Residents may get experimental trial parking zone (From Bucks Free Press)
Send your news, photos and videos by texting bucksfreepress to 80360 or email
Residents may get experimental trial parking zone
6:10pm Tuesday 27th December 2011 in Business News By James Nadal
Furious families bearing placards told the Marlow Free Press earlier this month that they were sick of never being able to park on their street
FRUSTRATED residents, sick of seeing the parking spaces outside their homes taken by commuters, may get the scheme they want after all, albeit on a trial basis.
An action group was formed by householders in Marlow after Sainsbury's opened on November 30.
Families feared the 140 staff looking for somewhere to park would make their already crammed roads surrounding Riley Park, Marlow, even worse.
They were dismayed that a permit scheme, which appeared to be on offer, thanks to an £80,000 developers contribution fund from the supermarket, was put on ice.
Marlow Town Council, backed by Wycombe District Council, said the knock on effect on the whole town needed examining.
However, the Marlow Free Press has now been told an experimental parking zone could be put in place in Cambridge Road/York Road for a maximum of 18 months whilst the survey was carried out.
This is subject to legal advice, currently being sought.
This was one of the agreements to come out of joint discussions between the two councils and Buckinghamshire County Council - the authority responsible for parking.
While they support residents in the Cambridge Road/York Road area, they are concerned about the knock on effect of a permit scheme and a long term solution for the whole town was needed.
Some of the £80k pot will be used for a study.
Further meetings will take place between councillors, officers and other bodies including The Marlow Chamber of Trade.
Cllr Richard Scott said: “I am acutely aware of parking issues in Marlow and we are working with Transport for Bucks to find an equitable solution.”
He also backed the possibility of decked or underground parking, which he said was much needed.
Marlow Mayor Cllr Jocelyn Towns said:“I understand the concerns of those residents who are unable to park outside or close to their homes because of long term or commuter parking.
“We know that consultation has already taken place with the residents of Cambridge Road/York Road area, but town councillors act for all residents and have to address how a scheme in this area might impact on residents living further out.
“Additional Town centre car parking for visitors and commuters is required”.
Comments(90)
laircm
says...
9:18pm Tue 27 Dec 11
demoness the second
says...
9:50pm Tue 27 Dec 11
wayneo
says...
10:09pm Tue 27 Dec 11
laircm wrote:It doesn't matter, they're trying to use the eprimental traffic order in order to ride roughshod over the consultation process. Until the consultation and study has been concluded then the Council has no idea how the scheme will affect the town, to implement an experimental order is foolhardy without having basic facts present just because a few residents want to take over the highway. Such a decision, as with other kneejerk decisions that Councils make, could and should be Judicially reviewed when they are likely to cause damage to the wider community.
Judicial Review - come on! The councils decision relates to an experimental residents parking scheme, not a new sports stadium! I say well done for putting the residents (and Marlow Council Tax payers) interests before those of commuters.
jayeatman
says...
11:16pm Tue 27 Dec 11
X3SGR
says...
12:25am Wed 28 Dec 11
StevePayne
says...
7:42am Wed 28 Dec 11
katodeza
says...
8:38am Wed 28 Dec 11
marlow678
says...
9:31am Wed 28 Dec 11
marlow678
says...
9:32am Wed 28 Dec 11
piran
says...
10:38am Wed 28 Dec 11
Readerabc123
says...
11:22am Wed 28 Dec 11
Readerabc123
says...
11:23am Wed 28 Dec 11
Readerabc123
says...
11:23am Wed 28 Dec 11
Agniesca
says...
11:27am Wed 28 Dec 11
Readerabc123
says...
11:34am Wed 28 Dec 11
Readerabc123
says...
11:48am Wed 28 Dec 11
wayneo
says...
12:16pm Wed 28 Dec 11
Agniesca wrote:Funding is from the local Government finance settlement grant and of capital funding from the LTP settlement from the DfT not from Local taxpayers (though it is still taxpayers cash one way or another), it is up to the Council how the grant money is allocated but the national figure is about 3% on Highways so it is important that the Consultation and survey is accurate and vast prior to committing any funds on experimental traffic orders at this stage which will cost us. revenue funding and Onstreet parking charges and permits etc could pay for it though again, the result of this would be akin to pushing the problem elsewhere without knowing the impact of doing so.The Highways authority have a duty to ensure that the economic wellbeing and traffic flows aren't impacted by such changes, thus the requirement to listen to people and survey the wider area first; this will save us money in the longer term.
I thought that residents did pay for the maintenance of their road via their property tax, unlike those who commute from elsewhere, as they make no contribution at present
marlow678
says...
1:03pm Wed 28 Dec 11
Agniesca wrote:What about all the business rates that are paid in the town, with money generated by employees from elsewhere!!!!!! Businesses get nothing for the business rates they pay, not even their bins collected.
I thought that residents did pay for the maintenance of their road via their property tax, unlike those who commute from elsewhere, as they make no contribution at present
Flackwell
says...
1:17pm Wed 28 Dec 11
We'll end up like Venice - but too many people only think of their own self interest.
Flackwell
says...
1:17pm Wed 28 Dec 11
We'll end up like Venice - but too many people only think of their own self interest.
gpn01
says...
1:23pm Wed 28 Dec 11
Readerabc123 wrote:I'd counter that it is an option. It's just one that you'd prefer not to choose.
Actually we do contribute but choose to live just outside of Marlow where we can park on our private drives that others do not contribute towards the upkeep. We have to work in Marlow as this is our place of work and paying £110 a month to park is not an option.
StevePayne
says...
6:52pm Wed 28 Dec 11
Totally agree - very well said!
StevePayne
says...
6:53pm Wed 28 Dec 11
Totally agree, well said !
wayneo
says...
9:20pm Wed 28 Dec 11
marlow678 wrote:You are right, they don't and in my opinion lowering business rates, VAT and employers NI contributions would be one way of helping business growth which is proven by the fact that so many charity shops are opening in High Wycombe etc.
Agniesca wrote: I thought that residents did pay for the maintenance of their road via their property tax, unlike those who commute from elsewhere, as they make no contribution at presentWhat about all the business rates that are paid in the town, with money generated by employees from elsewhere!!!!!! Businesses get nothing for the business rates they pay, not even their bins collected.
wayneo
says...
9:26pm Wed 28 Dec 11
StevePayne wrote:One could argue that's what the permit system does, that it effectively rents the roadspace to local residents; that said, any parking requirements should have been taken into consideration by the Highways Department at planning stage, if they have fallen short with regards to their assement, then that needs to be addressed, we can't keep developing without first addressing the infrastructure needs, it's unsustainable and wrong.
"Surely if the residents of these roads have exclusive parking they should pay for the upkeep of these roads - Including lighting and keeping them clean" Totally agree, well said !
wayneo
says...
9:29pm Wed 28 Dec 11
Lividov
says...
2:17am Thu 29 Dec 11
laircm
says...
9:25am Thu 29 Dec 11
press.co.uk/news/471
0859.Residents_bemus
ed_by_parking_permit
_scheme_hold_up/ for two year old evidence. Whilst it is likely to have been exacerbated by the Sainsburys staff parking issue, it is obviously not the root cause. In response to the wider comments so far, it comes as no surprise that the vast majority are gainst the proposed trial. Indeed why would anyone be in favour of a residents parking scheme unless they will benefit from it themselves? Its a classic 'not my problem' response. However, its clearly a problem for the residents in roads to the north of Riley Park so well done to the two Councils for apparently agreeing to trial the scheme. Finally, some facts. There is already residents parking in Crown Place (next to Cambridge/York Road) so precident exists in the area. Residents will pay for the permits - and visitors permits. The roads will however not become private (like driveways in front of houses) so arguments set forth by Readerabc123 are entirely moot.
Flackwell
says...
9:33am Thu 29 Dec 11
On the other hand if you pay national/local taxes, fuel duties, Road fund licence etc etc then you expect to be able to use what you have paid for.
Either the residents should adopt the road themselves or leave well alone, instead of spending my money on their needs
And simply charging for an already paid for facility is not the answer imo
laircm
says...
9:52am Thu 29 Dec 11
Flackwell
says...
9:56am Thu 29 Dec 11
M40
says...
10:29am Thu 29 Dec 11
Readerabc123 wrote:The Sainsbury store is in the WRONG place, it should have been located on the outskirts of Marlow but that wouldn't please Readerabc123.
Actually we do contribute but choose to live just outside of Marlow where we can park on our private drives that others do not contribute towards the upkeep. We have to work in Marlow as this is our place of work and paying £110 a month to park is not an option.
A case of NIMBY but it's OK for Mr/Mrs NIMBY to make use of areas to the detriment of others.
gpn01
says...
10:41am Thu 29 Dec 11
M40 wrote:Whilst it may be in what you've decided is the "wrong" place others may have a different opinion.
Readerabc123 wrote: Actually we do contribute but choose to live just outside of Marlow where we can park on our private drives that others do not contribute towards the upkeep. We have to work in Marlow as this is our place of work and paying £110 a month to park is not an option.The Sainsbury store is in the WRONG place, it should have been located on the outskirts of Marlow but that wouldn't please Readerabc123. A case of NIMBY but it's OK for Mr/Mrs NIMBY to make use of areas to the detriment of others.
.
Longer term it'll be interesting to see the impact of the store on other local retailers - and whether there'll be a halo effect (where other shops benefit because of the increased footfall in the area) or canibalisation (as people decrease their spend in other shops). Hopefully it'll be the former as this'll help to build a more vibrant shopping area.
.
wayneo
says...
12:16pm Thu 29 Dec 11
laircm wrote:The section 106 money was intended for
Flackwell - its not your money. The £80K has been obligated by Sainsburys as part of the 106 agreement with WDC as part of the planning process for the new store. This is stated in James Nadal's balenced article of 5 December.
towards a parking study and/or parking information systems in Marlow and/or civil enforcement of controlled parking in MarloThere's no mention of permits in the 106 agreement.
!
It seems to me that this survey should have been done prior to the application being granted not afterwards. The idea that BCC can implement a strategy of mitigating employees from driving alone a travel masterplan is quite frankly bonkers, clearly this is a case of approve it and worry about the conseuences of having the infrastructure in place first.
!
The idea of, let's build it and fix it afterwards is a failure of the duty of the Highways authority to provide a coherent plan and any 106 monies would unlikely cover the costs of resolving problems afterwards.
!
Instead it is clear that instead of meeting their obligations to accomodate vehicle growth, BCC Highways are still trotting out the usual expensive to monitor and fanciful ideas that we should all give up our cars and take the bus or cycle. I don't see that failure to plan on their part should constitute a detriment to those who pay through the nose to buy, tax and insure their cars.
!
Remember, the reason this has come about is NOT the fault of car owners, even the residents but the fault of the local authority to plan properly, it really is as simple as that.
StevePayne
says...
2:50pm Thu 29 Dec 11
We cannot go back in time. There's the same amount of public road now as there was before the development. So first come first served and it seems if I want to park on pavement and verge then nobody will enforce the law anyway.
wayneo
says...
3:19pm Thu 29 Dec 11
StevePayne wrote:We can't go back in time but again, if a thoughtful transport plan had been adopted over time and in the first place rather than than BCC trying to implement a fanciful anti-car agenda then we wouldn't require such draconian enforcement measures anyway, let's face it, parking on verges comes from demand.
"the reason this has come about is NOT the fault of car owners, even the residents but the fault of the local authority to plan properly" We cannot go back in time. There's the same amount of public road now as there was before the development. So first come first served and it seems if I want to park on pavement and verge then nobody will enforce the law anyway.
!
It's all well and good firefighting against resident's demands of cutting speed limits here and there, putting obstacles in the road that create congestion but money has been p!ssed up against a wall with little to show for it. If there is a masterplan, then it isn't working.
!
Although it's a case stable doors and horses, the right, sensible and I suppose quite bold approach, is to conduct an INDEPENDENT survey based on traffic volume, costs of transport etc etc, hoever,by implementing an experimental traffic order prior to a survey being conducted would surely skew any results of that survey; to implement changes prior to conducting any survey will mean it to be a total waste of money, time and effort.
wayneo
says...
3:19pm Thu 29 Dec 11
StevePayne wrote:We can't go back in time but again, if a thoughtful transport plan had been adopted over time and in the first place rather than than BCC trying to implement a fanciful anti-car agenda then we wouldn't require such draconian enforcement measures anyway, let's face it, parking on verges comes from demand.
"the reason this has come about is NOT the fault of car owners, even the residents but the fault of the local authority to plan properly" We cannot go back in time. There's the same amount of public road now as there was before the development. So first come first served and it seems if I want to park on pavement and verge then nobody will enforce the law anyway.
!
It's all well and good firefighting against resident's demands of cutting speed limits here and there, putting obstacles in the road that create congestion but money has been p!ssed up against a wall with little to show for it. If there is a masterplan, then it isn't working.
!
Although it's a case stable doors and horses, the right, sensible and I suppose quite bold approach, is to conduct an INDEPENDENT survey based on traffic volume, costs of transport etc etc, hoever,by implementing an experimental traffic order prior to a survey being conducted would surely skew any results of that survey; to implement changes prior to conducting any survey will mean it to be a total waste of money, time and effort.
Agniesca
says...
4:43pm Thu 29 Dec 11
ces/Hotel and also when RAf Dawes Hilland Abbey Barn South sites are developed. It will make the traffic problems generated by the new flats off the London Road seem insignificant
Agniesca
says...
4:43pm Thu 29 Dec 11
ces/Hotel and also when RAf Dawes Hilland Abbey Barn South sites are developed. It will make the traffic problems generated by the new flats off the London Road seem insignificant
Cooldude2012
says...
6:17pm Thu 29 Dec 11
wayneo
says...
9:08am Fri 30 Dec 11
Agniesca wrote:Yep, i'm quite sure it will but again, it's a combination of massive, unsustainable population growth and because of the failure of BCC to accomodate that growth (while they dicked around with quick fixes, speed limit cuts and while awash with s106 monies had a policy of ripping out roundabouts and installing fairy lights at every junction), "Rome was allowed to burn". Still, there is light on the horizon and this survey, if conducted properly and independently could help Marlow but the policy of trying to force as opposed to encourage everybody onto cycles or public transport, has to change. sticking plaster won't do any more.
Watch this space re traffic and parking problems at the new Handy Cross Sports Centre/Coachway/Offi ces/Hotel and also when RAf Dawes Hilland Abbey Barn South sites are developed. It will make the traffic problems generated by the new flats off the London Road seem insignificant
bobby698
says...
10:05am Fri 30 Dec 11
Well, well, well, the rich and famous in Marlow have won their day. But has anyone really thought about the impact this will have?
As already stated on previous blogs: 1. having a residents parking permit does NOT necessarily mean you will be able to park directly outside your home ; 2. what if you have two cars and are only allowed ONE permit 3. are you prepared to pay in excess of £1,000 per year for a permit?
Also, you will need to pay for the private sector parking wardens which will inevitably follow, plus the private wheelclamping company which will undoubtedly be employed to enforce your right to park near your home. Make no mistake, your life, and those of your friends who will try to visit you - and will be unable to as there is nowhere to park - will change forever.
But if that's what you want, then good luck. You will see Marlow change in ways that you will not like; your shops will suffer and eventually close plus your church income will be reduced and of course the inevitable decline of your tourist trade.
Marlovians, you were warned to be careful what you asked for. Now you have to deal with the consequences. Happy New Year!!
wayneo
says...
11:03am Fri 30 Dec 11
bobby698 wrote:Well said and I said it before, Decriminalised parking only exasperates the problem further.
I wrote a few blog comments when this first came to light before Xmas; am pleased to say it has now exploded!! Well, well, well, the rich and famous in Marlow have won their day. But has anyone really thought about the impact this will have? As already stated on previous blogs: 1. having a residents parking permit does NOT necessarily mean you will be able to park directly outside your home ; 2. what if you have two cars and are only allowed ONE permit 3. are you prepared to pay in excess of £1,000 per year for a permit? Also, you will need to pay for the private sector parking wardens which will inevitably follow, plus the private wheelclamping company which will undoubtedly be employed to enforce your right to park near your home. Make no mistake, your life, and those of your friends who will try to visit you - and will be unable to as there is nowhere to park - will change forever. But if that's what you want, then good luck. You will see Marlow change in ways that you will not like; your shops will suffer and eventually close plus your church income will be reduced and of course the inevitable decline of your tourist trade. Marlovians, you were warned to be careful what you asked for. Now you have to deal with the consequences. Happy New Year!!
sparky49
says...
12:20pm Fri 30 Dec 11
katodeza wrote:No. Waitrose provided a staff car park. Sainsbury's have chosen to use this for shoppers. You have to ask the question why were they allowed to do this and why the council didn't see this or insist that the staff car park remains.
Was there not a problem when Waitrose were there?
gpn01
says...
3:34pm Fri 30 Dec 11
.
The petition also states "We the undersigned petition the council to provide resident parking. Marlow residents continue to struggle to park within the vicinity of their own home, as parking spaces are taken by non-residents."
.
Wonder how they know that the spaces are taken by non-Marlow residents? Or do they more simply mean that other people have parked where they want to park? Guess that's why it's called the "Public" highway...as the "Public" are allowed to use it!
laircm
says...
7:10pm Fri 30 Dec 11
gpn01 wrote:Gpn01 - out of interest, are you against all residents parking schemes or just those in Marlow?
I see that the ePetition now has 28 signatures. Total population of Marlow is around 17,500!
.
The petition also states "We the undersigned petition the council to provide resident parking. Marlow residents continue to struggle to park within the vicinity of their own home, as parking spaces are taken by non-residents."
.
Wonder how they know that the spaces are taken by non-Marlow residents? Or do they more simply mean that other people have parked where they want to park? Guess that's why it's called the "Public" highway...as the "Public" are allowed to use it!
piran
says...
9:54pm Fri 30 Dec 11
laircm wrote:Gpn01 - what a stupid and irrelevant question. 28 out of 17,500 means it's a typical NIMBY tiny vocal minority - again (probably wealthy Londoners who have recently bought housing in Marlow). Hope the WDC makes loads of money by making a bureucratic parking scheme out of these idiots and ruins Marlow when no one bothers visiting or shopping there but go to friendlier places
gpn01 wrote:Gpn01 - out of interest, are you against all residents parking schemes or just those in Marlow?
I see that the ePetition now has 28 signatures. Total population of Marlow is around 17,500!
.
The petition also states "We the undersigned petition the council to provide resident parking. Marlow residents continue to struggle to park within the vicinity of their own home, as parking spaces are taken by non-residents."
.
Wonder how they know that the spaces are taken by non-Marlow residents? Or do they more simply mean that other people have parked where they want to park? Guess that's why it's called the "Public" highway...as the "Public" are allowed to use it!
piran
says...
9:57pm Fri 30 Dec 11
piran wrote:Sorry - meant "laircm 7:10pm Fri 30 Dec 11" was the stupid idiot with such a question.
laircm wrote:Gpn01 - what a stupid and irrelevant question. 28 out of 17,500 means it's a typical NIMBY tiny vocal minority - again (probably wealthy Londoners who have recently bought housing in Marlow). Hope the WDC makes loads of money by making a bureucratic parking scheme out of these idiots and ruins Marlow when no one bothers visiting or shopping there but go to friendlier places
gpn01 wrote:Gpn01 - out of interest, are you against all residents parking schemes or just those in Marlow?
I see that the ePetition now has 28 signatures. Total population of Marlow is around 17,500!
.
The petition also states "We the undersigned petition the council to provide resident parking. Marlow residents continue to struggle to park within the vicinity of their own home, as parking spaces are taken by non-residents."
.
Wonder how they know that the spaces are taken by non-Marlow residents? Or do they more simply mean that other people have parked where they want to park? Guess that's why it's called the "Public" highway...as the "Public" are allowed to use it!
gpn01 sounds like the voice of sense to me
gpn01
says...
10:22pm Fri 30 Dec 11
laircm wrote:I don't recall saying that I was against, or in favour, of residents parking schemes. Whether I'm for or against, my views would remain the same irrespective of the particular place in consideration.
gpn01 wrote:Gpn01 - out of interest, are you against all residents parking schemes or just those in Marlow?
I see that the ePetition now has 28 signatures. Total population of Marlow is around 17,500!
.
The petition also states "We the undersigned petition the council to provide resident parking. Marlow residents continue to struggle to park within the vicinity of their own home, as parking spaces are taken by non-residents."
.
Wonder how they know that the spaces are taken by non-Marlow residents? Or do they more simply mean that other people have parked where they want to park? Guess that's why it's called the "Public" highway...as the "Public" are allowed to use it!
TKSMarlow
says...
1:41pm Sat 31 Dec 11
demoness the second wrote:Clearly a commuter
Silly Marlow people.
TKSMarlow
says...
1:45pm Sat 31 Dec 11
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
TKSMarlow
says...
1:46pm Sat 31 Dec 11
jayeatman wrote:Absolutely!
Residents parking schemes don't normally come for free. Will the residents happily pay for annual permits?
TKSMarlow
says...
1:47pm Sat 31 Dec 11
Agniesca wrote:well said Agniesca
I thought that residents did pay for the maintenance of their road via their property tax, unlike those who commute from elsewhere, as they make no contribution at present
piran
says...
3:20pm Sat 31 Dec 11
TKSMarlow wrote:You seem to be arrogant and stupid. My point is quite clear (& I live in Marlow).
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, vocal minority. Try common sense.
And what have you Marlow NIMBYs got against commuters! Many of these people work and contribute to Marlow. I notice most of the vocal minority have recently come into the area and frankly don't want to share Marlow with any plebs!
piran
says...
3:38pm Sat 31 Dec 11
demoness the second wrote:Totally agree
Silly Marlow people.
piran
says...
4:19pm Sat 31 Dec 11
TKSMarlow wrote:At least you have proved you are an idiot.
demoness the second wrote:Clearly a commuter
Silly Marlow people.
TKSMarlow
says...
4:23pm Sat 31 Dec 11
piran wrote:oh Pairam more incorrect comments posted by you - you really need to understand the details before posting! Oh well - happy new year to you. oh and also I am a local resident of 30 years - happy to meet with you and discuss!
TKSMarlow wrote:You seem to be arrogant and stupid. My point is quite clear (& I live in Marlow).
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, vocal minority. Try common sense.
And what have you Marlow NIMBYs got against commuters! Many of these people work and contribute to Marlow. I notice most of the vocal minority have recently come into the area and frankly don't want to share Marlow with any plebs!
piran
says...
4:39pm Sat 31 Dec 11
TKSMarlow wrote:Thanks for the proof that even with you living in Marlow for 30 years that you want to keep Marlow for those who live in Marlow - excluding others. Time you recognised that tourists bring in valuable income (and need to park) & workers (who cannot afford to live in Marlow also need to park). They provide Marlow with many valuable services ranging from food & drink to medical care. Happy New Year to you and I suggest you make a resolution to be less arrogant in 2012 and start welcoming others to Marlow and stop being so selfish and parochial.
piran wrote:oh Pairam more incorrect comments posted by you - you really need to understand the details before posting! Oh well - happy new year to you. oh and also I am a local resident of 30 years - happy to meet with you and discuss!
TKSMarlow wrote:You seem to be arrogant and stupid. My point is quite clear (& I live in Marlow).
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, vocal minority. Try common sense.
And what have you Marlow NIMBYs got against commuters! Many of these people work and contribute to Marlow. I notice most of the vocal minority have recently come into the area and frankly don't want to share Marlow with any plebs!
Spenno2000
says...
10:06am Mon 2 Jan 12
Spenno2000
says...
10:06am Mon 2 Jan 12
Spenno2000
says...
10:07am Mon 2 Jan 12
piran wrote:I don't think you understand the issues here.
TKSMarlow wrote:Thanks for the proof that even with you living in Marlow for 30 years that you want to keep Marlow for those who live in Marlow - excluding others. Time you recognised that tourists bring in valuable income (and need to park) & workers (who cannot afford to live in Marlow also need to park). They provide Marlow with many valuable services ranging from food & drink to medical care. Happy New Year to you and I suggest you make a resolution to be less arrogant in 2012 and start welcoming others to Marlow and stop being so selfish and parochial.
piran wrote:oh Pairam more incorrect comments posted by you - you really need to understand the details before posting! Oh well - happy new year to you. oh and also I am a local resident of 30 years - happy to meet with you and discuss!
TKSMarlow wrote:You seem to be arrogant and stupid. My point is quite clear (& I live in Marlow).
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, vocal minority. Try common sense.
And what have you Marlow NIMBYs got against commuters! Many of these people work and contribute to Marlow. I notice most of the vocal minority have recently come into the area and frankly don't want to share Marlow with any plebs!
Spenno2000
says...
10:08am Mon 2 Jan 12
TKSMarlow wrote:Agree totally. Why comment when you do not have the correct facts.
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
piran
says...
12:15pm Mon 2 Jan 12
Spenno2000 wrote:Good. I hope they (the council) charge you a fortune to park. You quote the area around Sainsbury's and Poppys Nursery. This area has residents parking already! You are the sort of person who will be complaining about the scheme, any scheme, if it is introduced! Or perhaps being a NIMBY you have your own parking space so **** the commuters, visitor and the rest of mankind. How ridiculous to suggest an expensive park & ride! Will you pay to build a car park? Where will it go? Who will arrange buses? You just want to keep Marlow in the past, like an open museum. Some of us have a bit more vison and look forward. many of us welcome visitors and workers to Marlow.
I am a Marlow resident and have been for a long time, I welcome visitors to Marlow as it helps boost our economy. However I live in an area that has turned into a complete rat run. Subsequently the roads have become impossible to park on, dangerous and the environmental impact is increasing. Sainsbury's, Poppy's Day Nursery, and other Marlow businesses add dramatically to this problem. Part of the area in question falls within a conservation area, it doesn't take much intellect to work out that perhaps part of the conservation area is to reduce environmental damage from commuters and visitors as well as maintaining the natural beauty of the park and historic housing. In my opinion (and I have tracked these comments) I TOTALLY back the parking scheme, it makes sense to try to reduce the impact on these issues. As well as working on a wider plan to improve visitor and commuter parking availability (a park and ride for example). It seems that some people in this chain spend more time posting irrelevant and untrue comments, on topics that do not impact themselves. Happy New Year.
piran
says...
12:20pm Mon 2 Jan 12
Spenno2000 wrote:Oh so you are the "arrogant, I know all the facts person"! You must be surprised to find I even have a vote, pay taxes and live in Marlow. I am bored with this topic and I suggest you, as a tiny vocal minority carry on in the dark ages. make sure you do not consider anyones views, if they differ from yours!
TKSMarlow wrote:Agree totally. Why comment when you do not have the correct facts.
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
laircm
says...
2:44pm Mon 2 Jan 12
piran wrote:Piran - in an earlier post you called me a "stupid idiot". You also called me "arrogant", a label you've since attached to others for daring to disagree with your views. Your latest offering is therefore read with some incredulity! You are entitled to your view. Others are entitled to theirs. The fact that they may differ from yours does not make them arrogant. This is a classic case of pot, kettle and black.
Spenno2000 wrote:Oh so you are the "arrogant, I know all the facts person"! You must be surprised to find I even have a vote, pay taxes and live in Marlow. I am bored with this topic and I suggest you, as a tiny vocal minority carry on in the dark ages. make sure you do not consider anyones views, if they differ from yours!
TKSMarlow wrote:Agree totally. Why comment when you do not have the correct facts.
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
piran
says...
4:17pm Mon 2 Jan 12
laircm wrote:vocal minority - says it all
piran wrote:Piran - in an earlier post you called me a "stupid idiot". You also called me "arrogant", a label you've since attached to others for daring to disagree with your views. Your latest offering is therefore read with some incredulity! You are entitled to your view. Others are entitled to theirs. The fact that they may differ from yours does not make them arrogant. This is a classic case of pot, kettle and black.
Spenno2000 wrote:Oh so you are the "arrogant, I know all the facts person"! You must be surprised to find I even have a vote, pay taxes and live in Marlow. I am bored with this topic and I suggest you, as a tiny vocal minority carry on in the dark ages. make sure you do not consider anyones views, if they differ from yours!
TKSMarlow wrote:Agree totally. Why comment when you do not have the correct facts.
piran wrote:Piran: the epetition is a separate initiative from the one driven by the Riley Park residents who have already received a consultation document to return to BCC who manage the highways as the serious parking problems in this area have been recognised and are being acted upon. It might be worth you knowing all the facts before you pass comments.
Wow a trial/study costing £80,000 - and that is only the start. What a waste of money. Anyway I notice very few have signed the epetition for such a parking scheme. Come on Marlow Council and WDC, do not feel intimidated by a very few, in a vocal minority. Try common sense. This is a none issue. I object to my council taxes being wasted in such a way
tbs100
says...
2:36pm Tue 3 Jan 12
gpn01
says...
2:42pm Tue 3 Jan 12
tbs100 wrote:I don't think that BFP is running the comments as a way of obtaining a vote for/against the proposal.
I am in favour of this parking permit scheme. The positives outway the negatives in this specific case. And I certainly welcome visitors to Marlow!!
.
More value from your comment could be achieved if you described what you thought were the positives and negatives that led to your conclusion.
bobby698
says...
7:51pm Thu 5 Jan 12
To me the clear question is WHY do we need this residents parking area? The answer is unanimous: there are too many cars for too few spaces. So the next logical step is to identify who are the users of these cars; are they local residents with no private parking and therefore need to street park, are they employees from out of the town, or are they visitors? Again, the answer is we don't know until someone conducts a holistic and proper survey.
So, after the survey, the correct decison regarding parking must be made. BCC does not exactly have an excellent track record in terms of theit traffic decisons however someone must make the choices, in conjunction with the necessary public debate.
And so I go back to one of my original statements in an earlier blog on this subject: be careful what you ask for. If the survey clearly shows the majority of parked cars are local residents you will undoubtedly get permit parking, and the relevant annual fees which will accompany this. Should the majority of cars NOT be residents then two issues here: first, there will not be a need for residents permits as there are not enough local cars to make it viable, and secondly the potential introduction of parking fees/yellow lines/further restrictions on local parking. This will then become a cash cow for a private parking contractor to fill their coffers with your hard-earned cash, and this will almost definitely include Sunday restrictions as this appears to be a very busy tourist/shopping day.
We shall see...
tbs100
says...
12:33pm Fri 6 Jan 12
gpn01 wrote:I'd rather not give my reasons for providing a positive agreement to the permit scheme, as looking at the comment chain there have been personal attacks against people that are in agreement to this parking scheme.
tbs100 wrote:I don't think that BFP is running the comments as a way of obtaining a vote for/against the proposal.
I am in favour of this parking permit scheme. The positives outway the negatives in this specific case. And I certainly welcome visitors to Marlow!!
.
More value from your comment could be achieved if you described what you thought were the positives and negatives that led to your conclusion.
wayneo
says...
3:23pm Fri 6 Jan 12
tbs100 wrote:It's not personal when in fact you are anonymous.
gpn01 wrote:I'd rather not give my reasons for providing a positive agreement to the permit scheme, as looking at the comment chain there have been personal attacks against people that are in agreement to this parking scheme.tbs100 wrote: I am in favour of this parking permit scheme. The positives outway the negatives in this specific case. And I certainly welcome visitors to Marlow!!I don't think that BFP is running the comments as a way of obtaining a vote for/against the proposal. . More value from your comment could be achieved if you described what you thought were the positives and negatives that led to your conclusion.
wayneo
says...
3:24pm Fri 6 Jan 12
bobby698 wrote:Well said Bobby, quite agree.
Well, this debate is certainly heating up nicely. To me the clear question is WHY do we need this residents parking area? The answer is unanimous: there are too many cars for too few spaces. So the next logical step is to identify who are the users of these cars; are they local residents with no private parking and therefore need to street park, are they employees from out of the town, or are they visitors? Again, the answer is we don't know until someone conducts a holistic and proper survey. So, after the survey, the correct decison regarding parking must be made. BCC does not exactly have an excellent track record in terms of theit traffic decisons however someone must make the choices, in conjunction with the necessary public debate. And so I go back to one of my original statements in an earlier blog on this subject: be careful what you ask for. If the survey clearly shows the majority of parked cars are local residents you will undoubtedly get permit parking, and the relevant annual fees which will accompany this. Should the majority of cars NOT be residents then two issues here: first, there will not be a need for residents permits as there are not enough local cars to make it viable, and secondly the potential introduction of parking fees/yellow lines/further restrictions on local parking. This will then become a cash cow for a private parking contractor to fill their coffers with your hard-earned cash, and this will almost definitely include Sunday restrictions as this appears to be a very busy tourist/shopping day. We shall see...
Flackwell
says...
3:33pm Fri 6 Jan 12
One of her main recommendations was the removal of parking fees, and yet many here are clamouring for them !
bobby698
says...
9:30am Sat 7 Jan 12
Flackwell wrote:True, Flackwell, however none of the retail outlets are calling for parking restrictions; it is the residents. Well, actually only 28 residents.....
And don't forget what Mary Portas reported to the government on the state of the national high streets.
One of her main recommendations was the removal of parking fees, and yet many here are clamouring for them !
The last thing retail outlets want is restricted parking, for obvious financial reasons. There is enough decline in High Street shops without having the additional burden of restricted parking. Or do Marlovians seriously believe that the coffee shops, Jack Wills, et al, will really stay if the out-of-towners disappear? Hmmm.. time for a reality pill
bobby698
says...
1:38pm Sun 8 Jan 12
FRUSTRATED residents, sick of seeing the parking spaces outside their homes taken by commuters, may get the scheme they want after all, albeit on a trial basis.
The above is the opening statement for this article.
So this means that Marlow residents must be moving their cars elsewhere during the day, possibly to other parts of Bucks, and therefore potentially parking on a residential street, thereby frustrating THOSE local residents from parking near their homes.
What's good for the Goose........
piran
says...
2:15pm Sun 8 Jan 12
bobby698 wrote:Very good point Booby, and it shows the hypocricy of those involved
Hold on, I've just realised something:
FRUSTRATED residents, sick of seeing the parking spaces outside their homes taken by commuters, may get the scheme they want after all, albeit on a trial basis.
The above is the opening statement for this article.
So this means that Marlow residents must be moving their cars elsewhere during the day, possibly to other parts of Bucks, and therefore potentially parking on a residential street, thereby frustrating THOSE local residents from parking near their homes.
What's good for the Goose........
Spenno2000
says...
2:33pm Sun 8 Jan 12
bobby698 wrote:...or park in their office car parks, train station car parks, walk to work, cycle, etc. The residential parking issue is not unique to this area, the residents are not saying this problem does not happen elsewhere, but have come to the point where they specifically want to try and change something to make it better. This chain has been going on for so long now, we should all just see what BCC do, and comment from there.
Hold on, I've just realised something:
FRUSTRATED residents, sick of seeing the parking spaces outside their homes taken by commuters, may get the scheme they want after all, albeit on a trial basis.
The above is the opening statement for this article.
So this means that Marlow residents must be moving their cars elsewhere during the day, possibly to other parts of Bucks, and therefore potentially parking on a residential street, thereby frustrating THOSE local residents from parking near their homes.
What's good for the Goose........
Spenno2000
says...
2:33pm Sun 8 Jan 12
bobby698 wrote:...or park in their office car parks, train station car parks, walk to work, cycle, etc. The residential parking issue is not unique to this area, the residents are not saying this problem does not happen elsewhere, but have come to the point where they specifically want to try and change something to make it better. This chain has been going on for so long now, we should all just see what BCC do, and comment from there.
Hold on, I've just realised something:
FRUSTRATED residents, sick of seeing the parking spaces outside their homes taken by commuters, may get the scheme they want after all, albeit on a trial basis.
The above is the opening statement for this article.
So this means that Marlow residents must be moving their cars elsewhere during the day, possibly to other parts of Bucks, and therefore potentially parking on a residential street, thereby frustrating THOSE local residents from parking near their homes.
What's good for the Goose........
piran
says...
2:40pm Sun 8 Jan 12
Spenno2000
says...
2:44pm Sun 8 Jan 12
piran wrote:You carry on.
Spenno2000 - Why stop the comments if pepole still feel they have a view on this?
bobby698
says...
8:35pm Sun 8 Jan 12
There is a recession, and what a gift this is for the coffers of BCC and WCC, etc.
And do not underestimate the impact this will have on your little town in terms of house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax.
Let sleeping dogs lie and learn to enjoy the 200 yard walk from your parked car to home. It can only result in a leaner, fitter Marlovian...
TKSMarlow
says...
9:13pm Sun 8 Jan 12
bobby698 wrote:Bobby. In the Riley Park zone bcc have already drawn up a scheme and sent out consultation documents. Each hose will be eligible for 2 permits costing £52 per car and also able to purchase 50 visitors parking permits per quarter at £1 each.
Spenno2000 - if you wait to see what BCC do, then it's too late if they decide to allow residents permits costing £1,000 PER annum PER car.
There is a recession, and what a gift this is for the coffers of BCC and WCC, etc.
And do not underestimate the impact this will have on your little town in terms of house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax.
Let sleeping dogs lie and learn to enjoy the 200 yard walk from your parked car to home. It can only result in a leaner, fitter Marlovian...
TKSMarlow
says...
9:41pm Sun 8 Jan 12
TKSMarlow wrote:Sorry that cost per car is an annual cost.
bobby698 wrote:Bobby. In the Riley Park zone bcc have already drawn up a scheme and sent out consultation documents. Each hose will be eligible for 2 permits costing £52 per car and also able to purchase 50 visitors parking permits per quarter at £1 each.
Spenno2000 - if you wait to see what BCC do, then it's too late if they decide to allow residents permits costing £1,000 PER annum PER car.
There is a recession, and what a gift this is for the coffers of BCC and WCC, etc.
And do not underestimate the impact this will have on your little town in terms of house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax.
Let sleeping dogs lie and learn to enjoy the 200 yard walk from your parked car to home. It can only result in a leaner, fitter Marlovian...
piran
says...
12:10am Mon 9 Jan 12
bobby698 wrote:Good points Bobby but those like Spenno2000 & TKSMarlow cannot see the bigger picture. I do hope common sense prevails and Marlow is not destroyed by a very tiny vocal minority. As you say "house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax".
Spenno2000 - if you wait to see what BCC do, then it's too late if they decide to allow residents permits costing £1,000 PER annum PER car.
There is a recession, and what a gift this is for the coffers of BCC and WCC, etc.
And do not underestimate the impact this will have on your little town in terms of house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax.
Let sleeping dogs lie and learn to enjoy the 200 yard walk from your parked car to home. It can only result in a leaner, fitter Marlovian...
Don't let a very few destroy Marlow because of their selfish attitudes. Share the roads they belong to everyone.
Spenno2000
says...
7:32am Mon 9 Jan 12
piran wrote:such a ridiculous comment. Stop targeting specific people, we are all entitled to our comments and views, but like most can make them none user specific. Also I fail to see how residents permits on 3 roads in Marlow will destroy Marlow. Seriously. I wont be posting on this again, given the antagonistic posting by others.
bobby698 wrote:Good points Bobby but those like Spenno2000 & TKSMarlow cannot see the bigger picture. I do hope common sense prevails and Marlow is not destroyed by a very tiny vocal minority. As you say "house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax".
Spenno2000 - if you wait to see what BCC do, then it's too late if they decide to allow residents permits costing £1,000 PER annum PER car.
There is a recession, and what a gift this is for the coffers of BCC and WCC, etc.
And do not underestimate the impact this will have on your little town in terms of house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax.
Let sleeping dogs lie and learn to enjoy the 200 yard walk from your parked car to home. It can only result in a leaner, fitter Marlovian...
Don't let a very few destroy Marlow because of their selfish attitudes. Share the roads they belong to everyone.
Flackwell
says...
7:49am Mon 9 Jan 12
Well - what happens is those that wish to park free move that bit further out - those residents then get fed up and appeal for a parking scheme etc etc
tbs100
says...
7:58am Mon 9 Jan 12
Spenno2000 wrote:Here, here, well said!!
piran wrote:such a ridiculous comment. Stop targeting specific people, we are all entitled to our comments and views, but like most can make them none user specific. Also I fail to see how residents permits on 3 roads in Marlow will destroy Marlow. Seriously. I wont be posting on this again, given the antagonistic posting by others.
bobby698 wrote:Good points Bobby but those like Spenno2000 & TKSMarlow cannot see the bigger picture. I do hope common sense prevails and Marlow is not destroyed by a very tiny vocal minority. As you say "house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax".
Spenno2000 - if you wait to see what BCC do, then it's too late if they decide to allow residents permits costing £1,000 PER annum PER car.
There is a recession, and what a gift this is for the coffers of BCC and WCC, etc.
And do not underestimate the impact this will have on your little town in terms of house prices, retail outlets closing and your Thames tourist trade drying up. Less business revenue, more Council Tax.
Let sleeping dogs lie and learn to enjoy the 200 yard walk from your parked car to home. It can only result in a leaner, fitter Marlovian...
Don't let a very few destroy Marlow because of their selfish attitudes. Share the roads they belong to everyone.
tbs100
says...
8:03am Mon 9 Jan 12
Flackwell wrote:Hence the 'experimental trial zone'......
"Also I fail to see how residents permits on 3 roads in Marlow will destroy Marlow"
Well - what happens is those that wish to park free move that bit further out - those residents then get fed up and appeal for a parking scheme etc etc
bobby698
says...
8:20am Mon 9 Jan 12
I wish good luck to all the Marlovians who wish to park outside their home. Nuff Said!!
wayneo says...
6:43pm Tue 27 Dec 11