Have your say: Is the Preston Park parking scheme a good idea?

Have your say: Is the Preston Park parking scheme a good idea?

Have your say: Is the Preston Park parking scheme a good idea?

First published in News

Councillors yesterday evening voted to parking restrictions north of Preston Park Station.

The roads affected are: Maldon Road, Matlock Road, Tivoli Crescent North and Tivoli Road.

Residents claimed there was 70% opposition to the scheme in a council consultation prior to yesteray's meeting.

We want to know what you think about the scheme.

Are you pleased it has been passed? Do you think it will make the area a better place live?

Or do you think it is unnecessary to have a parking scheme so far out of the city?

Is it "undemocratic" given the consultation results?

Have your say below.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:01am Wed 5 Mar 14

Baffled of Brighton says...

It is the same price for only 5 days as it would have been for 7...
It will also reduce the amount of parking available
It is the same price for only 5 days as it would have been for 7... It will also reduce the amount of parking available Baffled of Brighton
  • Score: 12

7:28am Wed 5 Mar 14

Greensout says...

We see little enough evidence of true democracy at local and national levels, but when the residents of the area affected take the time and trouble to air their views and oppose the new parking scheme it disenfranchises the electorate yet further from this joke of a Council. Shame on you B&H - money before morals as usual !!!
We see little enough evidence of true democracy at local and national levels, but when the residents of the area affected take the time and trouble to air their views and oppose the new parking scheme it disenfranchises the electorate yet further from this joke of a Council. Shame on you B&H - money before morals as usual !!! Greensout
  • Score: 39

8:01am Wed 5 Mar 14

Melmo9 says...

In my opinion public consultation is often ignored. Decisions are often made by councillors who take it upon themselves to 'know best'. In this case the parking restrictions are money grabbing and unnecessary! The expense of consultation, planning and implementation will take years to claim back in parking fines. These fines will also be on local residents - so rather than putting resource into bringing money into the county, we're in fact penalising locals and circulating the money in our local economy (or do we invest in a company outside of Sussex to instal and administer the parking meters?). Nonsense!
In my opinion public consultation is often ignored. Decisions are often made by councillors who take it upon themselves to 'know best'. In this case the parking restrictions are money grabbing and unnecessary! The expense of consultation, planning and implementation will take years to claim back in parking fines. These fines will also be on local residents - so rather than putting resource into bringing money into the county, we're in fact penalising locals and circulating the money in our local economy (or do we invest in a company outside of Sussex to instal and administer the parking meters?). Nonsense! Melmo9
  • Score: 32

8:25am Wed 5 Mar 14

seagull321 says...

The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area

Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads

Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it
The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it seagull321
  • Score: -29

8:37am Wed 5 Mar 14

NickBtn says...

seagull321 wrote:
The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area

Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads

Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it
Will the locals love paying the stealth tax to fund this?

The locals have voted against it. There has also been a no confidence vote in Mr Kitkat. Both are ignored. Where has democracy gone in Brighton and Hove?

Make residents parking free for residents. That way the council won't make such a large profit. Then we'll see if councillors are so keen that they "know best" and spread these schemes. Or is it all about raising money?
[quote][p][bold]seagull321[/bold] wrote: The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it[/p][/quote]Will the locals love paying the stealth tax to fund this? The locals have voted against it. There has also been a no confidence vote in Mr Kitkat. Both are ignored. Where has democracy gone in Brighton and Hove? Make residents parking free for residents. That way the council won't make such a large profit. Then we'll see if councillors are so keen that they "know best" and spread these schemes. Or is it all about raising money? NickBtn
  • Score: 22

8:42am Wed 5 Mar 14

Greensout says...

seagull321 wrote:
The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area

Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads

Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it
seagull321 - I'm afraid you've totally missed the point - the residents campaigned AGAINST these parking restrictions and even went to the trouble of hiring a lawyer to represent them.

The residents are livid and 70% is a reasonable majority opposed to this barking money making scam ....
[quote][p][bold]seagull321[/bold] wrote: The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it[/p][/quote]seagull321 - I'm afraid you've totally missed the point - the residents campaigned AGAINST these parking restrictions and even went to the trouble of hiring a lawyer to represent them. The residents are livid and 70% is a reasonable majority opposed to this barking money making scam .... Greensout
  • Score: 25

8:44am Wed 5 Mar 14

jimbob46 says...

seagull321 wrote:
The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area

Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads

Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it
Wrong...I am a resident of this area. I did not vote for it. I do not want it,..and therefore...will NOT love it!
[quote][p][bold]seagull321[/bold] wrote: The Council should be applauded for sorting out this nightmare of parking for many in the Matlock/Tivoli area Also there are serious road safety issues in Dyke Road and the adjoining roads Once the new scheme is in place the locals will all love it[/p][/quote]Wrong...I am a resident of this area. I did not vote for it. I do not want it,..and therefore...will NOT love it! jimbob46
  • Score: 20

9:02am Wed 5 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Sadly the locals were never going to be allowed to successfully object to this scheme. It's the next step in the councils plan to extend CPZs all the way to the edge of Westdene in the area boarded by Goldstone Crescent, London Road and everywhere in between. They deny it but the plans are already in place. All they will do is drip feed the extensions until they get to Woodland Drive.

The consultations are only carried out because there is a legal obligation to do so - they don't listen to objections.
Sadly the locals were never going to be allowed to successfully object to this scheme. It's the next step in the councils plan to extend CPZs all the way to the edge of Westdene in the area boarded by Goldstone Crescent, London Road and everywhere in between. They deny it but the plans are already in place. All they will do is drip feed the extensions until they get to Woodland Drive. The consultations are only carried out because there is a legal obligation to do so - they don't listen to objections. Fight_Back
  • Score: 18

9:22am Wed 5 Mar 14

seagull321 says...

Sorry if the facts get in the way!!!
The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.
Sorry if the facts get in the way!!! The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise. seagull321
  • Score: -17

9:42am Wed 5 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

seagull321 wrote:
Sorry if the facts get in the way!!!
The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.
How can the new scheme be a compromise when an even greater percentage objected to this one ?
[quote][p][bold]seagull321[/bold] wrote: Sorry if the facts get in the way!!! The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.[/p][/quote]How can the new scheme be a compromise when an even greater percentage objected to this one ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 18

10:00am Wed 5 Mar 14

downbythesea says...

Money grabbing Green T0ssers!
Money grabbing Green T0ssers! downbythesea
  • Score: 9

10:19am Wed 5 Mar 14

Ollie2001 says...

I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements.
I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements. Ollie2001
  • Score: -17

11:11am Wed 5 Mar 14

We are the 99% says...

downbythesea wrote:
Money grabbing Green T0ssers!
Gave you the thumbs down in error!
Sorry!
Seems the needs of the few snobs and the Green tyrants, outweigh the needs of the many!
Scandalous!
[quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: Money grabbing Green T0ssers![/p][/quote]Gave you the thumbs down in error! Sorry! Seems the needs of the few snobs and the Green tyrants, outweigh the needs of the many! Scandalous! We are the 99%
  • Score: 5

11:12am Wed 5 Mar 14

We are the 99% says...

Ollie2001 wrote:
I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements.
Bull!
[quote][p][bold]Ollie2001[/bold] wrote: I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements.[/p][/quote]Bull! We are the 99%
  • Score: 5

11:16am Wed 5 Mar 14

NickBtn says...

Ollie2001 wrote:
I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements.
The council can't have it both ways - a percent or two is "overwhelming" support for 20mph but a strong vote against (70%) is ignored. It's good that you voted but if your neighbors support something but didn't vote then they can't really complain. Or perhaps they knew that the council would do whatever it wants anyway and ignore what local people are saying!
[quote][p][bold]Ollie2001[/bold] wrote: I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements.[/p][/quote]The council can't have it both ways - a percent or two is "overwhelming" support for 20mph but a strong vote against (70%) is ignored. It's good that you voted but if your neighbors support something but didn't vote then they can't really complain. Or perhaps they knew that the council would do whatever it wants anyway and ignore what local people are saying! NickBtn
  • Score: 4

11:41am Wed 5 Mar 14

Supporter of Democracy says...

seagull321 wrote:
Sorry if the facts get in the way!!! The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.
What are these 'facts' of which you speak? The original consultation vote from residents of these four streets was 83 against, 78 for. Check the council report again, the numbers are clearly reported. It only adds up to 91/91 if you add in the jerrymandering votes obtained from residents outside the area.

Well done for swallowing the Council's biased reporting of the real facts though.

Mind you, even 91/91 isn't a majority. Not in the real world anyway.
[quote][p][bold]seagull321[/bold] wrote: Sorry if the facts get in the way!!! The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.[/p][/quote]What are these 'facts' of which you speak? The original consultation vote from residents of these four streets was 83 against, 78 for. Check the council report again, the numbers are clearly reported. It only adds up to 91/91 if you add in the jerrymandering votes obtained from residents outside the area. Well done for swallowing the Council's biased reporting of the real facts though. Mind you, even 91/91 isn't a majority. Not in the real world anyway. Supporter of Democracy
  • Score: 8

11:47am Wed 5 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Ollie2001 wrote:
I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements.
Why shouldn't each individual get a vote ? We don't run elections on a one household one vote basis so neither should we do so for consultations. Changes such as this can affect all the adults so it would be very unfair to limit a house to a single vote.
[quote][p][bold]Ollie2001[/bold] wrote: I'm a resident and I voted for it. Many of the '70%' against we're multiple votes from the same households whereas in the original 50/50 consultation it was one vote per household. This 'opposition' is a skewed view peddled by the aggressive and intimidatory organisers of the No campaign who obviously have more money than sense if they plan to finance a legal challenge. Many of my fellow neighbours support the campaign and cannot wait for it to be implemented. I am no fan of the current council but this is one decision which will actually lead to improvements.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't each individual get a vote ? We don't run elections on a one household one vote basis so neither should we do so for consultations. Changes such as this can affect all the adults so it would be very unfair to limit a house to a single vote. Fight_Back
  • Score: 12

12:20pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

i wonder if either of seagull321 or Ollie2001 is H Jones of Dyke Road, who should not really have had a say in the matter, let alone campaign for residents parking in somebody elses street.
i wonder if either of seagull321 or Ollie2001 is H Jones of Dyke Road, who should not really have had a say in the matter, let alone campaign for residents parking in somebody elses street. Man of steel
  • Score: 4

12:52pm Wed 5 Mar 14

BenUk says...

Only a good idea if you give all houses free parking permits for themselves and there family and visitors, why should home owners have to pay more just to park outside there own house!!!, preston park station should have its own car park big enough to cope with all the cars.
Only a good idea if you give all houses free parking permits for themselves and there family and visitors, why should home owners have to pay more just to park outside there own house!!!, preston park station should have its own car park big enough to cope with all the cars. BenUk
  • Score: 7

3:24pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Unrepentent democrat says...

Supporter of Democracy wrote:
seagull321 wrote:
Sorry if the facts get in the way!!! The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.
What are these 'facts' of which you speak? The original consultation vote from residents of these four streets was 83 against, 78 for. Check the council report again, the numbers are clearly reported. It only adds up to 91/91 if you add in the jerrymandering votes obtained from residents outside the area.

Well done for swallowing the Council's biased reporting of the real facts though.

Mind you, even 91/91 isn't a majority. Not in the real world anyway.
The council officers knew that residents in Dyke Road wanted double yellow lines, so they were included in the vote, even though they won't qualify for permits. Then they were excluded from the zone, which shifted opinion even more against the scheme. This is jerrymandering of the worst kind.

The worst aspect of all is that the councillors couldn't be bothered to find out what the objections were all about, thinking they can ignore the electorate. All the parties are the same, they all voted along the unelected officers' party lines.
[quote][p][bold]Supporter of Democracy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seagull321[/bold] wrote: Sorry if the facts get in the way!!! The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.[/p][/quote]What are these 'facts' of which you speak? The original consultation vote from residents of these four streets was 83 against, 78 for. Check the council report again, the numbers are clearly reported. It only adds up to 91/91 if you add in the jerrymandering votes obtained from residents outside the area. Well done for swallowing the Council's biased reporting of the real facts though. Mind you, even 91/91 isn't a majority. Not in the real world anyway.[/p][/quote]The council officers knew that residents in Dyke Road wanted double yellow lines, so they were included in the vote, even though they won't qualify for permits. Then they were excluded from the zone, which shifted opinion even more against the scheme. This is jerrymandering of the worst kind. The worst aspect of all is that the councillors couldn't be bothered to find out what the objections were all about, thinking they can ignore the electorate. All the parties are the same, they all voted along the unelected officers' party lines. Unrepentent democrat
  • Score: 5

3:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Unrepentent democrat says...

seagull321 wrote:
Sorry if the facts get in the way!!!
The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.
If the five-day scheme is a good compromise it should have been out out to another consultation, to prove that THIS version had majority support. It was only possible to propose the alternative by saying that a 'no' vote didn't mean no, it meant 'yes, but'. The objections to the TRO was in effect that second consultation and it was heavily defeated. If the City Council cannot understand that, we can never trust them again.
[quote][p][bold]seagull321[/bold] wrote: Sorry if the facts get in the way!!! The original consultation resulted in a 50 50 split for a seven day scheme The Council then came forward with a five day scheme which was a good compromise.[/p][/quote]If the five-day scheme is a good compromise it should have been out out to another consultation, to prove that THIS version had majority support. It was only possible to propose the alternative by saying that a 'no' vote didn't mean no, it meant 'yes, but'. The objections to the TRO was in effect that second consultation and it was heavily defeated. If the City Council cannot understand that, we can never trust them again. Unrepentent democrat
  • Score: 7

6:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Tivolian says...

I can only imagine that those on the Transport Committee who voted for this scheme against the wishes of the majority (and yes there was a majority), do not represent the ward involved. If they did they would realise that residents have long memories when it comes to real votes (sic).
This is nothing but another way to fleece the populus. If the council was really serious about wanting to help residents, they would make the scheme free.
Nah, didn't think so...
I can only imagine that those on the Transport Committee who voted for this scheme against the wishes of the majority (and yes there was a majority), do not represent the ward involved. If they did they would realise that residents have long memories when it comes to real votes (sic). This is nothing but another way to fleece the populus. If the council was really serious about wanting to help residents, they would make the scheme free. Nah, didn't think so... Tivolian
  • Score: 6

6:59pm Wed 5 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

I've got an idea. Why don't residents ignore any scheme introduced? When they get a notice in the post, send it back with a note saying "Go and **** yourselves, I'm not paying". If a residents car gets towed away, then the rest of them could band together and go and retrieve it from the car pound or whatever they call it. Nothing is going to be resolved by residents sniping on the comments page and trying to fight it individually. Get together and tell the council to stick it. Loudly. Repeat until they comply.
I've got an idea. Why don't residents ignore any scheme introduced? When they get a notice in the post, send it back with a note saying "Go and **** yourselves, I'm not paying". If a residents car gets towed away, then the rest of them could band together and go and retrieve it from the car pound or whatever they call it. Nothing is going to be resolved by residents sniping on the comments page and trying to fight it individually. Get together and tell the council to stick it. Loudly. Repeat until they comply. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 6

8:29pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TivoliRoad says...

I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced.
I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced. TivoliRoad
  • Score: -9

9:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

percyorgladys says...

Salazar says...
If the meters at Preston Park would be reasonably priced, commuters would be prepared to park their cars there and not clog up the surrounding area. And if the Council had not insisted on the shortage of car parking at Legal & General at the top of Hove Park, the residents of the roads adjoining Preston Park would never have been congested and the need for a CPZ in this area would never have been deemed necessary. And if the Council did not intend to borrow millions of pounds for an eyesore (i360) on the seafront by the West Pier which will cost the local taxpayer for years to come, and instead ploughed the money into the infrastructure of the City, then we might have a Council which listens to its residents and one we could be proud of.
I did not vote for the implementation of this scheme and I certainly will not love it.
Salazar says... If the meters at Preston Park would be reasonably priced, commuters would be prepared to park their cars there and not clog up the surrounding area. And if the Council had not insisted on the shortage of car parking at Legal & General at the top of Hove Park, the residents of the roads adjoining Preston Park would never have been congested and the need for a CPZ in this area would never have been deemed necessary. And if the Council did not intend to borrow millions of pounds for an eyesore (i360) on the seafront by the West Pier which will cost the local taxpayer for years to come, and instead ploughed the money into the infrastructure of the City, then we might have a Council which listens to its residents and one we could be proud of. I did not vote for the implementation of this scheme and I certainly will not love it. percyorgladys
  • Score: 6

9:46am Thu 6 Mar 14

Unrepentent democrat says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
I've got an idea. Why don't residents ignore any scheme introduced? When they get a notice in the post, send it back with a note saying "Go and **** yourselves, I'm not paying". If a residents car gets towed away, then the rest of them could band together and go and retrieve it from the car pound or whatever they call it. Nothing is going to be resolved by residents sniping on the comments page and trying to fight it individually. Get together and tell the council to stick it. Loudly. Repeat until they comply.
The likelihood of the area being monitored by Traffic Enforcement Officers more than once in a blue moon is so remote that it won't make much difference.
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: I've got an idea. Why don't residents ignore any scheme introduced? When they get a notice in the post, send it back with a note saying "Go and **** yourselves, I'm not paying". If a residents car gets towed away, then the rest of them could band together and go and retrieve it from the car pound or whatever they call it. Nothing is going to be resolved by residents sniping on the comments page and trying to fight it individually. Get together and tell the council to stick it. Loudly. Repeat until they comply.[/p][/quote]The likelihood of the area being monitored by Traffic Enforcement Officers more than once in a blue moon is so remote that it won't make much difference. Unrepentent democrat
  • Score: 3

2:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

thevoiceofsanity says...

TivoliRoad wrote:
I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced.
I whole heartedly agree with the comments from Tivoli Road. Perhaps now children and the elderly will be able to cross the road safely without visibility being reduced by parked cars. For years we have suffered with dumped cars, holiday and commuter parking. Many thanks to the Council for their vote on Tuesday. Councillors from all three parties voted "yes" so this certainly wasn't just down to the Greens.
[quote][p][bold]TivoliRoad[/bold] wrote: I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced.[/p][/quote]I whole heartedly agree with the comments from Tivoli Road. Perhaps now children and the elderly will be able to cross the road safely without visibility being reduced by parked cars. For years we have suffered with dumped cars, holiday and commuter parking. Many thanks to the Council for their vote on Tuesday. Councillors from all three parties voted "yes" so this certainly wasn't just down to the Greens. thevoiceofsanity
  • Score: -9

2:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

thevoiceofsanity says...

TivoliRoad wrote:
I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced.
I whole heartedly agree with the comments from Tivoli Road. Perhaps now children and the elderly will be able to cross the road safely without visibility being reduced by parked cars. For years we have suffered with dumped cars, holiday and commuter parking. Many thanks to the Council for their vote on Tuesday. Councillors from all three parties voted "yes" so this certainly wasn't just down to the Greens.
[quote][p][bold]TivoliRoad[/bold] wrote: I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced.[/p][/quote]I whole heartedly agree with the comments from Tivoli Road. Perhaps now children and the elderly will be able to cross the road safely without visibility being reduced by parked cars. For years we have suffered with dumped cars, holiday and commuter parking. Many thanks to the Council for their vote on Tuesday. Councillors from all three parties voted "yes" so this certainly wasn't just down to the Greens. thevoiceofsanity
  • Score: -9

2:34pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Supporter of Democracy says...

thevoiceofsanity wrote:
TivoliRoad wrote: I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced.
I whole heartedly agree with the comments from Tivoli Road. Perhaps now children and the elderly will be able to cross the road safely without visibility being reduced by parked cars. For years we have suffered with dumped cars, holiday and commuter parking. Many thanks to the Council for their vote on Tuesday. Councillors from all three parties voted "yes" so this certainly wasn't just down to the Greens.
Do you seriously think the number of cars parked in these roads will be reduced as a result of this scheme? The data presented in the council report shows that there is an estimated figure of 285 cars in these four roads which belong to residents who do not have access to off-road parking.

The peak occupancy of cars in the road takes place in the evenings between Monday to Friday, regardless of the fact that these clearly don't belong to commuters (although I suspect a lot of them belong to permitless people from Tivoli Crescent) and under this great new scheme they will still be able to park there after 8pm anyway.

Incidentally the lowest car occupancy in all four roads (including Matlock) occurs during the day, Mon - Fri, the very time that the scheme will be enforced.

The only additional safety will be the introduction of double yellows on the blind bend between Matlock and Tivoli Road. I'm sure everyone will be overjoyed to pay £120 a year fot that!
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceofsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TivoliRoad[/bold] wrote: I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Council. I am a resident of Tivoli Road - we suffer long-term dumping of vehicles; daily commuters who use Preston Park Station; holiday makers going to Gatwick; visitors to Brighton who park and use the bus network; residents of Zone A who do not wish to pay for permits. Our life has been a nightmare and I am delighted that Zone E is to be introduced.[/p][/quote]I whole heartedly agree with the comments from Tivoli Road. Perhaps now children and the elderly will be able to cross the road safely without visibility being reduced by parked cars. For years we have suffered with dumped cars, holiday and commuter parking. Many thanks to the Council for their vote on Tuesday. Councillors from all three parties voted "yes" so this certainly wasn't just down to the Greens.[/p][/quote]Do you seriously think the number of cars parked in these roads will be reduced as a result of this scheme? The data presented in the council report shows that there is an estimated figure of 285 cars in these four roads which belong to residents who do not have access to off-road parking. The peak occupancy of cars in the road takes place in the evenings between Monday to Friday, regardless of the fact that these clearly don't belong to commuters (although I suspect a lot of them belong to permitless people from Tivoli Crescent) and under this great new scheme they will still be able to park there after 8pm anyway. Incidentally the lowest car occupancy in all four roads (including Matlock) occurs during the day, Mon - Fri, the very time that the scheme will be enforced. The only additional safety will be the introduction of double yellows on the blind bend between Matlock and Tivoli Road. I'm sure everyone will be overjoyed to pay £120 a year fot that! Supporter of Democracy
  • Score: 8

5:16pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Unrepentent democrat says...

Tivolian wrote:
I can only imagine that those on the Transport Committee who voted for this scheme against the wishes of the majority (and yes there was a majority), do not represent the ward involved. If they did they would realise that residents have long memories when it comes to real votes (sic).
This is nothing but another way to fleece the populus. If the council was really serious about wanting to help residents, they would make the scheme free.
Nah, didn't think so...
All three ward councillors were in favour of the scheme and actively supported it, even though they appear to be opposed to the Preston Triangle scheme. Yes, we do have long memories.
[quote][p][bold]Tivolian[/bold] wrote: I can only imagine that those on the Transport Committee who voted for this scheme against the wishes of the majority (and yes there was a majority), do not represent the ward involved. If they did they would realise that residents have long memories when it comes to real votes (sic). This is nothing but another way to fleece the populus. If the council was really serious about wanting to help residents, they would make the scheme free. Nah, didn't think so...[/p][/quote]All three ward councillors were in favour of the scheme and actively supported it, even though they appear to be opposed to the Preston Triangle scheme. Yes, we do have long memories. Unrepentent democrat
  • Score: 4

5:18pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Unrepentent democrat says...

It's ironic that the picture at the top of this column shows a sign for a LIGHT TOUCH scheme. That probably would have won majority support.
It's ironic that the picture at the top of this column shows a sign for a LIGHT TOUCH scheme. That probably would have won majority support. Unrepentent democrat
  • Score: 5

3:48pm Sat 8 Mar 14

50% Is Not A Majority says...

I pity those who genuinely believe this crazy scheme will improve their lives. Stop being so naive: this is a cash grab that does not have majority local support and will not improve parking in the local area for residents (as to improving road safety, hello? Are you in there?). Officers are acting out of a sense of financial desperation: members are supporting the travesty of democracy by mutual agreement so that none can be seen to benefiting politically pre-election by stepping 'out of line' or - perhaps - because deals are being done behind the scenes to move towards agreeing the Council budget; both groups want to show you who is REALLY in charge and who knows best - and that is not you, stupid, puny voters! Supporters - whether you face the facts or go all 'UKIP' on us and think in the face of the facts, I will be continuing to fight this issue as long as I remain a local resident: and I feel comforted to know I am in a healthy majority.
I pity those who genuinely believe this crazy scheme will improve their lives. Stop being so naive: this is a cash grab that does not have majority local support and will not improve parking in the local area for residents (as to improving road safety, hello? Are you in there?). Officers are acting out of a sense of financial desperation: members are supporting the travesty of democracy by mutual agreement so that none can be seen to benefiting politically pre-election by stepping 'out of line' or - perhaps - because deals are being done behind the scenes to move towards agreeing the Council budget; both groups want to show you who is REALLY in charge and who knows best - and that is not you, stupid, puny voters! Supporters - whether you face the facts or go all 'UKIP' on us and think in the face of the facts, I will be continuing to fight this issue as long as I remain a local resident: and I feel comforted to know I am in a healthy majority. 50% Is Not A Majority
  • Score: 6

7:05pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Facts not fiction says...

Supporters of the scheme should take note of how the council adapted their questionnaire for the later Preston Park Triangle scheme consultation.
That questionnaire gave a choice of schemes a) Mon to Sun, 9am to 8pm or b) Mon to Fri, 9am to 8pm. The residents voted by a 76% majority for a 7 day scheme.
The questionnaire also asked if Mon to Sun, 9am to 8pm was chosen would they like to join the existing Area J? The residents voted by a 63% majority to join the existing scheme.
The residents of Preston Park North were not given this choice, but had a 5 day, separate area scheme imposed on them (ably assisted by the ward councillors).
I wonder how long it will be before pro-scheme supporters realise that non-residents will soon use the free parking on a weekend to commute to the shops and the station. I also wonder if they will soon find difficulty in parking their cars as the inflexibility of a smaller area becomes apparent. Past history shows many parking areas having to combine with adjacent areas to provide flexibility of movement at scheme boundaries. At least the Preston Park Triangle residents were allowed some democratic options, which were denied to the residents in Preston Park North area. Time will tell who will have the most appropriate scheme. If only people took the trouble to investigate the facts, the impending problems would soon become apparent.
Supporters of the scheme should take note of how the council adapted their questionnaire for the later Preston Park Triangle scheme consultation. That questionnaire gave a choice of schemes a) Mon to Sun, 9am to 8pm or b) Mon to Fri, 9am to 8pm. The residents voted by a 76% majority for a 7 day scheme. The questionnaire also asked if Mon to Sun, 9am to 8pm was chosen would they like to join the existing Area J? The residents voted by a 63% majority to join the existing scheme. The residents of Preston Park North were not given this choice, but had a 5 day, separate area scheme imposed on them (ably assisted by the ward councillors). I wonder how long it will be before pro-scheme supporters realise that non-residents will soon use the free parking on a weekend to commute to the shops and the station. I also wonder if they will soon find difficulty in parking their cars as the inflexibility of a smaller area becomes apparent. Past history shows many parking areas having to combine with adjacent areas to provide flexibility of movement at scheme boundaries. At least the Preston Park Triangle residents were allowed some democratic options, which were denied to the residents in Preston Park North area. Time will tell who will have the most appropriate scheme. If only people took the trouble to investigate the facts, the impending problems would soon become apparent. Facts not fiction
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree