.
At the end of each week the person who has issued the most parking tickets gets a prize. For one winner this was an hour off on a busy Saturday afternoon and for another it was a pair of tickets to the cinema. Said the former employee: "NCP seem a bit obsessed with how many tickets everyone issues. If you finish the day with only seven, for example, you are hauled in to explain why.
"My argument was that there were only seven parking offences out there and we can't dish out tickets unfairly. Yet the company seems more concerned about its targets."
"Parking attendants should issue tickets as and when an offence is committed and it is totally wrong that they should be under pressure from an incentive scheme," he said.
NCP spokesman Tim Cowen told the Citizen: "The table was an unofficial experiment which some staff asked for and had no prizes or incentives linked.
"We have nonetheless asked the staff to take the table down because we do not want the public to misunderstand the job we are tasked to do.
"That job is keeping the streets clear and the traffic flowing."
A spokesman for Milton Keynes Council, on whose behalf NCP operates parking measures across the city, said it was unaware of any 'league tables'.
"There is certainly nothing within the contract between the council and NCP that sanctions any such scheme.
"We are concerned about this and we will be speaking to NCP although they have assured us that this was an isolated situation and not company policy," he said.
NCP took over running the parking scheme seven months ago from Vinci Park. A year ago the Citizen revealed how Vinci was running a reward scheme for parking attendants who issued the most penalty notices.
by Sally Murrer - editorial@mkcitizen.co.uk
13 July 2006

Friendlier parking rules sought

BBC News



The current system has been described as "a mess"




Proposals to make council car parking enforcement in England more friendly to motorists have been unveiled.
The government plans include clamping for persistent offenders only, special training for enforcement officers, and an easier appeal process.
A Commons committee strongly criticised the current arrangements last month.
"The government is determined to see a parking system that is fairer and more consistent," said Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander.

Under the proposals, decriminalised parking enforcement where action is taken against offenders by councils rather than the police will be known as civil parking enforcement.
Parking attendants will be referred to as civil enforcement officers.
The plans include:
Wheelclamping for only the most persistent offenders
More transparency and information for road users
Dedicated training for those involved in civil parking enforcement
A more motorist-friendly appeals process
More powers for independent adjudicators when procedures have not been followed properly
Regular reviews of parking policies by local authorities
Persistent parking offenders targeted through a national database
Mr Alexander said the proposals were a "significant stride" towards achieving a fairer system.
"We have listened to motorists and it is clear that the current system needs to be improved," he said.
"Taken together, the proposals in this draft guidance will strengthen the system of civil parking enforcement and help local authorities tackle local congestion and keep the traffic moving."

'Over-zealous enforcement'
The House of Commons Transport Committee criticised parking policy and enforcement as "inconsistent and confused", and its chairman Gwyneth Dunwoody said the system was "a mess".

The draft guidelines have been drawn up by the Department for Transport with the help of car parking company NCP.
Parking enforcement has little to do with keeping the roads clear nowadays, it is simply a way of raising money
Andrew HowlettManchester

Have your say: parking RAC Foundation executive director Edmund King said the motoring organisation hoped the proposals would lead to a "fairer regime".
"Over-zealous enforcement, confusing signs and lines, and the belief that councils are using parking fines to raise revenue rather than keep the traffic moving are all issues that motorists raise with us," he said.

David Sparks, chairman of the Local Government Association's environment board, said: "Parking regulations are there for everyone to abide by, to maintain road safety and keep the traffic moving."
The proposals, which affect England only, are expected to come in by the middle of next year.
The Welsh Assembly is planning a similar consultation exercise.

Victory for drivers as new rules put the brakes on clampers

Times Online
By Ben Webster,
Transport Correspondent

LOCAL authorities are to be banned from clamping cars for minor parking offences and ordered to focus on immobilising persistent offenders.
A national database of vehicles with three or more parking penalties is to be created. When spotted by parking wardens the vehicles will be clamped or removed and the owners will have to pay all the outstanding fines before being allowed to drive away. Councils will be expected to collect fines on others’ behalf.

The Department for Transport is publishing draft statutory guidance for local authorities on parking enforcement. It says that the objective should be to improve traffic flow and protect residents’ parking areas, not to make a profit.
“Raising revenue should not be an objective of parking enforcement, nor should targets be set for raising revenue or the number of penalty notices to be issued.”
It states that “clamping should only be used in limited circumstances” when authorities have reason to believe that the driver will ignore a penalty.
If a local authority wants to clamp a vehicle which is not a persistent offender it must wait at least an hour after a ticket has been issued.
A DfT spokesman said: “Clamping can be counterproductive because the clamped car takes up a space which other drivers could use. Where a vehicle is causing a hazard or obstruction, the local authority should remove rather than immobilise.”
The document also states that if a driver returns to the vehicle while the clamp is being attached or the vehicle is being removed, the operation should cease and the owner should be allowed to drive away with only a parking ticket.
The vehicle must be returned to the road unless it has “all its wheels aboard the tow truck”. Clamps should be removed within an hour of payment being received.
Authorities will be asked to allow drivers to pay tickets at the discounted rate even if they challenge them.
Motorists will be able to make an initial challenge and will get another 14 days to pay at the discounted rate if their claim is rejected.
A two-tier penalty system of charges is supported, with a lower rate for minor offences, such as overstaying on a parking meter, but a higher rate for parking on yellow lines.
The RAC Foundation welcomed the restrictions on clamping but said that moves to introduce the national persistent offenders database could result in drivers being forced to pay tickets incurred by previous owners.
The guidance will come into force next summer.

RAC Foundation Welcomes New Parking Guidance

Car Pages
12th July 06

Cars clamped on the public highway could become a rare sight if the Government’s advice in a consultation on parking guidance issued today (12th July) is adapted. The consultation has been welcomed by the RAC Foundation, which has been campaigning on this and other parking issues over the last ten years.
The RAC Foundation sees the guidance as a long-overdue package of measures which will should help cut through the confusion of local authority red tape and could free motorists from over-zealous enforcement and unfair fines.

RAC Foundation has been calling for:
Wheel clamping to only be used as a last resort and for persistent offenders who refuse to pay their fines.
The need to replace the 1995 Statutory Guidance to local authorities with an updated version which not only builds upon 11 years of experience, but which also incorporates changes arising from the Traffic Management Act 2004.
The emphasis on the importance of consistency, fairness and transparency, including clear performance standards, in all aspects of the enforcement process. The Foundation would like to see the abolition of all ticket targets for parking attendants and the removal of targets from contractors with parking contractors.
The importance placed on clear regulations and signing, including lines on the road.
The importance of recruitment, training and remuneration polices to ensure a professional parking service throughout the country.
The importance of making the process for challenging penalty charge notices [informal and formal representations and appeals] as transparent and user friendly as possible, including proposals to ensure that the 14 day, 50% discount is not jeopardised as a result of a motorist making representations to the local authority about the validity of the parking ticket.
The need for a more user-friendly appeals service and efforts to raise the profile and increase the impact of the parking adjudication services [PATAS and NPAS].
The Foundation would also like to see the advice on clamping extended to govern wheel clamping on private land where despite licensing there is still widespread abuse. The Foundation is regularly contacted by distressed motorists who have been forced to pay up to £500 to retrieve their cars after parking in good faith on private land and falling victim to unscrupulous wheel-clampers.
Edmund King, Executive Director of the RAC Foundation, said, "Motorists will welcome restrictions on wheel clamping as the punishment rarely fits the crime. Clamping a car for over-staying on a meter makes no sense, as the parking place is then blocked for a longer period. Clamping, both on-street and off-street, should only be used to target persistent offenders as a last resort. Clamping is a crude activity, which should have been outlawed at the time of Dick Turpin.
" Over-zealous enforcement, confusing signs and lines, and the belief that councils are using parking fines to raise revenue rather than keep the traffic moving are all issues that motorists raise with us. We hope that this guidance will lead to a fairer regime."

Overhaul aims for fairer system of parking fines

Yorkshire Post
Maggie Stratton

AN overhaul of England's "messy" and "flawed" parking fines system could include an end to wheelclamping for single offences and force councils to be more open about how much money comes from penalties.

Action against offenders taken by councils rather than the police will now be referred to as civil parking enforcement. Parking attendants will be known as civil enforcement officers.

In plans published today the Government has, however, stopped short of insisting parking is taken out of police hands across the country.Among a raft of criticisms levied last month by the Commons Transport Committee was the need for a UK-wide system of decriminalised parking enforcement to replace the system of police and councils working in different areas.

But the Government said today that although it would encourage all local authorities to adopt responsibility for parking, they must be allowed to decide whether to do so.

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander said the Government wanted local authorities to use parking enforcement powers to keep the traffic flowing and not to raise money.
"The Government is determined to see a parking system that is fairer and more consistent," he said.
The plans are due to become law mid-next year, following public consultation. They include introducing a nationwide database of persistent parking offenders which would enable the newly named civil enforcement officers to clamp only cars belonging to those who have repeatedly failed to pay fines.

Councils would also have adopt a more motorist-friendly appeals process, with a penalty charge discount re-offered after an informal challenge, and publish regular reports.

Mr Alexander said: "We have listened to motorists and it is clear that the current system needs to be improved.
"Taken together, the proposals in this draft guidance will strengthen the system of civil parking enforcement and help local authorities tackle local congestion and keep the traffic moving."
The report by the House of Commons Transport Committee said parking policy and enforcement were "inconsistent and confused", and chairman Gwyneth Dunwoody added that the whole system was "a mess".

The Select Committee said too few councils were publishing figures which fuelled suspicions of revenue-raising – parking activities in England raising a £439m surplus in 2003/04.

The Liberal Democrats last month unveiled research claiming England's parking charges had risen by 82 per cent since Labour came to power. The party said charges were up six per cent in the last year as the nation's motorists paid out almost £1.2bn a year.

Other plans proposed are dedicated training for everyone involved in administering civil parking enforcement from on the street right up to the boardroom and more powers for independent adjudicators to intervene where procedures have not been followed properly.

In Yorkshire the following councils currently take responsibility for parking: Barnsley, Doncaster, Harrogate, Kingston-Upon-Hull, Leeds, Rotherham, Sheffield and York.

Fairer Rules on Parking Unveiled

Transport News Network

Plans for tough new measures to overhaul the country's system of civil parking enforcement were unveiled today by Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander.

The draft guidelines make clear that the Government wants local authorities to use parking enforcement powers to keep the traffic flowing and not to raise money. The aim is a fairer system for all.
The highlights of the Government's draft advice, which goes to public consultation today, include:
Wheel clamping only for the most persistent parking penalty evaders
More transparency and information for road users with authorities publishing their policies and reports
Dedicated training for everyone involved in administering civil parking enforcement from on the street right up to the boardroom
A more motorist-friendly appeals process with a penalty charge discount reoffered after an informal challenge
More powers being given to the independent adjudicators to intervene where procedures have not been followed properly
Regular review of parking policies by local authorities in consultation with stakeholders
Persistent parking offenders targeted through a nationwide database
Secretary of State for Transport Douglas Alexander said: "The Government is determined to see a parking system that is fairer and more consistent. These proposals are a significant stride towards achieving that goal. We have listened to motorists and it is clear that the current system needs to be improved. Taken together, the proposals in this draft guidance will strengthen the system of civil parking enforcement and help local authorities tackle local congestion and keep the traffic moving."

Theyre not fines - so thats fine

Sunday Telegraph
Christopher Booker's Notebook

Government officials across the land will have heaved a sigh of relief last week at a High Court ruling by Mr Justice Andrew Collins, which gives them the power to impose arbitrary penalties on the public without having to justify them in a court of law.
Robin de Crittenden is the Walsall pensioner who challenged the right of councils and private companies, under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, to impose parking penalties without giving motorists any right to argue their case in court. Mr de Crittenden, supported by campaigner Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, argued that this was in breach of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which lays down that all "fines and forfeitures" before conviction in court are "illegal and void".
The implications of this case were enormous, because not only are 7 million of these fines imposed each year on motorists, but other branches of government have in recent years exploited the same system by introducing automatic penalties for a range of offences, such as the late return of forms or taxes.
Mr Justice Collins cut through all this confusion by the simple device of ruling that a "penalty" is not a "fine" or "forfeiture". No matter that the dictionary defines a fine as "a monetary penalty", a forfeit as "a fine" or "penalty" and a penalty as "a fine", the good judge clearly belongs to the Humpty Dumpty school of lawmaking, based on the principle "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean".
Not only does this ruling retrospectively save councils tens of million of pounds, it also vastly increases the powers of officialdom to levy penalties for anything that offends them, by taking away the citizen's right to challenge them.
Maybe David Cameron has a point in claiming that we need a new Bill of Rights, because clearly the old one, on the say-so of Mr Justice Collins, has just been chucked in the bin.
Yet it is only four years since Lord Justice Laws found the "metric martyrs" guilty on the grounds that certain Acts of Parliament, including the Bill of Rights and the European Communities Act, were "constitutional statutes" so fundamental to our law that they could not be subsequently overruled.

Comments
What is a fine?

The Oxford dictionary defines Forfeit/Forfeiture:"Something surrendered as a penalty"

If a £60 parking penalty charge isn't a forfeiture then nothing is!

1. Buy the illustrious judge a dictionary.

2. If he's right and it ISN'T a forfeiture then you don't have to pay it!

ALSO

Asset Forfeiture Law Firm
The Centre for Forfeiture Law is a part of the law firm of Montgomery Blair Sibley, Chartered which provides legal counsel to those whose property the government seeks to take and forfeit.
civilforfeiture,com

Protest at hospital parking charge plan

Sheffield Today

HUNDREDS of NHS workers staged a demonstration in the grounds of a Sheffield hospital to protest over a decision to impose car parking charges on staff.
Around 200 medical and admin workers at the Northern General waved placards at the Herries Road entrance in protest at the introduction of new parking permits which will cost £260 a year.
Until now parking for staff has been free and it is claimed low-paid workers, who will be subject to the same parking charge as consultants, will suffer most.
Monica Brookfield has worked at the hospital as a porter for 22 years and says the cost of a permit will put a significant dent in her £180 weekly pay packet. "I cannot afford it and a lot of other people can't either," she said.
Workers also claim fees at the hospital's day nursery are to be hiked up by as much as 33 per cent in September - and say the combined increases will make it too expensive for some people to come to work.
Pharmacist Tanya Kadlez, a staff representative for the Amicus union, said: "It is unfair as people will suffer. Some took a job at the Northern General Hospital because of the free car parking and it will be very hard for people who also have to pay for childcare."
Irene Goodison, a medical secretary in orthopaedics, says the £260 parking charge will wipe out this year's pay rise from her part-time job.
She said: "It is the first time I've been on a protest and I've come in on my day off. I've worked for the NHS for 30 years and it is something I feel very strongly about."
Unison branch secretary John Campbell was pleased with the turnout and said it reflected the mood of workers."People are angry about the lack of consultation and the increase in the day nursery charges - people are up in arms about it," he said. "The Trust has to save £90 million in the next three years and it is the staff who are being picked on."
Staff are also unhappy that, even if they decide to pay and are awarded a permit, they will not be guaranteed a parking space in the hospital grounds.
Lee Radforth, who works in the respiratory department, said he spends 30 minutes driving to work, but a bus from his home in Deepcar would take an hour-and-a-half each way.
A spokeswoman for Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the city's adult hospitals, said: "This is about treating all our staff equally and harmonising parking charges across hospitals in the city. Staff working at the Royal Hallamshire and Jessop Wing hospitals have paid for their parking permits for a number of years. We are now introducing charges for staff at the Northern General and Weston Park hospitals to ensure staff working at all the hospital sites pay the same rates.
"We will be working closely with our staff organisations to ensure these changes are implemented as sensibly and fairly as possible."
The Trust is also looking at car-sharing schemes and incentives for cyclists.She said the staff nursery had been running at a loss and that it was not thought right NHS money was used to support staff services. She said the nursery will continue to operate on a not-for-profit basis.

One in five parking tickets waived

Norwich Evening News
David Bale

Nearly one in five parking tickets given out in the city are successfully challenged - with some of the reasons for them being waved including people desperate for the toilet and pregnant women needing to be sick.
A report to Norwich Highways Agency Joint Committee found there were 39,549 penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued during the period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006.
Of these, just over 19 per cent were challenged and waived for reasons, the report said, which would not have been apparent to the parking attendants at the time the tickets were issued.
These included cases where parking fines had been waived where people needed to go to the toilet - if they had a particular problem such as irritable bowel syndrome - or needed to be sick - if they were pregnant.
Other cases where fines had been waived involved people failing to display parking permits, but such excuses would not be acceptable if they were repeated, council bosses said.
The figures come at a time when it is increasingly difficult to challenge parking fines with all offenders' cars being photographed by the parking attendant issuing the ticket.
The report found the percentage of challenges to PCNs, which are taken to appeals and adjudication after the initial effort to get the council to waive them failed, remained at 0.36 per cent, compared with the national average of 0.37 per cent.
A city council spokeswoman said: “Our parking attendants are very well trained and use comprehensive equipment to assist them in doing the essential job of helping to keep the traffic flowing in Norwich and minimising hazards caused by careless parking.
“When it comes to processing PCNs there is an appeal process that people can follow. Each challenged PCN is taken on its individual merits and discretion is exercised, especially in mitigating circumstances.”
The Evening News revealed last month that tickets worth a potential £2.3 million had been slapped on cars across Norwich in the past year with more than £100,000 of those being in Colegate.
A report from MPs last month also branded parking policy and enforcement in Britain “inconsistent and confused”.
The report from the House of Commons Transport Committee added it was astounded by the number of PCNs which were issued, but later cancelled.
Recent cases where people have successfully fought the city council include Carl Fenn, of Rushmore Road, Sprowston, who last month proved he was given a parking fine when the meter was showing the incorrect time. Mr Fenn was given a £60 fine for being parked in a bay in Fishergate in August last year, but he took his appeal to the National Parking Adjudication Service and was let off the £60 fine and the council was asked to pay £15 costs towards his case.
And churchgoer Bob Gilbert, 68, was hit with a fine after parking his car legally on a Sunday afternoon in May in St Faiths Lane near Prince of Wales Road.
He appealed against that fine but it was rejected because the city council said he did not have a parking permit. However, after the Evening News contacted the council, it turned out the parking attendant had made a genuine mistake in issuing the PCN.
Have you taken on the council over a parking ticket and won? Write to Evening News Letters, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich, NR1 1RE, email eveningnewsletters@archant.co.uk or visit www.eveningnews24.co.uk/forums

Three in four parking fines are found to be wrong

South London
Greg Truscott

ALMOST three-quarters of appeals against parking tickets issued in a borough infamous for its overzealous wardens are upheld, new figures reveal.
Of the 3,124 tickets, clamps and vehicle removals challenged by motorists in Lambeth in the past year, 2,184, nearly 70 per cent were successful.
The statistics, which were released by the Association of Local Government (ALG) this week, show that just 940 appeals made between April last year and March this year to the independent Parking and
Traffic Appeals Services (PATAS) were refused.
The figures reveal motorists in Lambeth - which issues more than 300,000 parking tickets each year - disputed more penalty charge notices (PCNs) than almost every other London borough.
PATAS received 3,191 appeals against tickets and clamps in Lambeth in the past year and processed 3,124.
Only Wandsworth and Westminster generated more.
In Wandsworth, PATAS received 3,199 appeals over the past year and of the 2,813 processed, 1,525 were granted, while 1,288 were refused.
Lambeth and Wandsworth both use private contractor Control Plus to enforce parking regulations in their boroughs.
In Southwark 1,817 appeals were made; 1,160 were upheld and 666 refused. In Lewisham, just 498 appeals were made, of which 183 were allowed.
Campaigners against over zealous parking enforcement - which rakes in millions of pounds for cash-strapped councils - say the Lambeth figures suggest too many PCNs are being issued incorrectly.
Barrie Segal, founder of Appealnow.com, a website set up to fight unwarranted parking tickets, said: "Lambeth has always had a poor reputation for overzealous ticketing.
"The latest figures show that 70 per cent of the tickets appealed in the borough last year have proved to be invalid.
"Even worse,the borough did not even bother to contest 940 appeals.
"It demonstrates that wardens in Lambeth are continuing to issue overzealous and illegal tickets.It's disgraceful."
Lambeth Labour councillor Nigel Haselden, deputy cabinet member for parking and transport, said less than two per cent of tickets issued in the last financial year were appealed against.
He said: "Also,the decision not to contest a ticket is sometimes made because motorists wait until the appeal stage before coming forward with a piece of information that would have led to the ticket being cancelled if they had come forward with it earlier.
"However, I am concerned that the proportion of appeals that are allowed or not contested is so high.
"This is why we are already reviewing parking in Lambeth to make sure we have a fair parking service as part of our wider transport strategy."

Parking fines waived for charity riders

Portsmouth Today

Parking bosses have been praised after writing off a couple's £60 fine – so the money could go to charity.
Richard and Carol Peachey were in such a rush to hit the road for a cycle ride in aid of the British Heart Foundation, they didn't realise they needed to pay for the car park.
So when they returned to Stokes Bay Road after the 32-mile Round the Harbours ride they were stunned to find a parking fine on the windscreen.
The couple, who had travelled all the way from Buckinghamshire to take part, appealed to Gosport Borough Council, admitting they had been in the wrong, and asked if the money could go to the charity instead.
Generous council bosses have agreed to refund the fine, which the couple have now donated to the heart foundation.
Mr Peachey, 48, who rode on a tandem with his wife during the ride around the harbours on June 11, said: 'We put our hands up and admitted we were in the wrong, which is why I paid, but we thought it would be a nice gesture if the council could give the money to the charity – and ultimately it's them who are better off.'
Council spokeswoman Brenda Brooker said: 'They had got up really early to travel a long way to be here to undertake this bike ride in order to raise money for a very worthwhile charity.'It would have been a terrific shame if all their hard work and effort had been in vain.'
To find out more about challenging parking tickets see our How to... section
07 July 2006

Golf pro Allan left bunkered by £450 par-king fine

This is Bradford
By Paul Langan


Golfer Allan Shutt who faces a £450 parking fine
after he had to leave his car in a no-parking area because of a flat tyre









A man is facing a bill of £450 and the prospect of having his car confiscated all because he had a puncture.
Eager parking officials were keen to stick a ticket on golf professional Allan Shutt's car after he had run over a broken beer glass and come to a halt.
Because he could not change the wheel there and then he left the car by the side of the road to go and get a jack. Then the officials struck.
He has refused to pay, involving his solicitor in his battle. But he has also received a visit from a bailiff and been told he could have his car confiscated.

Mr Shutt, of Back Weston Road, Ilkley, said: "My tyre went down and the car was not driveable. I called a friend to take me to a garage and went to pick up another jack.
"I put a notice on my windscreen saying that I had gone for a jack but when I got back that had disappeared and there was a £30 parking ticket in its place."
The pro at Baildon's Hollins Hall Hotel had been heading towards the Lancashire town of Cleveleys to see his mother after playing in a competition at Royal Lytham in July last year.
Taking the burst tyre to prove his case, Mr Shutt went to a police station in Cleveleys, to explain but it was closed so he had to contact them by the telephone. He said he was told to contact ParkWise - the parking enforcement agency set up by the various local councils in the area and Lancashire District Council - and the problem would be sorted out.
He said: "I wrote to them saying I don't expect to hear any more but they wrote back to say, You will pay it.'"
During subsequent correspondence and telephone calls, the parking bill began to rise with administration costs and Mr Shutt said he would charge ParkWise for all the letters and telephone calls he himself had made.
Mr Shutt said: "I sent them back a bill for £425 then I heard nothing else until a bailiff arrived on my doorstep with a £450 unpaid penalty notice."
An angry Mr Shutt said that the bailiff went away without being admitted into his home but threatened to return and take his Fiat Uno car if the bill remained unpaid.
Mr Shutt now plans to take his appeal to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) which he claims he was unaware of until after the bailiff had been.
He said: "I had no idea it existed. No one told me about it, not Parkwise, not even the bailiff.
"I challenged the fine with them but they told me specifically I had no rights of appeal and would just have to pay up. Now I know about the adjudication service I'll take it to them."
A spokesman for Lancashire County Council said: "Drivers should be aware that they may receive a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) if parked in contravention of the traffic and parking regulations.
"Drivers have the option to challenge the issuing of the PCN if they believe it has been issued incorrectly."
He added: "Issuing of a warrant and involving bailiffs to recover the Penalty Charge Notice debt is the absolute last resort."
e-mail: newsdesk@bradford.newsquest.co.uk

BREAKDOWN OF THE RULES
It is possible to get a parking ticket if a vehicle breaks down in a parking restricted area and an obstruction is caused.
An informal challenge to a fixed penalty parking fine can be made to the regulating authority responsible for issuing the ticket. Cases must be stated clearly and simply in writing and include photocopies of any evidence to support the claim such as a receipt or witness statements.
Councils which have opted to decriminalise illegal parking take responsibility for issuing parking fines, otherwise the responsibility remains with the police.
If the issuing authority rejects an informal challenge it will issue a Notice to Owner requesting payment.
Appeals can then be lodged with the local Central Ticket Office if the issuing authority is the police or independent adjudicator, the National Parking Adjudication Service for England and Wales if the issuing authority is a council.
To lodge an appeal with the National Parking Adjudication Service for England and Wales contact it on (0161) 242 5252 or visit the website at: www.parking-appeals.gov.uk.
5:38pm Thursday 6th July 2006

Parking anger

Bridlington Today

BRIDLINGTON'S Controlled Parking Zone could be extended.
The zone, which was opposed by many people when it was introduced in May 2003, runs from Trinity Road as far as the south side.
However, the new plan would add the bottom of Promenade and Flamborough Road, as well as areas to the North of the Quay Road level crossing, including Queensgate, to the zone.
Residents in controlled areas pay £20 for annual permits, allowing them to park long-term anywhere inside the zones. Those without permits, including out-of-town shoppers, can only stop for an hour before moving.
The plan by East Riding of Yorkshire Council would also divide the zone into three, allowing permit holders to only use their passes in their own area.
That would mean residents of Springfield Avenue would not be able to use permits in Medina Avenue for example.
It also suggests relaxing the one-hour limit on waiting times in Victoria Road and Wellington Road, allowing parking for two hours.
The proposals for the new zones will be formalised into a detailed plan in November and people would have until mid-December to lodge objections.
A report would then be submitted to the council's cabinet and, if approved, the extension would come into force in May next year.
But some residents have responded to the proposals with anger, accusing the council of taking extra money from the town's residents and traders.
Coun Ray Allerston, who represents Old Town, said: "I have never been happy with it. It's a money-making job, that's all.
"I have always put it to the officers at County Hall that I don't want any of it in my ward in Old Town – we can manage without it.
"People are still parking there anyway and even if you have it there's nobody going around enforcing it. It's making no difference whatsoever.
"We've told them time and time again we don't want it and don't need it. It only causes trouble and bother."
He said dividing the zone into three to prevent people parking outside their allocated space would be "cheeky".
Chris Scott, who runs Queensgate Stores on the edge of the proposed extension, said: "It's going to cause more problems than it solves. I believe this is the thin end of the wedge and it's going to spread through all the streets around here. It's another road tax."
Gabby Harris, of Queensgate, said: "A friend of mine lives in East Road and she thought it would be better once permits came in but it's made it worse.
"People are just parking where there isn't a permit area.
"It's like a tax, and members of the public are paying enough for their taxes. They've hit on another way to get more money out of people."
Adrian Vodden, who with his father and his business partner runs the Revelstoke Hotel, in Flamborough Road, said: "If they are trying to free up parking spaces why are they putting down yellow lines everywhere? We counted 22 spaces that were lost when they did Trinity Road, when they had already started the scheme."
The new scheme will also allow local contractors who park in the town to buy annual permits for £100.
A council spokesman said: "The aim of a CPZ is to prevent commuters taking up parking spaces outside homes and businesses all day and to encourage them to use designated car parks or public transport, or to walk or cycle.
"The benefit for residents who hold a CPZ permit is that they find it easier to get parked near their home while the benefit for businesses is that there is a quicker turnover of vehicles using town centre parking bays and therefore more potential customers. This would not work without extra enforcement, which is paid for by the cost of permits.
"The council felt it was fairer to raise the money for enforcement this way than through council tax as only the people who pay for permits benefit from the CPZ.
"People can have their say on the proposals during the consultation. The council does listen to people's representations, as shown by the changes made to proposals to expand the Beverley CPZ as a result of residents' comments."
People living in the area proposed for the extension will be consulted in the near future.

Parking boss hits back over CPZ plan

Tottenham, Wood Green and Edmonton Journal
nlnews@archant.co.uk

PROPOSALS for parking restrictions in Hornsey and Crouch End for Hornsey Station have been defended by Haringey Council's parking boss.
The council was accused last week of trying to impose a "money-making scheme" in the form of a controlled parking zone (CPZ) across swathes of Hornsey and part of Crouch End.
The consultation zone for the CPZ around Hornsey station extends to the edge of Alexandra Park and more than two-thirds of a mile from the station to the edge of Crouch End Broadway - an unnecessarily large area, some residents claimed.
But Councillor Brian Haley, executive member for environment, insisted: "These parking zones will have a positive impact for people that live and shop in the borough.
"They will stop people from out of the area hogging spaces and clogging up important shopping and residential areas."
A council spokesman added that the area being consulted was wider than the proposed CPZs "as there may be a knock-on effect from the parking zone area".
The council is also consulting on CPZs for Fortis Green, Bounds Green and Harringay Station, all in response to requests from residents, it says. They are being asked their views on the scheme and on the detail of the proposals, including restriction timings.
All four consultations will run until August 8.

Town councils unite against parking limits

Powys County Times

RADNORSHIRE Town Councils have united in protest against new restrictions imposed on users of Powys County Council car parks.
The protest, which is led by Knighton Town Council, has been backed by councils in Presteigne and Builth Wells, as well as nearby Hay-on-Wye, Llanidloes and Crickhowell, and comes following an attempt to change new parking rules by Knighton Town Council.
Cllr Roger Bright told fellow councillors at a meeting last week that he had written to council officers after he heard that drivers were being pushed out of the Knighton Hotel car park because there was a two-hour parking limit.
Cllr Bright said: “I have sent a letter to Steve Burgess at County Hall, because people are getting pushed out because there was a two-hour parking limit.
“I had a response saying the issue had been raised by another person and they were looking at the possibility of raising the maximum stay to three or four hours, to allow visitors time to spend the maximum amount of time in Knighton.”
Knighton town clerk, Shaun Davies said he had written to Powys’ other major towns earlier this year seeking support for a campaign against the current regime of car parking charges, and had received backing from five town councils.
Other Radnorshire councils say they support the lobby.

Undercover test for parking attendants

This is Lancashire
By Bolton Evening News Reporter

A team of "mystery parkers" are being sent on to the streets of Chorley to check up on the borough's parking attendants.
The undercover workers will park badly on purpose to test the area's controversial Parkwise scheme.
The secret survey is one of several measures taken after a review of parking in the area.
Others include giving traffic wardens a mobility scooter to help them get about more quickly and easily and requiring them to give precise explanation about why tickets have been issued.
Leader of the Council Peter Goldsworthy said: "The objective of the inquiry was to investigate the effectiveness of Parkwise and assess the impact it has had on residents, visitors, motorists, traders and businesses.
"It was also important to compare the Lancashire scheme with best practice elsewhere and identify any future improvements that could be made in customer service."
He added: "Decriminalisation of parking in Lancashire was the first time a county council and a number of district councils have operated such a partnership arrangement and it has been a complex operation."

Parking permit fees could rise

Reading Evening Post

The cost of parking outside your own home is set to rocket if council plans to revolutionise the existing permit policy get on the road.
And parking meters could soon be springing up on the town’s streets, making it virtually impossible to park anywhere in the town free of charge.
The proposals are part of a host of possible changes to the current parking permit scheme being considered by Reading Borough Council.
One of the possibilities could force everyone who lives within one of the town’s 51 permit zones – who are currently entitled to a free permit – to shell out £10 for the privilege.
And the cost of a second permit for a household – which is currently £50 – could reach as much as £150.
The council also hopes to increase the number of visitor permits allowed for each home from 40 to 60 per year.
The first 10 visitor permits would remain free but the price of a book of 10 thereafter could be boosted from £10 to £12.
It could also double the cost of trader’s permits to £200 per year and raise the daily permit charge from £1 to £5.

CPZS SPARK PARKING PROTESTS

Mid Sussex News

INTRODUCTION of new parking restrictions has caused another wave of protest from the latest residents to be targeted for change.
The county council has caused anger, this time in Cuckfield, by announcing a survey asking residents what they think about Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) and other proposals.
Yet Cuckfield Parish Council, which is doing its own work on parking problems in the village, says the survey comes as a 'complete surprise'.
Parish clerk Frances Jones said: "The council had received no indication that any changes were proposed to the on-street parking arrangements in the village."
Mrs Jones said parking problems were one of the big issues for residents but there were no easy solutions in an ancient village such as Cuckfield. "There are very real concerns that ill thought out proposals could actually reduce parking for local people as well as being detrimental for traders.
"The Parish Council believes that real consultation is needed with residents given a balanced view of the issues involved."
Cuckfield is the latest community to be targeted by changes being brought in under the decriminalised parking system (LAPE), which has switched parking control from police to county and district councils.
Surveys have been carried out by the county to test the water for CPZs in key locations in Haywards Heath and Lindfield where commuters and other long-stay parking restrict access for shoppers and local residents.
However, changes that have already taken place, including limited stays of just 30 minutes in high streets, have angered traders, who say that is not long enough for people to shop, and residents who cannot park near their homes for fear of getting a ticket from the district's new team of 13 parking attendants.
Tex Pemberton, the county's Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, said close liaison would take place with parish and district councils over the CPZ surveys and he stressed that no final decisions had been taken.
Replies are due by July 14 to the 1,400 letters delivered to homes and businesses in Cuckfield.

Call to scrap hated parking fees

Yorkshire Post Today
Robert Sutcliffe

SEVEN hundred people have signed a petition demanding an end to one of Calderdale Council's most hated charges – being forced to pay £25 for the privilege of parking outside their own home.
Householders living in streets around Todmorden town centre want the scheme scrapped completely. People living in the Cambridge Street and Industrial Street area are feeling particularly incensed about the introduction of charges agreed at the council's budget in March.
Most said in a survey that they did not want to pay even if they could be allocated a space.
Details of the scheme are due to be debated at a meeting at Halifax town hall of the council's regeneration and development scrutiny panel on Wednesday.
A report for that meeting by Janet Waggott, group director of regeneration and development, says: "A permit does not guarantee a space in front of their property or even within a zone, though it does restrict competition for spaces within a zone to those residents with a permit.''
It claims the measure would save the council £14,000 in 2006/07 and £24,000 in subsequent years.
But Calderdale councillor Olwen Jennings, (Lib Dem, Todmorden), said: "I just think the whole thing is a bit too much and rather bureaucratic. "Parking has always been an issue where people don't like to pay and this seems to be an easy target – 'hit the motorist'.
"I am not against the whole scheme in principle but I think the price of the permits has been set very high.
"The residents of Todmorden are very much up-in-arms about it and the majority of people don't want it.''
Former Todmorden town mayor Dorothy Jordan was even more vehement, saying: "I think it is absolutely disgraceful.
"It is just not on. Even if you buy one of these permits there is no guarantee that you can park outside your own front door or close to it.
"We hold a market four days a week and people park wherever they want to and there's no enforcement of the current arrangements.''
Earlier this year Coun Ruth Goldthorpe (Lib Dem, Todmorden) handed in a 700-strong petition demanding an end to the charges.
She said: "The message is very clear – they want the parking permits scrapped completely.
"Why can't the council just get on and do what the people want and scrap this hated charge?''
The report recommends that the petition is noted and says a formal residents' survey should be arranged before the charges are introduced.
It says there are already 61 zones enforced by the police and traffic wardens. Ms Waggott says: "There is a perception that enforcement is not as robust as residents would like and there is extensive abuse of the restrictions to the point where some residents feel the permit is not worthwhile.''
Later this year the council will take over enforcement of parking zones.robert.sutcliffe@ypn.co.uk

Shock as hospital parking charges to double

Yorkshire Post Today
Andrew Robinson

HOSPITAL chiefs have been accused of "taxing the sick" by doubling some parking charges at Leeds hospitals.
The biggest shock will be parking for more than five hours – the charge is doubling to £12 for visitors to Leeds General Infirmary and St James's Hospital.
Those parking from two to five hours will pay £6, while it will cost £2 for up to two hours.
Other hospitals, including Seacroft, Chapel Allerton, Cookridge and Wharfedale will also see parking charges rise from Monday.
Cancer patients and others who make repeat visits to hospital will be among those hardest hit.
The rises have angered Macmillan Cancer Support spokeswoman Maureen Rutter, who called them "extortionate" and urged patients to write to their MPs.
Car park charges for staff are also being reviewed.
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust is currently facing big debts – £25m this year – and providing car parking is actually costing more than it generates in income.
A trust spokesman said: "We appreciate that this increase will come as a disappointment to patients, but in the current financial climate the trust does not believe it is right to continue to subsidise car parking costs with money that could otherwise be used for patient care.
"The provision of car parking facilities costs in excess of £2.2m a year but current income is only £1.4m per year.
"For the last three years the trust has subsidised the shortfall, which is now approaching £1m.
"We are now reviewing all of our parking arrangements in order to make car park provision self-funding.
"We do not intend to do more than cover our costs.
"Prices in the trust's car parks will still be competitive with other hospitals and we hope patients and visitors will understand the reasons for the decision."
The spokesman said the trust was facing a significant financial challenge. It has been estimated that it will need to save £84m over the next three years – £25m of that in 2006-07.
andrew.robinson@ypn.co.uk

Disabled expert in parking spaces row

This is Lancashire
By Paul Keaveny

A CONSULTANT advising Bolton Council has criticised planners for ignoring her recommedations over the placing of disabled parking bays at a new multi-million pound retail park.
As reported in the Bolton Evening News, disabled driver Geoffrey McBride, from Breightmet, slammed the new retail park on the site of the former Trinity Street bus depot because the spaces are too far away from the shops.
He said the spaces allocated for disabled parking, on the far side of the car park, are too far away from the shops and claimed more should have been done to help people with mobility problems when the area was being planned.
Now, Brenda Trigance-Clark, a voluntary un-paid consultant who examines planning applications to assess their impact on the disabled community, says her advice was ignored by planning chiefs.
She said today: "I said these bays should be near the front of the stores but Bolton Council gave planning permission for them to go where they are now. The council needed to deal with it. I looked at the planning application and I clearly asked for these spaces to be put near the entrance."
Ms Trigance-Clark said: "I am disabled but I don't use my wheelchair unless I am really ill. If I don't use my legs I will loose the use of them altogether so I need parking near the shops."
A Bolton Council spokesperson said: "The responsibility of the layout of the bays lies with the developers. However, the council recognises that the situation is not ideal so we are negotiating with them to relocate some of the disabled bays and also meeting with Brenda on Friday to discuss her recommendations. These will be passed on to the developers."
A spokesman for Sainsbury's said the disabled car parking was located in that area due to regulations which state that the disabled spaces have to include an area behind them to allow drivers access to open the boot of the car.
The new retail units opened this year as part of Sainsbury's multi-million pound redevelopment of the old bus depot.