AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 TO: Members who called in the item :

Councillor Stone
Councillor C Smith
Councillor Brown
Councillor Fox
Councillor Campion-Smith
Members who called in the item :
Councillor Abraham and Councillor Eddy
Executive member : Councillor Bradshaw
Subject matter
Suzanne Maksimovic
Residents' Parking Scheme
Steve Perry
Residents' Parking Scheme
June Jeffreys
Residents' Parking Scheme
Hilary and Ian Abrahams
Residents' Parking Scheme
Sara Stock/Ken Hayward
Residents' Parking Scheme
Margaret Emondson-Gregory
Residents' Parking Scheme
Arne Ringer
Residents' Parking Scheme
James Smith
Residents' Parking Scheme
Brenda McLennan
Residents' Parking Scheme
Keith Hallam
Residents' Parking Scheme
Giles and Lesley Woodward
Residents' Parking Scheme
Richard and Janie Mander
Residents' Parking Scheme
Janet Askew
Residents' Parking Scheme
N McCormack
Residents' Parking Scheme
David Johnstone
Residents' Parking Scheme
Sam Shatford
Residents' Parking Scheme
Subject Matter
Nicholas & Vanessa Clark
Residents' Parking Scheme
Dr Adrian Longstaffe
Residents' Parking Scheme
John Sparrow
Residents' Parking Scheme
Clive Gregory
Residents' Parking Scheme
Ben Russell
Residents' Parking Scheme
Tim Southall
Residents' Parking Scheme
Susie Smith
Residents' Parking Scheme
Anthony Parker
Residents' Parking Scheme
Elaine Pope
Wendy Britton
Residents' Parking Scheme
Colin and Val Harvey
Residents' Parking Scheme
Lorna Robinson
Residents' Parking Scheme
John Baden-Daintree
Residents' Parking Scheme
Michelle Snow
Residents' Parking Scheme
Jon & Sophie Nicholls
Residents' Parking Scheme
Heather Southall
Residents' Parking Scheme
Linda Ewles
Residents' Parking Scheme
Jim Pimpernell
Residents' Parking Scheme
Kieran Battles
Residents' Parking Scheme
Michael Branch
Residents' Parking Scheme
Richard Boston
Residents' Parking Scheme
Sionaid Rottger
Residents' Parking Scheme
Beth Gibbons
Residents' Parking Scheme
R J Smyth
Residents' Parking Scheme
Mrs W A Pollard
Residents' Parking Scheme
Rachel Alexander
Residents' Parking Scheme
A L Topping
Residents' Parking Scheme
Malcolm and Bridget Parker
Residents' Parking Scheme
Mary Asfour
Residents' Parking Scheme
Christine Townsend
Residents' Parking Scheme
Residents' Parking Scheme
Subject Matter
Sharon Shadrokh-Cigari
Residents' Parking Scheme
Bill Ambridge
Residents' Parking Scheme
Ms H D McCloy
Residents' Parking Scheme
Caroline and David Gordon
Residents' Parking Scheme
Diana Hayns
Residents' Parking Scheme
Margaret Ainley
Residents' Parking Scheme
Christopher and Sarah Sharp
Residents' Parking Scheme
John Rowe
Residents' Parking Scheme
Catherine and Jonathon Wills
Residents' Parking Scheme
Matthew Smith
Residents' Parking Scheme
Suzanne Gardner
Residents' Parking Scheme
Steve Loughran, Bristol Cycling
Residents' Parking Scheme
David King
Residents' Parking Scheme
Christine King
Residents' Parking Scheme
Chris Hutt
Residents' Parking Scheme
Tomas Hazelle
Residents' Parking Scheme
Jane Phillips
Residents' Parking Scheme
Rebecca Gunson
Residents' Parking Scheme
T Greenland
Residents' Parking Scheme
John Fenkel
Residents' Parking Scheme
Charlotte Hazelby
Residents' Parking Scheme
Martin Cott
Residents' Parking Scheme
Steve Loughran
Residents' Parking Scheme
Edward Bowditch
Residents' Parking Scheme
Mr and Mrs H Leaman
Residents' Parking Scheme
Deborah Davinson
Residents' Parking Scheme
Councillors B Janke, B Price
Residents' Parking Scheme
B Morgan
Residents' Parking Scheme
Councillors Wright and
Residents' Parking Scheme
Subject Matter
Councillor Harrison
Residents' Parking Scheme
Richard and Joan Guise
Residents' Parking Scheme
Hilary Jelbert
Residents' Parking Scheme
Paul Robinson
Residents' Parking Scheme
Graham Jennings
Residents' Parking Scheme
Liz Dunn
Residents' Parking Scheme
Simon Banbury
Residents' Parking Scheme
Dr Cameron Dunn
Residents' Parking Scheme
Helen Tierney
Residents' Parking Scheme
Shelly and Trevor Davies
Residents' Parking Scheme
Ben Hamilton-Baillie & Jennifer
Residents' Parking Scheme
R J Burton
Residents' Parking Scheme
Caroline Hunt
Residents' Parking Scheme
Giles Woodward
Residents' Parking Scheme
A M Smyth
Residents' Parking Scheme
R A A Gibbons
Residents' Parking Scheme
Paul Haynes
Residents' Parking Scheme
Alison Haynes
Residents' Parking Scheme
John Ward
Residents' Parking Scheme
Mrs Paul
Residents' Parking Scheme
Mrs Wilson
Residents' Parking Scheme
Mrs Bye
Residents' Parking Scheme
Robin Dodd
Residents' Parking Scheme
Julie Dodd
Residents' Parking Scheme
Greg Clark
Residents' Parking Scheme
Amy Clark
Residents' Parking Scheme
Amy Clark
Residents' Parking Scheme
June Jeffreys
Residents' Parking Scheme
Sue Patterson
Residents' Parking Scheme
Subject Matter
Juile Ellis
Residents' Parking Scheme
Simon Fuller
Residents' Parking Scheme
Susan Parsons
Residents' Parking Scheme
Kieran Battles
Residents' Parking Scheme
Nigel Furey
Residents' Parking Scheme
David Ansell
Residents' Parking Scheme
STATEMENT From: Suzanne Maksimovic
Tue, Dec 16, 2008 6:03 pm
Call-In Committee - 5th January 2009. Statement on RPZs
I am in favour of the Residents Parking Sceme in Clifton Wood. The
residents of this area voted for it in a democratic vote. I find the position of
the Conservative Party try to send the Cabinet decision back for a full
council debate, is a cynical vote-protecting mechanism which is driven by
councillors having an eye to preserving their own seats in the May
elections. The Conservatives are not driven in this by looking at the long
term need of the city's transport policy.
I am also suspicious of the Lib Dems apparent fence sitting. Four of their
councillors, including their leader and deputy leader, recommended that no
decision be meade without more consultation. This is a strange attitude.
There are RPZs up and running in many UK cities. Delaying for further
consulation is like suggesting reinventing the wheel. Study of existing
schemes will supply most of the answers. The pilot scheme will supply the
rest once it is up and running. No one expects a perfect scheme in its
initial stages, hence the pilot scheme. The Lib Dem deferrment proposal
again seems to be about not upsetting the electorate before the May
The "If in doubt, do nowt" policy is weak-willed. There should have been a
firm plan and steps taken years ago to manage Bristol traffic and transport.
If Council does not take some firm steps now, the city will reach private car
Suzanne Gardner
20 Southernhay Avenue
Clifton Wood
Stephen Perry
20 Southernhay Avenue – tel: 0117 904 0287
I think this committee meeting is being “used” for cheap politicking by the Conservative Group in
Bristol and its new best friend, the “Keep Parking Free” Campaign. There is no practical need
whatsoever for the proposals for two pilots RPZs to be reconsidered here. The Call-In Committee is
dealing with a frivolous and vexatious objector.
The existing pilot RPZ proposals have the support of the majority of residents in Brandon Hill and
Kingsdown. They will, when implemented, provide immediate relief to areas suffering from chronic
car congestion and its concomitant unpleasant loss of quality of life for those who live there. The
plans for consultations with the residents have every chance of ironing out most remaining wrinkles
in the schemes. To the extent that such consultations can’t iron out everything then the
introduction of pilots will deal with the rest. That is what pilot schemes are for.
The principal proposals are solid. The charge per car is reasonable, as are the number of permits.
The consequence of implementation will without doubt remove non-resident cars and university
and college student cars from these zones. There is nothing unusual about the scheme, the likes
of which have been introduced in many cities and towns the length and breadth of the country.
It is almost certain the NO campaign will raise many spurious objections at this meeting and ask
questions for which there can almost certainly be no answer. They will seek to scaremonger,
making absurd claims including those about people not being able to hold weddings in these
areas or that the RPZs will cause house prices to fall. They seek to deploy any method to delay
and defer the schemes because they are and always have been opposed to any scheme in the
city that would hamper the car drivers from unbridled use and access of their car anywhere in the
city, regardless of their impact on others. In our city centres congestion is so serious that those
days of “freedom” are as much a part of the past as the right to smoke in restaurants has already
I urge the Call-In Committee to disregard the request to pass the subject on to a full council
meeting. To do so would simply allow certain councillors to showboat in front of a large public
gallery and would add nothing to the sum of human knowledge.
Question for meeting due to take @ace on January sth2009 at 5.30 at the Council
House regarding Car Parking Permits
From June Jeffreys, 3 Hillside, Clifton, Bristol BS8 4TD Tel. No. 01 17 9268545
I live in one of the Pilot Zones you have designated for Car Parking Permits and am
appalled that you can consider putting this in place with such a flawed consultation. It
certainly seems illegal that you can go ahead like this when this so-called
"consultation" had taken place when it was during the holiday season and a lot of
people were away.
I do not see this as democracy when people have not been given an opportunity to
state their views. Surely it is illegal to proceed in such a way. It would seem this is
yet another tax on us - which is really terrible given the state of the country at present
and you are penalising everyone - even the elderly who do not dnve because they
would have to purchase visitor permits so that anyone could visit them.
We live in Somerset Street, Kingsdown and we are writing in
support of a Residents Parking Scheme that, we understand, is
being discussed at a Call-in meeting on 5 January 2009.
For us, the key issues which make a Residents Parking Scheme
essential are as follows:1 Access for Emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and
fire engines - cars parked very close to corners and on
pavements make the already narrow roads of Kingsdown
even narrower and obstruct the progress of large
vehicles. There was a house fire in Somerset Street last
year and fire engines were unable to reach it. The
firefighters had to carry hoses and other equipment
manually several hundred yards in order to fight the fire.
Had anyone been inside the building, this delay could have
been fatal. The previous year, a car leaking petrol was
similarly beyond the reach of firemen and there have
been other such incidents over the 20 years we have been
resident here.
2 Access for service vehicles, such as dust carts and
recycling lorries, and for other large delivery vehicles
serving the local community.
3 Parking for tradespeople and carers working for local
residents and for other visitors to local residents - with
much of the limited parking in Kingsdown taken up by
commuters working in the local hospitals or at the
university, or by shoppers, legitimate visitors to
residents in the area are unable to find parking spaces.
4 Hazards for residents, especially the elderly and children
- cars parked close to junctions obstruct the view for
vehicles emerging and for children especially. There have
been a number of accidents and near-accidents in
Kingsdown Parade caused by such parking.
5 Reduction in Pollution - the additional commuter parking
adds to the pollution in a residential area. Additionally,
commuters frequently park in the streets, leaving their
engines running so that they can pounce on a space as
soon as a resident moves out.
We have lived in Somerset Street for more than 20 years and
seen parking become progressively more of a problem. Recent
and proposed developments in the city centre and nearby will
further worsen the problem. For the reasons mentioned above,
it is essential that the Council supports the democratic view of
the people of this area who voted in support of a Residents
Parking Scheme. We have had enough of delays. Introduce
the pilot scheme now.
Hilary & Ian Abrahams
Victoria Cottage, Somerset Street, Kingsdown
We live on Kingsdown Parade, in a single-family occupancy
home. We drive one car and do not run a business in the area.
We have read the arguments from both sides and would like to
suggest that the trial go ahead for one year and that we are
consulted again.
The one-year period is important as parking difficulties vary
depending on the season, time of day, day of the week etc.
After the trial we will not be reliant on the predictions of
agencies with agendas other than our best interests but on our
own experiences of the trial. We also think that the trial
should not be funded by us as we already pay considerable
amounts of council tax and the parking scheme should
therefore be free for that one year.
Sara Stocks and Ken Hayward
Kingsdown Parade
Dear Sir or Madam
Regarding the meeting being held on Jan 5th to discuss the residents
parking pilot scheme. (RPS)
Firstly, I would like to SUPPORT the scheme for residents parking.
I am a resident living in Kingsdown Parade. From a personal point of view I
would like to make the following comments.
I cannot use my car during the day as I cannot find a spot to park when I
return, which makes me virtually housebound unless I walk everywhere,
which I do. We have a high percentage of hospital and university students
who park on the area, therefore, we have to suffer a high percentage of
non-residents parking which is a heavy and tiresome burden on the residents.
Even at the weekends it is a problem, when I shop on Saturdays I cannot
park to unload all my bags due to shoppers parking in the road. Even after
the opening of Cabot Circus car park, it hasn't changed because it is so easy
to walk to the centre, and it is a free car park.
My car gets scratched due to people trying to park in the very limited
places. In addition, if we have workmen visiting, they cannot park to unload,
and they can block the roads which causes chaos.
Finally, I can never park outside our house except on Christmas day, which
demonstrates the impact of parking commuters and shoppers.
Next, I would like to make further comments that are not personal but I
believe to be significant.
My understanding is that the government want to stop cars coming into the
city. Allowing people to park freely in resident areas, is not helping it
achieve this in my opinion. A residents parking scheme helps encourage
people to use public transport and Park & Ride (P&R) schemes.
We lived in Oxford once and they have schemes there which worked very
well and encouraged more use of the P&R. There is evidence there which
demonstrates the benefits to a city.
Lastly, safety is an issue without a RPS, some of the roads are very difficult
to access with the free for all parking that is allowed. As a consequence,
police, ambulance or fire engines have difficult getting through, and
potentially, it could be a danger to human life.
Finally, I have been informed, that this meeting is being held due to a
question about the research data. We were asked our opinion about the
scheme at the time, and felt we had ample time to submit our views. This
'appeal' is nonsense.
I should be grateful if you would use this email as a demonstration of my
support for the RPS, thank you.
Yours faithfully
Margaret Edmondson-Gregory
Kingsdown Parade
I am absolutely in favour of a Residents Parking Scheme for Kingsdown.
Parking on the streets here has become neigh impossible. Having a small
child and a full-time job makes for many movements in the week and
every time this involves the car, the return to Kingsdown is fraught and
How to off-load shopping and child at the same journey is impossible when
the streets are jammed full with commuter vehicles.
As a family, we are thinking of moving away from the area unless the
parking issue is resolved.
Yours sincerely
Arne Ringner
Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee Call in Panel
5th January 2009 @ 1730 hrs
This Panel is not asked to consider the merits of a Residents Parking scheme only the quality of
information and consultation that has taken place. It is therefore necessary to consider not only the
original documents but also what has happened to the information and also to consider whether a
more informed decision would be possible.
The original consultation has been criticised as being biased. It proposed a draconian 24/7/365
scheme at a high cost. It proposed to yellow line all drive ways, all visitors permits had to be
purchased, the zones were to cover about 500 dwellings limiting your options to park to a relatively
small area and little flexibility was offered at public meetings.
If this process was biased at all, it was clearly biased in favour of a No vote. Despite this, in the
proposed pilot areas, residents are so desperate to be able to lead normal peaceful lives a majority
responded in favour.
Within this response, representations were made and the council has responded by significantly
altering the original proposals to produce schemes tailored to residents problems in specific areas.
They have also committed, in papers submitted to this Panel, to continue detailed consultations
with residents in and adjacent to the schemes, to refine boundaries and other details of each
In assessing whether a better more informed process is possible it is legitimate to look at the
information supplied to residents by the KPF campaign and also at the speech made in opposition at
the Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission on 24th November 2008.
The latest information from the no campaign is a mixture of wild unsupported allegations,
propositions which can be refuted by merely walking around and outright contradictions.
It states that “hundreds” of spaces will be lost, this is directly contradicted by the statements from
the city transport officers who have undertaken to maximise spaces by removing unnecessary and
out of date restrictions.
It states that parking will become so difficult that house prices will drop. We who live within the
area know that this is the current situation. To see what actually happens when the cars that will
not be able park within the scheme are removed it is only necessary to walk around during the
recent Christmas holiday. Cars parked, certainly, but with spaces for visitors and without the
obstruction of drop kerbs and all the other problems that occur during normal times due to the
extreme pressure on our area from non residents.
On the same page the document complains of a lack of visitors permits and suggests that a family
might use up 100 permits in a single day. To do this of course would require 100 free parking
spaces and if these exist then the previous paragraphs must be wrong. Perhaps the scheme will be
so successful that it will be possible to have 100 visitors at a time but this is not a credible position.
At the scrutiny committee we were invited to question how the council could alter the fees during
consultation with the inference that they must be inaccurate and not to be trusted. It is a matter of
simple mathematics that if you significantly reduce the proposed hours of operation then you will
significantly reduce the cost of that part of the budget and, if you wish to achieve the same neutral
sum result, you must reduce the fees. This was clearly designed to mislead. It has been clearly
stated that there will be separate published accounts for the scheme so this can be monitored.
Also at scrutiny much was made of the overall figures for and against, showing a majority across
the city against. From the council website I note that there are 251 Lower super output areas (used
to analyse the results). Of these, only 2 areas are proposed for pilot schemes, just under 0.8% of the
total. On the principle advocated by the speaker this massively underweights the yes vote to the
benefit of the no vote. Once again if there is bias it is heavily against residents parking. Again this
was clearly intended to mislead.
I suggest to this panel that the only person who would claim the speeches and publications of the
opposition campaign as “information” would be the head of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.
It has no claim to inform any decision and has harmed the process of proper informed consultation.
No credible basis for this reference to you has been established and you should therefore decline to
take any action on it.
James Smith
Southernhay House, Southernhay, Cliftonwood.
Monday, 5th January at 1730
I am curious as to how the ‘No’ campaign thinks the fact that the survey was a bit clumsy and
possibly could have been worded better strengthens their argument. Residents around the
city were asked to vote for a draconian scheme with 24 hour restrictions and no flexibility.
If they didn’t like the idea of this rigid scheme, they had no choice but to vote ‘no’. Given
this, if the survey was biased at all, it was towards a ‘no’ vote. This completely negates the
argument that the survey was flawed in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. Given that in the pilot areas
there was still a majority in favour further strengthens the argument that the pilot schemes
should go ahead with detailed consultation with the residents in those areas. People strongly
opposed who do not even live in the affected areas should have no part of this process – they
have had their say.
The survey was valid and this point proves that it was useful and
representative. Residents in these areas were so desperate to do something about alleviating
the parking and other traffic problems in their streets that they figured even an extreme
plan was better that what was going on at the time – and is still the case now.
Another point that the no campaigners seem to have missed in their eagerness to oppose any
scheme whatsoever is that different streets – and even parts of streets - within the pilot
areas and the wider possible scheme areas have different needs. They are only concerned
with their little area and what it means to them personally and are completely ignoring the
issues facing other residents. In Cliftonwood for example, there are very few properties
with off street parking and above average population density.
There are also quite a few
home businesses meaning that there is not a steady in and out in the mornings and evenings –
or any time for that matter. This may not be the case in other areas where there are a lot
of commuters going out to work. This pattern combined with the fact that it is an easy walk
to town for incoming commuters and students, makes the demand for spaces in the mornings
and evenings excruciating. Although I have to say it can be quite entertaining to watch!
There was one point on the latest Keep Parking Free leaflet that I just couldn’t help but
laugh at. They, in their desperation to say how evil the whole idea of a scheme is, have
totally contradicted themselves.
They have said that there will be less parking spaces
meaning that you will have to walk miles from car to door and then have gone on to say that if
they have a big party with 100 cars that they may well use all their visitor permits in one day.
Wow! I’d love to see where those 100 cars would park now. And boy would you be popular
with the neighbours! It seems to me that they are saying that the scheme will work really
well and that there will be loads of spare spaces around their houses for all their guests. The
way our streets are now, you couldn’t possibly contemplate inviting all those people in all
those cars. In my neighbourhood, they’d take a week to find a park!
It’s funny how people can spin something on its head and are great at turning positives into
negatives. House prices would drop? Are you completely mad! We all know how off street
parking can add up to 10% on the value of a house and having a residents scheme can only add
value as well. Knowing that you are not going to have loads of commuters and others taking up
all the spaces and creating noise and pollution can only improve the desirability of the area.
Everyone I know would put a premium on this. In fact, I have been recently told of instances
where neighbours of mine have struggled to sell their houses or have had a sale fall through
because of the current parking problems and the desire for a scheme. This was particularly
noticeable from people moving from places that have residents parking schemes who are
often surprised that in such an area we don’t already have one. I also know of at least one
case where a family felt they had to sell up and move at any price just to get out of the area
after a failed attempt to get an ambulance to their house in an emergency.
I am very disappointed with our elected politicians.
They have turned this into a party
political issue rather than what it should be – a chance for the residents to have their say on
whether they want some sanity back in their streets. This issue should be completely nonparty political and go back to being a great idea that was born of residents pleading with the
council to do something about the chaos that we have at the moment and learning lessons
from other parts of the country that have managed to successfully implement similar
schemes. Learn the lessons guys, pull your heads out of the sand, think about the future of
this great city, and do something good for our inner city areas.
Brenda McLennan
Southernhay House
[email protected]
28 December 2008
Keith R Hallam
Ground Floor Flat
1 St Edward’s Road
Bristol BS8 4TS
T +44 (0)117 925 2955
M +44 (0)7736 071409
[email protected]
Residents’ Parking Scheme
Dear [nb: You managed to mistype the web site address on your own leaflet]
Please find below a few comments on your Yes campaign literature – paper and www – and the latest [How
many times have Avon and Bristol councils been around this loop since the early 1990s?] attempts to
impose residents’ parking schemes on us.
You seem to have it in for students. According to the Council, ‘the principles of residents’ parking
need to apply to all households equally, so HMOs will be eligible for the same number of permits as
other households.’ I haven’t seen it written anywhere that you have to be a Council Tax payer to be
allowed to park – only that there will be a matching of registered addresses for vehicles with Council
Tax addresses. So students who are residents will be able to park here if their vehicles have a local
address on the DVLA records, and, thus, not contribute towards your hoped-for reduction in
If the aim is to prevent commuters and shoppers from travelling in to the city, then reintroduce toll
gates or impose a congestion charge.
If problems are increasing because of new developments, shouldn’t that have been covered by the
‘low car ownership’ restrictions imposed during the planning process?
The Council shouldn’t need a residents’ parking scheme to make them do what they should be doing
o Preventing parking at dangerous junctions, etc to allow emergency vehicles to get through,
o Improving pedestrian safety at junctions [drop-kerbs, etc].
o 20mph zones.
o Patrolling and enforcing current parking regulations.
o If pavement-parking is dangerous, then enforce restrictions against it – we don’t need a new
tax to prevent parking as illustrated in your Gallery.
o Of course, I presume the Council is already patrolling often enough on a regular basis to
enforce the current temporary residents’ scheme in my area to cope with the building works
at the bottom of Church Lane… If not, why not?
The signage, paint, pay-and-display machines will make a huge residential area of Bristol look like
on open-air car park:
You say that ‘the only lost spaces will be those lost to the safety double yellow lining which is going
to be inevitable and completely separate from any RPZ’ – Not true, since individual bays will have to
be marked out everywhere [presumably in lots of white paint].
The imposition of painted bays will reduce the number of on-street spaces as they will have to be a
minimum length to cope with the largest vehicles, whereas smaller/average-sized cars could park
more closely without having to fit into your painted infrastructure [reduced flexibility]
o The Council should tell us how many spaces each street will have so we can see the direct
affect of their plans.
o If bays are a preset size, won’t that encourage us to go out and buy bigger cars, because we
know there will be space to fit them into a bay, rather than a small car that we might
otherwise have chosen to make it easier to fit into a flexible on-street parking arrangement?
o Increased numbers of car club bays will also reduce space for all.
o Pay-and-display bays will also reduce space for all.
o Why not have identified sections, rather than bays [eg Cotham Hill, though there is a huge
confusing mess of white and yellow paint all along there…], leaving drivers with freedom to
park as close as necessary.
o The Council have also measured street widths, etc so should inform residents where half or
all the on-street space will be lost due to width restrictions.
You say that ‘The pilot schemes are in residential areas’ – There are a number of businesses within
the outlined pilot area and you admit to there being businesses requiring visitor/client access
operating from residential addresses.
You say that ‘residents of the development at the bottom of Church Lane [which will have its own
rather limited parking] will be allowed to overlap into our streets unless there are parking controls in
place.’ – Are you proposing that they should remain in their own gated community? Will they not be
residents too, as equal as you are and with equal rights to access the outside World?
Once the initial up-front costs for signage, painting, recruitment, etc have been met from the parking
tax, will the permit fees be reduced?
Why should Band A cars be free?
o They take up just as much space.
o A residents’ parking scheme should be designed to maximise available parking for residents
and not be about pollution levels – that is a separate subject.
Why should residents pay not only for the scheme but also for subsidies to alternative travel
schemes for commuters [eg Park+Ride]?
My experience of a parking scheme designed by committee [at the University of Bristol] is more than
equally discouraging [eg having three categories of space and restricting access leads to more
workers driving around the streets for longer trying to find an on-street space, increasing congestion
and pollution for all, including residents, while off-street University-owned spaces are left empty…]
Has anyone done an assessment of the extra pollution emitted as people drive around hunting for
one of the fewer spaces that will be available?
What happens to all the extra cars not given a space and not buying a permit?
What happens at the borders?
o If your permit is only valid for a few streets around your immediate home, it might be that you
have less on-street space available to choose from as half of your previous options are the
wrong side of the line
o Having created space, why are we then to be trapped in our little ghetto?
o How many spaces are taken by commuters? If you get rid of them and create lots of space,
why restrict the residents to parking only within small zones? Why not let us have the
freedom of the complete area?
The Council consultation appeared to be just going through the motions and they appeared to have
already made up their minds on everything?
o They say it is contrary to council policy not to have parking schemes – so why bother asking
o ‘Following completion of the inner ring’ – what point is there in consulting if they have
already decided?
o ‘The initial focus may be to introduce residents parking zones within the inner ring’ – again,
why are they demeaning themselves speaking to us if they have already made up their
o ‘The Head of Transport Operations produced a summary sheet detailing the pilot study
What happens on a wet Sunday afternoon when I have run out of permits and a visitor arrives?
Yours faithfully
Keith R Hallam
[email protected]
To be held on Monday, 5th January at 1730
We are grateful for the opportunity to put forward our support for the proposed
RPZ Scheme.
As residents of CliftonWood for over 21 years, we have watched in dismay as our tiny
and historic corner of Bristol has become more and more choked with traffic. It has
been obvious for the last few years that we are being used as a free long term car
park by commuters and students. Matters have become increasingly bad with the
building of the City of Bristol College , the implementation of the CPZ in the Centre
and the building of large blocks of flats with too few parking spaces for occupants.
Commuter cars pour into our area and circle the streets looking for a space in which
to leave their cars for 9 – 10 hours at a time. Cars are left on the corners of roads
making it very hard for residents and emergency or rubbish vehicles to get in or out.
Students bring cars in at the start of term and dump them for days, even weeks at a
On balance the proposed RPZ Scheme seems sensible and well thought out. We see no
advantage to the public purse to re-run the Survey. The demand to do so seems
merely a delaying tactic on the part of the NO campaign. We should move on into the
detailed consultation phase of the Pilot Scheme implementation as soon as possible.
We are very disturbed by the negative and hysterical literature from the NO
Campaign, which has not to our knowledge offered a single solution for the obvious
traffic problems we face in the City.
We do not feel that it is an option to do
nothing, to continue to let the car rule our streets.
We urge all political parties to think of the ‘Bigger Picture’ of a sustainable Public
Transport system for the City of Bristol. The implementation of an RPZ Zone is a
small part of this bigger picture, but an essential one.
Giles and Lesley Woodward
Randall Road
I am writing in connection with the proposed pilot scheme for
residents parking in the Brandon Hill area of Clifton.
I own and reside at Richmond Hill, Clifton. May I say that I am
completely in favour of the proposed scheme in general, and
more specifically the pilot scheme that is being put forward
for our area which I think is an excellent idea.
Since we moved into our current house nearly three years ago
parking in the area has been nigh on impossible and has got
The major part of the problem is caused by commuters (I see
them cruising round like sharks looking for free parking early
in the mornings), students (they park on our street and then
leave their cars sometimes for weeks at a time) and shoppers
(I see them returning to their cars with bags of shopping when
there is a virtually empty multi storey car park round the
corner). Quite simply this needs to be stopped. I have no
garage (the houses were not built with one) I have no drive to
park on (I have been told by Bristol CC that there is no way I
would get planning to do so!) and so my wife and I have to take
pot luck which can sometimes mean parking a very long way
away from our house. This can be extremely tiresome when we
have shopping to bring home.
Whilst I understand some of the points raised by the "no"
campaigners, surely maintaining the status quo can not be
I will not reiterate the many arguments in favour of the
scheme as surely there is a more fundamental point. Is there
not a basic right for someone living in any residential area to
have a right to enjoy their own property? How can this be
possible when the only way we can get anywhere near our
property on Richmond Hill is by helicopter!
Please have the courage to go ahead with the scheme. Many
other cities have rightly done so and it really is about time
Bristol had the sense to do the same. The current situation
favours the opportunistic rather than the resident and surely
this can not be right.
Yours sincerely,
Richard and Janie Mander
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write to add my strong support for the residents' parking
zone pilot scheme to be introduced in Cliftonwood and Brandon
Hill. It is vital for the success of the city and the quality of
life of its residents that this is introduced. Other residents
have made various points about traffic congestion so I will not
repeat them here.
We are aware of an active 'no' to residents' parking, but this
is mainly from businesses - not located in our area but in
adjacent areas and they do not want to lose their free parking.
However, it is unsustainable for business to rely on free
parking and increasingly people have to pay to park at work my own employer (UWE, Bristol) for example, charges for
parking - daily or annual rates. Why should small businesses not
pay to park as well?
Other important reasons are:
1. The use of residential streets for non- residents,
commuters, business users does not create a good quality of
life for residents and it is the policy of Bristol City Council to
encourage more people to live in the city centre. I know a
number of people who have moved from Cliftonwood because of
the traffic.
2. For these residential areas nearest to the city centre, the
council is losing out on income from the metered parking zones.
Commuters and people going out in the evening drive to
residential streets then walk into town by day and night, and
consequently park for free. This shows that people will walk to
a facility - so they could walk to a bus stop near home or park
at the park and ride on the edge of town.
3. Many other cities in UK have residents' parking zones indeed Bristol may be one of the only ones that does not. They
work well elsewhere.
4. The cost proposed is very cheap - 9 pence per day! It may
be that people have to understand that owning a car needs to
become more expensive.
5. Many points have been made about air quality, car fumes,
noise from cars roaming round looking for spaces, and all this
compounds safety issues for children, and for emergency
service vehicles - the latter is very serious.
Finally, Bristol City Council prides itself on being a sustainable
city, which I support wholeheartedly, but it is seriously let
down by its lack of policy and action in the matter of
residential parking.
I urge the Council to vote for the pilot residents' parking
zones to go ahead.
Thank you,
Yours faithfully,
Janet Askew
Cliftonwood Road,
Dear Committee
I would like a residents scheme put in place
N McCormack
Ambra vale west
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to confirm support for the proposed Kingsdown
parking scheme. I consider that there has been a fair
consideration of views – flexibility in the response by the
Council and agree that ³doing nothing² is not an option.
It is almost inevitable that a ³No Campaign² will generate
more noise but this must not be taken as representative of the
majority opinion - more of a resigned acceptance of a
pragmatic solution to a problem which they would prefer not to
We welcome participating in the next stage.
David Johnstone
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to offer my support in the campaign to introduce a Residents
Parking Zone to the Brandon Hill and Clifton Wood areas of Bristol.
I am a resident of Clifton Wood and am frequently appalled by the
standard of some of the parking on the streets in my neighbourhood.
Many cars park on the pavements, but some barely leave room for any
pedestrians to pass, let alone anyone in a wheelchair or with a pushchair! I
understand that the streets are narrow in this area, but I think it is
important that pedestrians are able to walk freely along the pavement
without hindrance, whilst at the same time leaving enough space for the
like of fire engines and waste management vehicles to access all houses.
To this end I think it would be hugely beneficial if double yellow lines
were painted on one side of each of the narrow streets in the area
(particularly mine!).
I believe it is totally unnecessary for residents who live in the area to
require a car in order to work in the city centre. I hope that a new
parking scheme will transform the area from a car park into an area
where residents would be encouraged to travel to work using sustainable
transport. How about piloting a 'Green Commuter Zone' right here in the
heart of Bristol?
I believe that a Residents Parking Zone would be a great start to a
scheme of removing cars from Clifton Wood and Brandon Hill and creating
a virtuous and exemplary green inner city area. I wish all representatives
in favour of the RPZ the best of luck in its implementation.
Kind regards,
Sam Shatford
56 Ambra Vale East
Dear Sir
With reference to the recent vote in favour of residents
parking zones (RPZ) in our street and the surrounding area.
We are strongly in favour of the introduction of controlled
parking in our street and area. It is currently a complete
'nightmare' for residents to obtain parking at all hours of the
day. Effectively our area is blighted by non residents using
ours and the surrounding streets as a free inner city public car
park. We have young children and suffer greatly when trying to
park. We often have to park long distances from our home due
to the current unregulated system encouraging commuters etc.
to use our street to park their cars.
In our opinion Bristol suffers from the worst inner city parking
problems in the country. This is as a direct result of
unregulated parking in the majority of the city centre. All
other major cities have resident parking schemes that
successfully operate and it is long overdue for Bristol to follow
We believe that RPZs will immeasurably improve quality of life
without any detrimental effect. We have lived in another UK
city where we saw an RPZ introduced in our street and life was
positively transformed for all.
Yours faithfully
Nicholas & Vanessa Clark
Richmond Terrace
Bristol BS8 1AA
Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee Call in Panel
5th January 2009 @ 1730 hrs
Residents parking pilot scheme
I am a resident of Clifton Wood Road and as such part of the proposed
pilot scheme.
I support the development of this pilot scheme.
I have read the representations of the Conservative group who called this
decision in and I ask you to ignore these.
• The so-called flawed consultation (and you can always get someone
to give an opinion that something is flawed, this sort of
consultation can never be perfect and can never satisfy everyone)
is in fact flawed in favour of the "no" vote. The proposed scheme
was so draconian that it frightened a lot of people into supporting
the "no" campaign. It is significant that in spite of this, in this
area people were so desperate that they still voted in favour of
this initial RPZ scheme.
• During the consultations, staff from the council did listen to
representations from local residents and this has resulted in a
considerably modified and much more satisfactory set of proposals.
In this respect, the consultation was excellent.
• Furthermore, the council has committed to further consultations
during the development of these pilot schemes and I feel that the
council in this instance has behaved correctly.
• It is evident from the (much more seriously flawed) "no" campaign
that they would be against any form of RPZ so to question the
consultation is simply a delaying tactic.
• I would also point out that the critics who say that the costings
are flawed because they were able to bring the cost down as a
result of consultation are wrong. It was possible to bring the cost
down because the modified scheme required less policing and
therefore less maintenance.
• I would oppose referral to a full council meeting because this will
result in a repetition of what happened on the 24th of November
when the "no" campaign fielded 250 vociferous and intimidating
objectors most of whom did not originate from the areas under
question. Because of the size of the proposed pilot zones, the "no"
campaign will always be able to mount bigger numbers than the
"yes" campaign -- the "yes" campaign acts on behalf of residents of
one of the two pilot areas whereas the "no" campaign covers the
entire city.
Finally, criticism of the consultation process is a standard tactic of
opponents of residents parking nationally -- it is an easy target.
The situation gets worse on a daily basis and those of us (a majority in
this area) who desperately need a workable scheme need support from
this committee.
With sincere regards
Adrian Longstaffe
24 Clifton Wood Road
[email protected]
Dear Sir / Madam,
I would like to express my support for the proposed Residents
Parking Zone. The call in of this proposal is unhelpful and
unnecessary. The pilots should go ahead as planned and
development of the scheme should be allowed to progress
through due process. The vocal minority who are objecting to
this scheme should not be allowed to derail a process which has
such obvious benefits and which is supported by a silent
majority of long suffering Clifton residents who experience
constant and increasing difficulties with finding parking
somewhere reasonably close to where they live.
Yours faithfully,
John Sparrow
Dear Councillor Fox & Committee
Regarding the meeting being held on Jan 5th to discuss the
residents parking pilot scheme. (RPS)
Firstly, I would like to SUPPORT the scheme for residents
I am a resident living in Kingsdown Parade. From a personal point
of view I would like to make the following comments.
Every day our lives are blighted by commuters using our road as a
free car parking, there are never any parking spaces for
residents between 08:00 and 18:00 and this situation will only get
worse with the new BRI\Bristol University buildings opening soon
and the extra shoppers to Cabot Circus.
My car has received damage as commuters try and park in spaces
that far too small for their car, such is the competition for
parking places.
In the day time my wife is restricted to walking or using the bus
to get anywhere, as once she moves her car there will be no
spaces available till after 18:00
Finally, I have been informed, that this meeting is being held due
to a question about the research data been flawed as in July
many people were on holiday. We were asked our opinion about
the scheme at the time, and felt we had ample time to submit our
views. The whole subject of RPS has been open to debate for
many years, so no one can argue they have not been able to
submit their opinion.
I should be grateful if you would use this email as a
demonstration of my support for the RPS, thank you.
Yours faithfully
Clive Gregory
Kingsdown Parade
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Frederick Place in Clifton and have for a
long time been concerned about the state of parking in the
streets around my flat. As a resident it is impossible to find a
space during many times of the day and evening and this has a
direct impact on my quality of life. Commuters, shoppers and
students all use the streets as a long-term car park and I can't
see how this can be contributing to Bristol City Council's desire
to increase the use of public transport for those people
travelling into Bristol and to create a sustainable parking and
congestion situation in the coming years. I hope that the
council makes the correct decision and introduces the RPZ and
furthermore that Frederick Place is included in any trial
Best Regards,
Ben Russell
Top Floor Maisonette
Frederick Place
Dear Committee Members,
I understand that this Item has been "called in" for your
Committee's consideration on 5th January 2009.
I appreciate that people supporting the NO campaign have
legitimate concerns, however I do object to the way that
residents from outside Kingsdown have been lobbying
politicians on behalf of Kingsdown residents to get the decision
of the Cabinet on 24th November reversed about a pilot in
I understand that the Survey that was conducted in the
Summer may not be adequate or sufficiently democratic
approach to determine the level of support for this scheme in
Kingsdown. If this is the case then I would urge Councillors to
take decisive action and ask officers to commission a formal
referendum or further consultation to an agreed timetable as
soon as possible so that the scheme, if support is confirmed,
can be implemented.
I arrived with my family in Kingsdown over six years ago. At
that time many of the windows in our street were plastered
with small posters "No to CPZ". Arriving from the South East
we were somewhat bemused by this negative attitude to a
policy that would give residents priority in parking close to
their home. It has been very noticeable that as the pressures
for parking spaces have increased with expansions to the
University, Hospital and Businesses in the City Centre and now
Cabot Circus this opposition has significantly diminished - so
that the local opponents in the main appear to be public houses
and shops in the area who are dependant on the casual visitor
and students/young professionals in multi occupied houses.
As the Survey has already indicated, 51% of Kingsdown
Residents are in support of the Scheme, as they recognise that
despite the scare mongering of the NO campaigns letters and
posters that residents are far better served by a regulated
Residents Parking Scheme.
Finally, I feel the introduction of a pilot may have some
unexpected and helpful consequences. It may require the
Hospital and University authorities to reconsider their overall
Parking and Employee Travel Plans. For example: Is it
acceptable for a Nurse on late shift duty to not be able to
parkas close by to the Hospital as possible when the Hospital
has access to a multi storey car park in Eugene Street?
I trust the comments detailed above will be given due
consideration in the debate.
Yours sincerely
Tim Southall
Kingsdown Parade
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed introduction
of a pilot Residents Parking Zone for Brandon Hill including the congested
streets of Clifton Wood where I live.
I have voted at every local,
national and European election since the age of 18 but this is the first
time that I have written to a local councillor in my personal capacity and
is a reflection of my deep concerns over this issue.
I was one of the majority in our neighbourhood who voted in favour of
such a scheme. I am concerned to learn that despite a majority of
residents in the area affected voting in favour and the proposals being
approved by Cabinet at the end of November, the decision has been called
in for further consideration on 5th January.
I have previously lived in towns and cities where residents parking
schemes are in force and so I have personal experience of their
operation. I am of the view that the "no" vote is unnecessary
scaremongering and is driven by a misguided view that we are "entitled"
to free parking and that we have an unquestionable right to park outside
our own homes. I am pleased to see that the amended proposals do seem
to have taken into account the concerns of local businesses. I have no
problem with the proposed fee structure.
The principle reasons why I support the scheme, and urge you to vote in
favour, are as follows:
Access for essential vehicles: the demand for parking space from
commuters on our road results in badly parked vehicles which cause
regular inconvenience and real problems with access. Earlier this year
due to thoughtless parking by commuters I had to guide an ambulance
down our road (having got vehicles moved as well) in order for the
emergency services to gain access to a neighbour's house. (I work from
home most days and I know which cars belong to my neighbours so I know
that the obstructing cars did not belong to residents). It would be
impossible to get a fire engine or other large emergency vehicles down
this road with the current intensity of parking. This is a health and
safety risk. We also regularly have problems with rubbish and recycling
Deliveries and work vehicles: We do warn all delivery vehicles in advance
that access is tight but we have found that over the last 2 to 3 years the
number of vehicles using our roads for commuter parking have resulted in
major problems for deliveries which, in turn, inevitably block access. We
have also now found that many trades people are loathe to work in this
area and we have over the past 18 months had to timetable all building
works for the school holidays.
Access for friends and family: We have a disabled friend who no longer
comes to see us because there is now very little chance of a space to park
within a short walk. We also have elderly family members who are very
unwilling to visit other than on a Sunday or during holiday times - all due
to a lack of parking.
What is very telling is that during the school holidays there is sufficient
parking space for residents and visitors. This I believe demonstrates that
the proposed scheme will achieve the aim of freeing up a sensible amount
of parking to ensure that the health, safety and day to day lives of the
residents here is made easier.
On a less personal level I support the RPZ because we all need to start to
rethink our reliance on the car ( and one, two or more cars per family) as
the primary form of transport. This of course, veers in to the
controversial territory of the Council's woeful public transport policy.
The RPZ should be one small step in building up the messages about the
need to change behaviours for the benefit of all.
I trust that you will be supporting the RPZ.
Yours sincerely
Susie Smith
Southernhay Avenue
I write in reference to the RPZ Call-In meeting scheduled for
January 5th 2009. I will be unable to attend the meeting but
request this letter be taken into consideration.
My name is Anthony Parker. I live at Frederick Place, BS8
I strongly support the proposed RPZ.
Frederick Place is less than 5 minutes walk to Clifton Triangle.
Every weekday morning between 07:30 and 08:45 I see a
procession of commuters drive along my street at crawling
speed searching for a free parking place. For the rest of the
day, it is shoppers searching for free parking spaces. Please
explain to me why I, as a resident, should be unable to park on
my own street whilst commuters and shoppers monopolise the
parking spaces.
If there is one honest and reasonable
argument why this state of affairs should be allowed to
continue, I have yet to hear it.
The situation is notably worse during University term time.
My premises are at the bend in Frederick Place. I have on
three occasions in the last two years been present when
emergency vehicles (twice fire engines and once an ambulance)
have been unable to get around the bend in the road due to
badly parked vehicles. The chances of this happening would be
greatly reduced by the implementation of a RPZ.
There should be no further procrastination. The RPZ needs to
be implemented now.
Anthony Parker
Frederick Place
Dear sirs
I would urge you to go ahead with the pilot RPS scheme in the
Kingsdown area.
As a resident I am frequently unable to park in the vicinity of
my house. Today I am parked in Nugent Hill, a fair walk from
Somerset Street with or without shopping bags, and today is
still a holiday for many.
I understand that the Conservative group has "called in the
scheme" and that it will be discussed at a council meeting on
5th January. I would be pleased if you would represent my
views at this meeting and request that the scheme goes ahead.
Yours faithfully,
Elaine Pope
Somerset Street
To whom it may concern
I am resident in Clifton Wood and wish to register support for
the proposed RPZ in this area.
Yours faithfully
Wendy Britton
Clifton Wood Road
As residents of Kingsdown we support the Pilot RPS approved by Cabinet
on 24 November 2008. Despite the call-in by the Conservative Group we
would emphasise the importance of the trial and in our view the long-term
benefit an RPS would bring to the Kingsdown Community.
Please ensure that this endorsement is registered with the Call-in
Committee at their meeting, which is being held on Monday 5 January
We do not want further delays in the Councils' policies, which would
address parking and transport for the City.
With thanks
Colin and Val Harvey
West End
Dear Sirs
I am writing to express my full support for the proposed Residents'
Parking Scheme in Kingsdown. I live in Somerset Street and am convinced
that the scheme will
improve the environment for local people
have added safety benefits (allowing ambulances & fire engines
access to the area, which they often do not have at the moment)
encourage commuters to use public transport and other more
responsible ways to travel into the city centre.
I urge you to adopt the scheme at the meeting on 5th January and
implement it as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully,
Lorna Robinson
Somerset Street
Dear Chairman and Sub-Committee
I am appalled that a lobby group (no group) is playing a devious game to
derail the pilot RPZ scheme for my area
Despite a 55% vote in favour of a RPZ for my area (Brandon Hill/Clifton
wood) despite the fact all that was planned at this stage was a pilot scheme
despite the fact it was democratically approved on 24 November
Parking for those of us who live in the area is truly appalling
Despite the fact I live on what was until about 5 years ago a quiet
residential street (Clifton wood crescent) the level of commuter traffic
means it is now unsafe for our children to play outside or walk to the local
school on their own.
It may well not be a perfect solution - but at least it is a plan by the council
to deal with the problem that blights our lives.
It may well require further refinement - but that is the point of it being a
I urge the council to stand up to the lobby group (no group) campaigning
against any form of scheme and allow the pilot to go ahead.
I ask that this written representation be taken into account at the call-in
meeting on 05-01-2009 and i am happy for it to be read out.
John Baden-Daintree
Clifton Wood Crescent
Dear Sir
I write in connection to the proposal for a pilot residents parking scheme in
Clifton, where I am currently a resident (on Richmond Terrace), in order to
offer my wholehearted support. As a Transport Planning Consultant working for
a private engineering consultancy in Bristol, I am well aware of the benefits that
Residents Parking Zones (RPZs) can bring.
Not only should the scheme bring about benefits for local residents, businesses
and organisations through improved opportunities for parking, but the scheme
should also result in increased numbers of persons using the City's public
transport system as previous car drivers who parked free in our residential area
will be forced to find alternative modes of transport to access the city centre.
Furthermore, the RPZ should also ensure that the capacity of the highway
network is improved through the prevention of inappropriate / illegal parking on
street thereby improving the ability of traffic to free flow.
I look forward to the scheme being implemented in my residential area.
With Kind Regards
Michelle Snow
Dear Members, (Call in meeting - Monday 5th January 2009)
I have been a resident in the Kingsdown area for over 15 years and have been
disappointed over the years at the lack of action to secure residential parking.
At last sense seems to have prevailed and we might at last get a scheme. Please
don't allow political shenanigans win the day.
Kingsdown needs a residential parking scheme...I say YES Yes Yes ...bring it on.
Both my wife and I are fed up with not being able to park near our house due to
hospital workers and builders taking up valuable car spaces near our home. These
people come from out of town and should use the car parks provided, but instead
choose to park for free all day preventing residents from using the available
It would be a travesty if the RPS is thrown out.
We had a poll several years ago that agreed with the scheme, for goodness sake
lets get it agreed once and for all.
Yours Sincerely
Jon, Sophie, Louise and Amy Nicholls
Marlborough Hill,
I understand that there is a Call-In meeting on Monday 5 January. I am
writing to say that I am strongly in favour of a Residents Parking Scheme
in Kingsdown. I have lived in Bristol for 6 years and parking has always
been a nightmare. It seems that the people behind the Keep Parking Free
campaign probably don't even live in this area and have no idea what it is
like. When we leave for work at 7.30 there are people hovering to
immediately take the space - it is impossible to come back before at least
3.00pm to park anywhere near the house. This is because all the spaces
have been taken up by people going off to work for the day. Even in the
evenings it is sometimes impossible to park any closer than St Matthew's
Church. In addition, the road is a mess of cars day and night - I would
welcome the street being tidied up with marked parking bays.
Yours sincerely
Heather Southall
Kingsdown Parade,
Bristol BS6 5UG
I live in Tyndalls Park Mews, which I hope will be included in the Kingsdown RPS
pilot area.
I am aware that RPS is a hotly-debated subject, and inevitably there will be
some downsides to the scheme. But I firmly support the introduction of RPS,
especially in Kingsdown, for a host of reasons, principally to prevent our streets
being a long-term city-centre car park for commuters and students.
We MUST work to reduce Bristol's appalling traffic problem, get people out of
cars and onto their feet, bicycles and public transport. Especially we must deter
students from bringing cars into Bristol, parking them in our streets and then
scarcely moving them all term (which happens in our road).
While the option of parking in our area exists, change will never happen.
Go on, Bristol City Council - don't let us down again, be brave, grasp the nettle
and get on with it!
Linda Ewles
Tyndalls Park Mews,
St Michael's Hill,
Bristol BS2 8DN
Residents Parking Scheme
I live within the Kingsdown area and fully support the proposed RPS. It seems
to be a reasonable first step in addressing not only the problem of resident's
parking in the area, but the more general issue of commuter travel.
In response to the specific issues raised by Councillors Abraham and Eddy:
Do they really believe that residents opposed to the scheme were more
likely to be away during the summer period? If not, then it is fair to
assume that the distribution of those for and against would be the same
at whatever time of the year the consultation took place;
Yes, implementing the scheme will have an impact on neighbouring areas
directly outside the pilot areas. But the Council must start somewhere;
doing nothing (not unknown in Bristol) is unacceptable; the problem will
not go away. Let's run the pilot as soon as possible; without results from
this we cannot start to gain insight into what is a complex but urgent
Please, delay no longer.
Jim Pimpernell
Tyndalls Park Mews
Keep Parking Free
Statement to Bristol City Council Overview and Scrutiny Management Call-In
Panel - 5 January 2009
“Where a local authority failed adequately to consult residents on the
introduction in their area of a controlled parking zone that designation would
be quashed.”
These are the words of Mr Justice McCullough, a High Court judge, who ruled
against the London Borough of Camden in a case with striking similarities to that
being discussed today. The consultation failure made the decision to proceed with
the parking zone invalid.
We have shown the judgment to a legal expert whose (initial) opinion is that there
is no reason why the same reasoning should not apply to Bristol City Council in this
In effect, any Residents’ Parking Zone introduced following a flawed consultation
would not be legal.
Indeed, it is hard to see how anyone could disagree with the judge in the Camden
case. Local authorities have a duty to consult with residents prior to introducing
any Controlled (Residents’) Parking Zone. It would be a mockery were it to be held
that there was no obligation on them to do this properly.
It is entirely clear that Bristol City Council has not consulted properly in this case.
When the consultation documents were published towards the end of June this
year there was widespread amazement that the executive had not seen fit to
discuss it first with even the councillors who represent the wards affected.
Cllr Barbara Janke, the leader of the largest party on the council and councillor
for part of the proposed Clifton pilot zone, complained at a public meeting in front
of more than 200 people that she had not had sight of the consultation documents
before they were sent out.
Cllr Simon Cook, former Lord Mayor and also ward councillor for part of the
proposed Clifton pilot zone, has stated publicly that had he seen the document
before it was sent out “it would certainly have not gone out in this form.” He said
it was phrased very poorly and the questions were vague.
Cllr Neil Harrison, whose Cotham ward includes part of the proposed Kingsdown
pilot area, and who has expertise in the field, has explained at great length about
the quality of the consultation and has described it as “either a sham or a
Cllr Alex Woodman, Chair of the Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny
Commission, whose ward includes part of the proposed Kingsdown pilot zone, has
said that he "was disappointed with the quality of the consultation".
The Conservative group on the Council has called the consultation exercise
‘botched’, ‘shambolic’ and ‘fundamentally flawed’.
We sent the documents to a number of household names in the opinion research
industry – people who are experts in the field of collecting information on public
opinion. Here are some of their comments:
“I ...would agree that there are serious flaws in the questionnaire, that the
exercise lacks objectivity and makes unwarranted assumptions”
“Your concerns are definitely justified. The survey does not appear to be
particularly balanced; only really focusing on the advantages of the scheme
without contextualising the disadvantages. The wording as well suggests people
need to answer the questions a certain way.
”Question 1 is a poor question. It is not at all clear how people should answer if
there is enough space sometimes but not always”
“Question 3 is a bad question – one of the first rules of questionnaire design is
that the answer should match the question!” “The sheer amateurishness of this
and other questions will deter people from completing the questionnaire at all”
“Question 5…is both a leading question and almost an implied threat.”
In short, the quality of the consultation documents – and therefore the validity of
the results – was inadequate.
However, it gets worse.
Bristol has two major universities and a large population – both students and staff
- whose lives revolve around the academic calendar.
There is a belief, at least in some parts, that students should not have cars and
certainly Bristol University discourages students from bringing cars to the city.
However, students and, of course, staff are people and democracy works for them
too. To carry out a consultation, especially in areas substantially occupied by
university students and staff, entirely during the summer vacation beggars belief!
That the consultation started the very day that Bristol University’s summer
vacation started makes it almost impossible to believe this was some sort of
unfortunate accident.
There is a further consultation failure, which is financial. The Council has been at
pains to try to show that the pilot zones, and any wider scheme, are not being
introduced to make money. However, the figures hide a number of peculiar
Why, for example, does the Council assume that each parking attendant would
issue on average only one ticket per day, when the national average is around
seven? By year 10 the assumption is that the Council would spend more than three
times as much on enforcement as it makes in fines – that would surely be a first!
Altering the figures to fit the national average would bring a profit of over
£1million per year for the two proposed zones. If people were aware of this they
may be very much less inclined to vote ‘yes’.
The sum of all this is that the consultation was wholly inadequate and, as was
instructed by the judge in the Camden case, must start again.
Finally, let us add, lest it be suggested that there will be further consultation with
residents in this case which would make everything alright, that it is simply not
possible to build on rotten foundations. The only way is to go back and start again.
Thank you
Kieran Battles
Bernard Cooke
Keep Parking Free
Dear Sir,
I would like to express my support the proposed residents' parking zone in
Clifton and hope that all measures will be taken to improve parking and
congestion as this is a difficult area.
A similar scheme was introduced in
Brighton& Hove a number of years ago and it was a great improvement; where
wide streets allowed it herringbone parking bays were introduced and this
actually increased the number of spaces.
Michael Branch
Jacob's Wells Road
Dear Sir / Madam
I would like to express our support for a controlled parking scheme. My wife and
I recently returned to Clifton after 6 years living in London. Our house there
benefited from controlled parking and we are really feeling the pain now we're
back in Bristol. We frequently find it difficult to park in our street, sometimes
even up to three or four streets away. This is particularly difficult when
returning home with our two year old daughter. In London we could always park
outside our house - or at worst within about 10 yards of it.
We appreciate that many Bristol residents oppose such a scheme. We ourselves
were against it when we lived here before. Not all formulations will deliver
tangible benefits to all residents. However, on the face of it, the proposed
scheme looks sound. It may be too late to do so, but if you haven't already done
so I recommend speaking to Merton Council about their experience of
introducing a very successful scheme in London.
Kind regards
Richard Boston
Yes toRPS
Sionaid Rottger
Somerset St
Pam Reader- Howell
Somerset St
To Whom It May Concern
I am a resident in Kingsdown Parade and I am for the Resident Parking Scheme.
The present parking is flooded with non residents and in such a strong
community as Kingsdown it is such a shame residents can't park outside their
own house!!
Yours Sincerely
Beth Gibbons
I am emailing in support of an RPZ in Clifton Wood. In an ideal world, such
a proposal would be unnecessary, but the continued failure of the Council
to resist the conversion of houses into flats in this area has added
greatly to the numbers of cars owned by homeowners. Pressure on parking
is then compounded by the increase in the use of the narrow streets here
as free car parks by office workers and students. The combination has
had an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and the quality of life of
residents here.
R J Smyth
Ambra Vale South
Clifton Wood
Dear Sirs
Call in Meeting on 5th January 2009 - Residents Parking
I am writing in support of the planned pilot scheme for a Residents
Parking Zone.
Living on Richmond Terrace, Clifton Road, frequently it is difficult
to park within a reasonable distance of my flat. I am over 75 and
I find carrying items difficult for a long distance. The distance
can sometimes be as much as 10 or 15 minutes walk away.
If one needs one's car in the evening, (not possible to get to one's
destination and back by public transport) a long walk in the dark,
down deserted streets is not to be recommended.
The spaces that would be utilised by residents are taken up by
commuters from 8 am onwards.
On a more long term basis spaces are also taken by those who live
within the existing, central, controlled parking area and who do not
have their own parking facilities.
The fight for parking spaces results in obstructive parking on
corners etc. This can prevent access by ambulances, fire engines
etc. I understand that the Council will be introducing more double
yellow lines anyway to overcome this problem and this will in turn
increase the pressure on residents parking spaces.
increasing the need for controlled parking spaces for residents.
May I recommend to the Council that they aim for an eventual RPZ
to cover Clifton, Redland, Cotham and Kingsdown. Residents would
be able to go about their normal lives being able to park
legitimately within this outer central area and I feel sure that this
would lead to less complaints in the long run. If the area is divided
up into small areas with different rules this will not only be
confusing, but will result in injustices and therefore complaints.
It is important that the public transport alternatives for commuters are
well publicised.
It is important that there are sufficient two/three hour parking meters
to enable shoppers to Clifton village and others from outside the area
with shorter term parking needs to be catered for.
Yours truly
W A Pollard (Mrs)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to say that I am strongly opposed to residents parking in my
area of Cotham (St Matthews Rd). I work very long and often antisocial
hours and could not do this without the help of people who cover childcare
for me. They often need to park and drop off the children and sometimes
wait for me and this is the case 5-6 days a week often twice a day. Parking
permits for visitors would not cover this number of days and the cost of
meters would be prohibitive.
Please reconsider this detrimental scheme. We would all like luxurious
parking but in the real world a bit of give and take will go much further than
the them and us attitude that this represents. I have been abused by people
on my street who believe no-one, even a fellow resident of the street should
be allowed to park outside their house because they want the nearest space
to their door! This is not how a community should work. People who park here
may not be residents but they may be helping residents or the community in
Yours faithfully
Rachel Alexander
Just for your information, I have always been fully in favour of the new
proposed residents' parking scheme.
Thanks and may it go ahead soon!
A L Topping
Bellevue Crescent,
We understand there is to be a Call-in meeting of the Council on Monday,
5th January to discuss - yet again - the proposal to introduce a pilot
residents' parking scheme in the Clifton Wood and Kingsdown areas.
As residents of Kingsdown we are shocked that this meeting is to be
called, despite the Cabinet agreement of 24th November 2008 to
implement the pilot scheme.
As far as we are concerned the Council took the necessary steps to
consult with its citizens and the majority of residents of these areas are
in favour of the scheme being introduced.
We have lived in Kingsdown since 1996 and there is no doubt at all that a
Residents' Parking scheme is vital and should have been introduced years
Why the situation has been allowed to drag on and on is
incomprehensible and we support the Cabinet fully in its attempt to bring
this matter to fruition.
Malcolm and Bridget Parker
43 Kingsdown Parade
Sorry, I am unable to attend in person
However, I am writing in support of the RPS in Kingsdown. I voted in
favour of the scheme and am looking forward to its implementation.
Please do not waste any more time listening to the No campaign, we live
here and we want it NOW
Mary Asfour
This is to register my support for the Residents Parking Scheme in the
Kingsdown area.
I will not be able to attend the meeting on 5th January as I am away, but
as a resident of 21 Fremantle Road I feel very strongly that there should
be an RPS, and that Fremantle Road should be within the RPS.
During week days it is impossible to park anywhere near our house in
Fremantle Road.
Early in the morning many cars hover and wait to snap up spaces as soon
as residents leave for work.
The parking in Cotham Side is particularly bad and sometimes cars have
parked so badly that it is impossible to drive around the area surrounding
St. Matthews Church. It is frequently impossible to drive out of
St.Matthews Lane into Cotham Side, as there is no room to turn into the
middle of the road, due to cars parking badly in Cotham Side.
Thank you,
Christine Townsend
Dear Council,
I totally oppose the CPZ scheme proposal for Brandon Hill and Kingsdown
as this will push parking traffic to the neighbouring part of the town
where I live (Tyndalls Park).
Thank you,
Sharon Shadrokh-Cigari
Elmdale Road,
Tyndalls Park,
I write in support of the proposed new RPZ schemes in the city, and would
like to see the full RPZ scheme implemented this year across the whole of the
originally designated area.
I believe there is a meeting on 5th January 2009 to discuss the decision to
implement the pilot areas. I will not be there, but please count this email as a
vote in favour of both the decision made in November, and implementation in
Many thanks.
Bill Ambridge
Hartington Park
Southernhay Avenue
Clifton Wood
2nd January 2009
Public Forum Statement to Bristol City Council Overview & Scrutiny
Call-In Panel 5th January 2009
As a resident with a young family in one of the proposed pilot parking scheme
areas I am writing to say that I fully support the Council’s approach to this
difficult issue. I urge members of the Panel to reject the call-in and look
forward to the eventual implementation of the scheme.
Ms. H.D. McCloy
We should like to support the pilot residents' parking zone which will affect our
Anything has to be an improvement on the current situation where commuters
regularly go round the block four times hoping for a space.
We do not see students' vehicles as being a major cause for concern (and
the Students' Union is at the end of our road, and many live nearby) but are
worried by the greed of households running several vehicles, often not using
their own garage which may be for storage. The university could impose
stricter guidelines on students having a vehicle in Bristol if it chose.
Ultimately, the goal has to be to persuade people to use fewer cars and to use
them less.
There will be problems from the pilot scheme, but this could be a good
experience to build on to achieve the goal.
I would like to make it clear that I support the introduction of the Residents'
Parking Scheme in Kingsdown and I would like to see the consultation going
ahead immediately instead of being caught up in more bureaucratic procedure.
I am a non car owner and as such I feel quite overwhelmed by the volume of
traffic which parks in this area. I would be very happy to encourage my visitors to
arrive here by public transport or by walking or cycling, as I do myself and I find
the insistence on the so-call 'right' to park without charge is totally unacceptable.
I am unable to attend the meeting, hence this email.
Diana Hayns
Kingsdown Parade
To whom it may concern,
As a resident in the Brandon Hill area proposed for the pilot Residents
Parking Zone scheme, I'm writing to voice my support for its implementation
as I understand the Cabinet's final decision will be taken on Friday 5th
January. I applaud the Cabinet in supporting the proposals and was very
pleased to see how much importance was placed on public consultation
before the pilot scheme would be introduced.
As one of the 54.9% of local residents who voted in favour, I feel moved to
send in this statement to counter the 'NO' campaigners who have loudly
voiced their opposition but as far as I can see have not put forward any
constructive alternative to a problem which must be addressed. They are not
representative of this area and do not seem to appreciate the impact of the
I've lived in Cliftonwood for 23 years and there's been a noticeable increase in
commuter parking in our street over the past few years, even while a virtual
road closure has been in operation which was intended to limit parking to
residents and visitors. In spite of large red signs saying that only permitted
vehicles were allowed to park, numerous city commuters and City of Bristol
College students and personnel regularly park in our street, and have been
known to become aggressive when politely informed about the road closure
limitations on parking.
The following are consequences of this daytime long-term parking, as well as
the issue of multi-occupancy accommodation where one property can host
several cars, and the fact that many owner-occupied houses have two cars:
Residents who are at home during the day often find it hard or
impossible to find a space if they go out and return. This is particularly
relevant to parents with small children, the elderly and those with
impaired mobility.
Anyone coming to work in the street, especially builders with large
vans, can often find it very difficult to park in the street, let alone nearer
enough to where they're working to be able to work from their vehicle.
This also applies to visitors
We have had a number of fires in the street in the past two years, the
most recent being very serious, and on all occasions the fire engine
has not been able to get into the street because of cars parked badly
as well as the volume of parked cars.
This also applies to refuse lorries and delivery vans.
If proof were needed about the impact of commuter parking, there are always
more available day-time spaces during college vacations and public holidays.
Margaret Ainley
20, Cliftonwood Crescent
Dear Sirs
We write to give our qualified support to the proposed scheme for a RPZ in
the Cliftonwood area.
Our reservations include the following:
It is essential that the available space for parking in the area is not
reduced. This means that there must not be defined parking bays. We
are all used to fitting into smaller areas and parking bays will use up
more space than is necessary
there are roads where parking on both sides of the road is necessary
and where to allow a sufficient passage for larger vehicles it has
become accepted practice to park on pavements where this does not
obstruct pedestrian routes. This must not be prevented. Randall Road
is a case in point, where the council inexplicably provided a pavement
opposite the houses (where previously the level was pretty similar to
the road surface). The pavement goes nowhere and serves no-one.
Cars park on it as they parked on the surface it replaced. It would be
preferable if the council removed the pavement but the existing
practice must at least be allowed to continue
visiting services such as doctors, district nurses etc must be exempt
from visitors' passes. Presumably there are dispensations for the
It would make sense for the scheme to run on Saturdays (if at all - we
would question the need) only until midday or 1300 hrs.
There is little need for the scheme to run on weekdays after 1800 hrs
If the scheme is to work and is to be acceptable to the residents of the area it
must protect true residents (from incomers, commuters and such like) but
without making life any more difficult for those same residents. The cost will
not be insubstantial and will fall hardest on those least able to pay. It is a
regressive measure from this point of view. To justify that cost it must be seen
to give an improvement for those who must pay.
There is some strong feeling against the scheme and although a certain
element of such opposition is bred of ignorance of the details of the scheme,
there are some justifiable concerns.
We hope you will take these views into account in your deliberations.
Yours faithfully
Christopher and Sarah Sharp
Call-In Sub-Committee – 5th January 2009
Residents' Parking Scheme (RPS)
With reference to the proposed RPS and the Call-in meeting on Monday 5th
January 2009 I feel that the consultation for the pilot schemes has been fair
and therefore the Call-in meeting is an unnecessary delay in putting the
scheme into practice.
The proposed scheme is a reasonable response to an ever-increasing
problem for residents of parking in areas close to the city centre by those
coming to work here. There are fewer available spaces than required by
residents' vehicles at the moment. A reduction in the number of vehicles from
outside will improve the situation. Vehicles from the emergency and waste
management services will be able to gain access easily. Builders' vehicles
will be able to park close to the work site.
The action for those who will no longer be able to park freely in our streets is
for them to look into alternative means of transport to work and support local
authority initiatives such as 'Park and Ride' to do this, and to lobby employers
to provide parking or transport. We residents deserve better than to have our
daily lives disrupted by those who seem to care little for the area in which we
live and who do not recognise that their behaviour causes great
inconvenience to us.
John Rowe
(Kingsdown resident - Spring Hill/Somerset Street).
Dear Sir,
I write to add this household's voice to those in favour of the parking scheme
for residents in Clifton Wood. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the
meeting on 5 January, but we believe that the parking scheme will be of
benefit to the area and look forward to its implementation
Yours sincerely
Catherine and Jonathan Wills
1 Randall Rd
Clifton Wood
Bristol BS8 4TP
We address this statement to the Call-in Committee, in support of the pilot
residents' parking scheme proposed for the Brandon Hill/Clifton Wood area.
As long-standing residents of Clifton Wood, we suffer daily from the commuter
traffic which uses our streets as a free car park. On week day mornings the
roads are blocked by bad-tempered commuters fighting over parking, their
minds focused on space-hunting rather than on the safety of school-children
and pedestrians. Visitors, residents and trades people find it impossible to
park later in the day. Since we have been living here, we have noticed a
significant increase in the problem and it will only get worse as new
developments open down on the Harbourside and elsewhere.
We welcomed the consultation exercise performed by the Council and, along
with a majority of local residents in this area, responded positively to the
proposal, in spite of the draconian measures proposed. Much has been made
of the supposed inadequacies of the consultation, however our impression
was that, if anything, it risked under-estimating the 'yes' vote. Since the
consultation, the council has addressed many of the concerns raised by
residents and we are very happy that the pilot should go ahead.
The scheme was accepted by a majority of local residents, passed by the
scrutiny committee and recommended for action by cabinet. We object to any
unnecessary delay in implementation resulting from calls to bring this scheme
in front of the council yet again. The objectors to the scheme do not represent
the local residents and should not override the wishes of those who are
directly affected by the scheme.
Matthew Smith
Rebecca Gunson
Hilary Williams
Richard Puttick
Clifton Wood Road
As a lawyer I have spent some time considering the legal position of the
Council and the No campaigners.
The challenge by the Conservatives to the council's decision to proceed
towards pilot schemes is heavily tainted by a policy devised by the "No"
campaign. Although the pilot areas voted in favour of the scheme, the
Conservatives seem to be happy to delay matters so the parking issue can be
fought as a central campaign platform in the Clifton and Clifton East wards,
which they hope to take from the Lib Dems.
They appear to believe those opposing the scheme would vote Conservative
and those in favour of the pilots schemes will not have the same zeal or
feeling of being threatened by the Council and therefore will be passive. It is
therefore perceived to be in the interests of both the "No" campaign and the
Conservatives to use whatever delaying tactics they can so they can use this
issue to what they see as maximum benefit in the May local elections. They
probably want the May elections in these two wards to be the "Keep Parking
Free" elections and assume the Lib Dems will sit on the fence on this issue
thus playing into their (the Conservatives') hands.
Their first challenge (by way of Call-In) is that the consultation process is
flawed. I have looked at the Strategic Director - City Development's report
and it deals intelligently with the somewhat nebulous grounds raised by
Councillors Abraham and Eddy.
I am concerned that if the No group and the Conservatives fail at the call-in
stage the "No" group will then threaten, as they have done before on other
issues, to Judicially Review the decision and the decision-making process. I
would hope that a Court would reject at an early stage any application for a
JR on the grounds that it is vexatious and frivolous and clearly intended as a
delaying tactic.
What bothers me is that the Council may feel intimidated by the possibility of
delays and costly legal proceedings, and that it may shelve the pilot schemes.
I myself have been on the receiving end of the "No" group's intimidation this
week. One of their group sent me an obscene email which, among a lot of
obscenities, stated that several of the "No" group were thinking of coming to
set fire to my house (they have my address as I do not intend to hide behind
anonymity in this campaign). The police are now investigating and are treating
the case as high priority, with extra surveillance of my house.
The "No" group are implacable and irrational. They will blindly protest against
this scheme regardless of the obvious need for this long overdue scheme.
They will threaten and intimidate (as was seen at their frightening
performance at the Scrutiny meetimg on 24th November 2008)
I hope the Council will not allow itself to be intimidated by the "No" campaign.
Suzanne Gardner
20 Southernhay Avenue
Clifton Wood
I am writing on behalf of the Bristol Cycling Campaign, Bristol's cycling
organisation, with reference to the Call-In meeting on 5th January. We are an
organisation with many hundreds of members across the city, including many
in and near the proposed residents parking zones. We are writing to say that
we are in favour of the proposed resident parking zones.
The Bristol Cycling Campaign strongly supports the rights of residents of parts
of the city to opt to become resident parking zones. Those areas in which a
majority of respondents have opted to become such a zone should become
part of a trial to see if it helps to address some of Bristol's major traffic and
pollution problems.
Our organisation already has an database exploring parking issues within the
Kingdown and Brandon Hill areas. Key issues in these areas that we have
identified are
pavement parking, with a consequent impact on pedestrian, especially
disabled pedestrian access, and an effective narrowing of the road
compared to stretches of roads such as Kingsdown Parade in which
yellow lines reduce the number of parked cars.
Kingsdown parade is a key example in Kingsdown
John Carr's Terrace is an equivalent example of the same problem
near Brandon Hill:
Cars blocking dropped pavements or across corners, which again
hinders pedestrian and disabled access, and makes cycling around the
city harder
A seminal example are students parking in Highbury Villas who make
the road virtually impassable to cars, pedestrians and bicycles alike
Cars parking on the school-keep-clear zone. In the areas in/near the
proposed zones, Queen Elizabeth School and Christchurch School,
Clifton, appear particularly dangerous, as parents who drop off or pick
up their children by car are clearly endangering those who walk or
The only "short-stay" parking in the areas are the school-keep-clear
and zebra crossing areas, a fact which many drivers know. By using
these areas, they endanger pedestrians, especially schoolchildren.
There are also the traffic problems generated by cars looking for parking
spaces, and opting to drive into the city rather than using alternate transport
modalities. A roll out of resident parking zones may reduce the problems here.
As far as our organisation is concerned, there are some key benefits to the
city which could be obtained from the residents parking zones, not just by
reducing the number of vehicles travelling round the city (which is hard to
measure), but by improving street safety for all road users.
If pavement and corner parking issues are addressed by yellow-lining
those parts of the road where parking legally is impossible -and
enforcing those restrictions- then pedestrian and cyclist safety will be
If, when narrow roads are restricted to single side parking, the uphill
side of the road is marked as no-parking, then it becomes easier to
cycle uphill, as there is no need for the extra strength to pull round park
cars, or the aggression needed to pull in front of cars coming up behind
you. Cotham Brow is a particular troublespot here, though it is not in
either of the proposed zones.
If short-stay parking were rolled out by shops in the zones –such as
Cotham Road South- there would be less need for transient traffic to
park on zebra crossings.
Assuming disabled drivers from around the city will be able to park
legally in the zones, the Kingsdown zone will provide extra disabled
parking near the BRI, parking which the hospital does not permit within
its own fee-paying parking area, and which tends to create traffic jams
on Horfield Road, which must be especially inconvenient for FirstBus
buses, whose bus stop gets abused this way. With reduced commuter
parking, these disabled drivers should even be able to find somewhere
to park without parking on the pavement or blocking a bike lane.
We believe that the RPZ rollout should not itself be associated with stricter
enforcement of existing parking legislation. Laws about pavement, corner and
school parking should be enforced within the proposed RPZ areas -and the
areas immediately outside of them - independent of the RPZ rollout.
The Bristol Cycling Campaign is willing to collaborate with the council on datacollection and datamining experiments, which could be used to measure the
effect of the RPZ. We propose a number of data-gathering experiments and
Collecting the number plates of vehicles parked in the zones,
identifying permanent resident, student and commuter vehicles.
Through letters sent to their addresses, survey their "Before" driving
Monitor/survey schools in/near the catchment areas to assess
transport options used.
A full census of transport habits of all residents of the zone
Monitor volume/speed of traffic down selected thoroughfares in the
zone. If this was done with manual/automated number plate
recognition, cars looking for parking spaces could be identified.
Possibly: more Bluetooth pedestrian traffic monitoring experiments
For residents: measure their monthly vehicle mileage.
If some residents are willing to install logging GPS units in their
vehicles, monitoring their weekly driving patterns.
Repeat all experiments to see what has changed
Follow up surveys of the previously identified commuters to see if their
transport options have changed, or merely where they choose to park
We can assist with number plate collection, Bluetooth data collection and the
datamining algorithms, along with interpretation of the results. We are
particularly curious as to where commuters will go, and whether offering
residents somewhere to return to during the day will actually increase car use.
We are worried that it will make driving the kids to school easier for parents
returning home afterwards, and provide extra parking spaces for parents
doing by-car-dropoff in or near the zones.
We would also like to provide input on any proposals to mark off areas of the
RPZ as no-parking, to discuss the impact/opportunity for cycling in the city.
Both Cliftonwood and Kingsdown are valuable through routes for cyclists, and
with the proposed Resident Parking Zones could improve the experience
when cycling to or through either area. Therefore we strongly support this
Steve Loughran
Bristol Cycling Campaign
01/ DCK/ 1st January 2009
Dear Sir,
As a resident of Clifton Wood Road I record my opposition to the proposed
experimental CPZ in the Clifton Wood area.
I have lived here for 27 years and only very rarely cannot park within 100
yards of my house on weekdays. Parking at weekends is not a problem.
I am not against the principle of residents parking schemes being discussed
or investigated but believe the whole basis of the present proposal is deeply
Consultation. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have called the
consultation process flawed. I agree.
Parking permits. Charging the people who have not caused the
problem is inequitable.
Controlled parking hours. To effectively deter all day commuter parking
a CPZ needs only to operate between 9.30 am Monday to 4.30pm on
Friday. Anything else is outrageous and just a way to make money.
Parking after 6pm. The proposal to charge for this is outrageous.
What alternative arrangements have been made for
these displaced people? What are their alternatives?
Self-Financing. Of course the scheme will be self-financing. Once
introduced the Council will be able to charge what they like.
Visitors' Permits. Many of our friends who visit regularly live too far
away to walk / are not on any bus route/ are elderly and cannot walk
any distance. Our free permits would be rapidly used up and we
would then be paying even for people dropping by for a cup of tea.
Again outrageous.
Building Works. The proposal is silent on how visiting workmen/
tradesmen/ cleaners would be accommodated. Building works lasting a
week with 5 men could use up a quarter of a household's allocation.
Family Weddings/ gatherings/ funerals. Again the proposal is silent on
how these reasonable and normal domestic occurrences will be
accommodated without rapidly using up a household's visitors' permits.
Flat conversions. Where a house has been converted into,say, three
flats, will this property be treated as 3 dwellings or as one house for
parking permit allocation? This is not clear given the cuttent
Parking permit restrictions. The proposal seems to say that in certain
circumstances a house might be restricted to 2 cars or even 1 car. My
wife works 30 miles out of Bristol in Somerset in a place impossible to
get to by public transport. I work from home and have to visit clients
and building sites, sometimes several in a day. Most if not all of them
would be impossible to get to by public transport. My 30-year-old
daughter lives at home and has a car for business, which often takes
her out of Bristol. If our house were 'restricted' to 1 or 2 parking
permits, what is supposed to happen to the cars without permits in
relation to our lawful occupations?
Parking Space. Will permits be sold to cover the number of cars in a
particular street or to all comers? If I am not allowed to park in
adjoining streets but my street is full, where am I supposed to park?
Yellow Lines. Reports I have read say that yellow lines will be
extended. How is this supposed to help create more parking spaces?
The whole process needs to be stopped, re-thought and proper house-tohouse consultations made in the proposed trial areas to ascertain exactly
what the issues are and show clearly how any proposal will solve them.
Yours faithfully
David King.
Clifton Wood Road.
Dear Sirs,
Proposed pilot scheme for CPZ in Clifton and particularly Clifton Wood
Until the details of the proposal for a controlled parking zone are completely
stated I do not believe that anybody is in a position to approve or disapprove
of them. Once they are made clear there should be a detailed public
consultation so that we might see whether or not they are suitable for our
individual areas, and then be allowed to vote. As you may be aware there are
differing parking problems citywide. No one scheme would be suitable for the
whole of this chosen area of the city.
Many people will have sent you their detailed comments and questions.
We need to have proper public knowledge of proposals and an opportunity to
vote. And, please, no more sneaky, so-called consultation when everyone is
on holiday!
Yours faithfully
Christine King
Clifton Wood Road
Bristol BS8 4TA
Residents' Parking Schemes
I would like to register my support for the principle of the proposed Residents'
Parking Schemes.
In particular I would urge the Council to give ample opportunity to those
currently outside the proposed pilot scheme areas to opt in to the scheme.
Displaced parking will cause an intensification of existing problems in these
areas and it would be unfair not to allow people in such peripheral areas the
chance to opt-in.
I also urge the Council to consider the option described in the blog post below
which would allow households to opt-in or out of the scheme on an individual
basis rather than a collective one. I believe this would go some way to reduce
the divisive nature of the current proposals.
Chris Hutt,
Victoria Square, BS8 4EU.
We are writing in support of the proposed Residents Parking Zone pilot
scheme for our area. We have lived in Richmond Hil for the last 3.5 years
and in Clifton for over 20 years. The car parking situation in that time has
become steadily worse and we believe that some action MUST be taken on
Over the Christmas period we have visited London (Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea) and Brighton. In both places, a residents parking scheme was
successfully in operation, as it is in many central areas of towns and cities
across the UK. This did not stop us being able to find parking, either free
during specified hours or using Pay and Display spaces (which were also free
during night-time hours and parts of weekends - unlike Bristol!). However,
residents were able to park somewhere within their local area and this seems
quite reasonable to us. We understand that, living in a high-density
residential area within the centre of the city, parking may not be available
immediately outside our house. We would simply like to know that we would
be able to park somewhere reasonably nearby.
Like many others in Clifton and other central areas, we have made private
arrangements for parking of our own car. However, we face a continual
problem when guests or trades people come to our house. The RPZ pilot
offers an opportunity to try another way that we wholeheartedly support.
We would be grateful if you would include this statement in your consultation
for the Call-In meeting which we understand will be held on 05 January 2009.
We are keen to join with our neighbours and others in our local area to
support the YES TO RPZ CAMPAIGN in our area.
With thanks
Tomas Hazelle
Samir Gautama
Hope Villa
Richmond Hill
Please count this as a vote in favour of the proposed residents parking
scheme - bring it in for the whole of Clifton as soon as possible.
Many thanks
Jane Phillips
Richmond Hill
We address this statement to the Call-in Committee, in support of the pilot
residents' parking scheme proposed for the Brandon Hill/Clifton Wood area.
As long-standing residents of Clifton Wood, we suffer daily from the commuter
traffic which uses our streets as a free car park. On week day mornings the
roads are blocked by bad-tempered commuters fighting over parking, their
minds focused on space-hunting rather than on the safety of school-children
and pedestrians. Visitors, residents and trades people find it impossible to
park later in the day. Since we have been living here, we have noticed a
significant increase in the problem and it will only get worse as new
developments open down on the Harbourside and elsewhere.
We welcomed the consultation exercise performed by the Council and, along
with a majority of local residents in this area, responded positively to the
proposal, in spite of the draconian measures proposed. Much has been made
of the supposed inadequacies of the consultation, however our impression
was that, if anything, it risked under-estimating the 'yes' vote. Since the
consultation, the council has addressed many of the concerns raised by
residents and we are very happy that the pilot should go ahead.
The scheme was accepted by a majority of local residents, passed by the
scrutiny committee and recommended for action by cabinet. We object to any
unnecessary delay in implementation resulting from calls to bring this scheme
in front of the council yet again. The objectors to the scheme do not represent
the local residents and should not override the wishes of those who are
directly affected by the scheme.
Rebecca Gunson
Clifton Wood Road
I am definitely NOT in support of the Residents Parking Zone.
Firstly I agree something does need to be done, but those involved seem to
think that Parking Zones are the only solution when it is clear that at best they
provide mixed results.
Paying for the 'chance' to park is nothing more than a lottery and the system
is easy to manipulate to ensure money will be made.
Making roads clearer ( as with the yellow lines already in use ) has lead to an
increase in traffic and the size of vehicles using these roads. This will
inevitably lead to structural problems with the highway, utility services and
perimeter walls.
Modern technology should be able to provide a self financing solution in many
areas, with residents not having to pay for the woes of poor planning over
many years. Number plate recognition cameras have a unique roll in this and
cost virtually nothing to maintain
Many areas within this area are not served at all by public transport, which
especially for the elderly or disabled leave the car as essential.
Should a scheme come along that :a)
allocates a space or spaces per household (according to road space
provides allocated and close pay and display visitors parking at
reasonable rates,
is enforced automatically via cameras which can also assist in crime
I would consider changing my position.
Considering the high Council Taxes in this area, Installation and running of
such a system should be inclusive. We get precious little return as it is.
T Greenland
Residents' Parking Scheme in Kingsdown
I reside at 23 Somerset Street Kingsdown. I support the introduction of this
scheme as soon as possible. Cars are parked on the pavements and make
walking difficult and for some, dangerous. Parked cars are stacked at corners
preventing access to streets and obstruct emergency vehicles.
Doing nothing is not an option because the situation will worsen. The
proposals are well constructed. The "no" supporters will obstruct any
scheme, whatever its merits. The number of responses from households in
this ward demonstrate the effectiveness of the consultation. This ward voted
"yes", it wants to change the appearance of its streets and to reduce car
John Frenkel
To whom it may concern
I am writing to advise you that I am all for the proposed parking permit
scheme in Kingsdown.
I am a resident on Kingsdown Parade and find it impossible to park my car. I
am so fed up with commuters and students parking on our streets on a daily
basis, I usually have to park at least a 10 minuet walk away from my house!
I really hope the scheme goes through!
Yours faithfully
Charlotte Hazelby
83 Kingsdown Parade
Bristol BS6 5UJ
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have been reading the information on the RPS sent out to residents recently,
and I am concerned that one point appears to have been overlooked in the
information provided by both sides of the argument. Many of the residences in
the areas surrounding the centre of Bristol are multiple or shared occupancy, but
the proposed scheme only allows two permits per household. In our household,
for example, there are three residents, all with cars. The proposed scheme would
therefore cause us a major problem. We are all single people and therefore have
a need to own our own cars. I believe that this will also apply to many other
residences in the area.
Shared houses are an efficient and environmentally-friendly way of living and
furthermore we also pay council tax which reflects the number of rooms in our
house through it's estimated value. I therefore do not see why people living in
shared residences should be penalised by the proposed scheme.
What is the objective of the limit of two permits? Would it not be more appropriate
to allow a maximum of one permit per council tax payer?
Martin Cott.
Hello, Happy new year
I got a note from my door from the Keep the Parking Free group saying I
should let you know my feelings on the proposed Kingsdown RPZ, so I am: in
my household we are in favour of it.
I live on the Kingsdown side of Cotham Road, Cabot Ward, within the
current proposed zone.
I generally cycle to school and work so would have nothing to directly
gain by more parking. An easier walk or cycle would be appreciated.
My wife does drive during office hours, but she parks the car in the
Back when the previous proposals came out (2003?) we were against
We were initially against the proposal, which I opposed in the summer survey,
primarily because the shiny leaflet that came through the door was so
inflexible. It said "7x24 was all you will get, do you want it?", as if the decision
had already been made. Voting against this was the only way to stop such an
excessive proposal from going through. Also, I am of the belief that parking
illegally should be enforced today, without waiting for residents to pay extra.
When the news came out that a modified proposal of 5x8 hours and auditable
expenditure, we became in favour of the plans. Because if deployed over a
wide area they could reduce commuter traffic flow, and that would have a
tangible benefit for the area. Not in parking but in traffic, pollution, and quality
of life.
The keep-the-parking-free leaflet irritates me as it is being driven by people
outside Kingsdown, fighting for their right to park in the area, and on any
pavement or corner they could find. If they had tried to park in Kingsdown
during working hours, they would see that nobody can visit or park there
today, therefore a weekday only zone offers little but benefits.
Some businesses in the area will need extra support - the garage in
Oxford Street springs to mind. They need to be "grandfathered in" with
the ability to park customer cars in the street.
Short -stay parking outside the Cotham Road South shops is needed to
stop the zebra crossing retaining this role.
As a lot of this photographic dataset is from evening 6-7 pm journeys
past, it is clear the short term parking may need to extend into the early
evening and Saturdays.
Kingsdown Parade is going to be trouble. As you can see from the
Bristol Traffic dataset, cars use the pavement here, even on Christmas
The road is too narrow for cars to park on-road on both sides, so just
as with parts of Montpelier, this pavement is becoming part of the carspace rather than pedestrian space.
It does not make sense for half of Fremantle Square to be in the zone,
and half out. All residents should be consulted on their option.
Regardless of the outcome, enforcement of bike-lane-access and oneway rules would be useful in this square -there is no need to await the
rollout of an RPZ.:
Cotham Road (my road) needs to decide whether to be fully in or out.
It was marked up for a parking zone 5 years ago, so rollout costs are
less. But there are more multi-occupancy houses than Kingsdown, and
more off-street parking, all groups who may resist the proposal. It just
doesn't make sense for the opposite side of the road to be out of the
zone, as that assumes that those people only park on one side of the
road. In reality, both sides of the road and Hartfield Drive get used by
One side-effect of the turning rolling out residents parking is that it will
actually be easier for parents dropping their kids off at Cotham
Grammar or the Steiner School to find a parking space. If this makes it
easier for coaches to use the coaches-only parking area in Cotham
Road, this is good; if it encourages driving to school it is bad. Similarly,
the fact that residents will be able to return home to a parking space
may also encourage driving to school. I propose that monitoring of the
effects of the pilots should look at their impact on the number of
parents driving to school -both schools in/near the parking zones, and
in schools used by parents in the area.
Needless to say, I would gladly help in pre/post questionnaires and surveys
and other aspects of monitoring needed to assess the impact of the zones.
Edward Bowditch Ltd – Clifton Heights – Triangle West – Bristol – BS8 1EJ
Ian Pagan
Democratic Services Manager
Room 220
The Council House
College Green
2nd January 2008
Dear sirs,
OSM Call-In Panel - Public Forum submission
I note that at least two councillors believe the recent decision to introduce the “Residents
Parking Scheme” for Clifton (Brandon Hill) and Kingsdown has been reached in a deficient
manner. I both operate a business and reside adjacent to the pilot scheme areas. Since
originally proposed the scheme has caused the most exceptional, acute, long-term distress
possible for many local residents and businesses especially with regards to the consultation. I
believe the following factors make this decision deficient and lacking in democratic
No consultation of major employers and businesses adjacent to affected areas.
Within Clifton (Brandon Hill) students who were largely absent when questionnaires
issued in July 2008, even though they constitute the largest (or even majority) group
in area. 54.9% of respondents are quoted as supporting scheme – however no
response rate is given. Most likely this was very low, which in any event would
exclude the large and student population in multiple halls of residence (Clifton Hill
House, Manor Hall, etc.). For many students from remote rural areas, private motor
transport is essential. The response rate in Clifton (Brandon Hill) is not a
representation of all legitimate residents in the affected area.
Multiple households have reported receiving no questionnaire, which might explain
the seemingly low response rate of only 25%. On inquiry with relevant Bristol
Council office, no duplicates were issued even if requested. Curiously although most
statistics are quoted rounded to decimal places, the response rate statistic is not,
which leads me to believe the actual response rate lies somewhere between 20 to
25%. Furthermore I cannot find any evidence of an independent audit taking place of
the questionnaire responses and general conduct of survey.
The proposed pilot schemes have substantially changed from that on which
consultation was originally conducted.
The recent February 2008 Citizens’ Panel Report clearly doesn’t demonstrate enough
support for such a radical, fundamental change in parking policy. An average of only
~20% of respondents reported there was never enough parking at any time of day.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to express my concerns regarding these proposals in
Increased taxation, especially affecting students, businesses and other legitimate users
vital to local economy. Dramatic change in economic environment since scheme
proposed – rapid and ongoing fall in sterling value, households and businesses cannot
cope with additional cost.
Huge loss of road space due to driveway space converted to “double lines”, and
further conversion to pay-parking bays. This reduction will lead to increased
congestion and pollution from those seeking non-existent spaces, causing critical time
delays to deliveries and other public services.
Strong disadvantage imposed on local high-street retailers, such as the recently
liquidated Woolworths, causing a further shift to out-of-town malls and business
parks – where facilities will never serve local residents.
Massive increase in additional street furniture (white & yellow road paint for parking
bays and double lines, parking pay meters, signage, constant presence of tow trucks
and traffic wardens) is totally out of keeping with the period Georgian/Victorian
character of proposed areas. The historic architecture and beauty of
Clifton/Redland/Kingsdown is a major reason many residents and businesses are
located here.
No credible public mass transport network alternative exists, unlike other cities in
Northern Europe with similar schemes such as London or Hamburg.
No evidence scheme would actually improve parking situation for residents.
Negative environmental impact – if parking is in fact easier for residents, this will
only encourage unnecessary short motor journeys with a negative result through
increased traffic and corresponding pollution.
Ample excess parking already provided in Clifton (Brandon Hill) by council run car
park on Jacobs Wells Road – which permanently has empty spaces. Perhaps the
council should make space available in this car park to local residents, or revise
charges down to make better use of available infrastructure as opposed to attempting
to maximize short-term revenue?
Implied that 20mph zones could be introduced. These are often accompanied by
dangerous speed ramps, which have been reported by trade unions and others to cause
serious long term injuries and chronic pain, as well as increase ambulance journey
“Improve access for emergency vehicles” – Obstruction would be a criminal offence
and the police regularly issue tickets and arrange for vehicles to be towed. If regular
obstruction is an issue, complete parking bans should be introduced, not a residents
permit scheme.
“Obstruction and safety at junctions” – No evidence this exists, or that this scheme
would have any effect. Junction safety can already be enforced through the Highway
Given the seriousness of this matter I hope the Call-In Panel agrees to refer the matter to Full
Council for full democratic debate.
Yours faithfully,
Edward Bowditch
Democratic Services
Bristol City Council
11 Jacobs Wells Rd
30th December 2008
Dear Sirs
Pilot RPZ – Brandon Hill
We are unable to attend the public meeting on 5th January but would like
to express our support for the proposed residents parking scheme in this
area. We are however concerned that the number of spaces available to
residents will be reduced, particularly when the limited waiting regulations
do not apply in the evenings and at weekends. Whilst not expecting a
guaranteed parking space, we would hope to be able to find one within a
few hundred yards of home when returning, for example, from work or a
shopping trip. This is often impossible because we have to compete for
spaces with commuters, shoppers and students. We also think that the
limited waiting area towards St Georges Rd provides sufficient space for
visits to local businesses and shops and should therefore be retained.
Yours faithfully
Mr & Mrs H. Leaman
I am writing in support of the proposed Residents Parking Scheme and urge
the Call-in Panel to take no further action so that the pilot schemes can go
ahead .
The consultation has been thorough and there is more to come. During the
consultation process 51% of people in Kingsdown voted in favour of a
scheme. The Council has listened carefully to the public at its consultation
meetings and made many changes to the original plans. There will be an
opportunity for further consultation before the pilot schemes are implemented.
The decision to call-in the RPS initiative is anti-democratic. Councillors Eddy
and Abrahams have not been elected as Councillors in the Kingsdown or
Clifton Wood wards. They should not, therefore, be allowed to influence
developments in wards where they have no mandate.
Deborah Davinson
Call in Sub-Committee 5th January 2009
Resident's Parking scheme
Clifton proposed pilot area
We have supported the Call-in because the Council’s earlier consultation was
flawed. In the interests of democracy, we request that no action is taken until
there has been fair and proper public consultation.
The consultation must include all residents within the Clifton pilot area and from
the adjacent roads and encourage active engagement with those residents.
Consultation must also include full information and should address specific
Such issues are: impact on local businesses and trades, doctors, schools and
sheltered housing as well as access for supply vehicles within the pilot zone and
adjacent areas.
We would expect that, as local councillors, we would be closely involved at all
stages and receive regular reports back. Reports should be made to our local
neighbourhood partnership Clifton, Clifton East and Cabot at all stages of the
Barbara Janke
Brain Price
Councillors for Clifton ward
Simon Cook
Mike Popham
Councillors for Clifton East ward
Dear Sir/Madam,
I understand that a Call-in meeting is scheduled for 5th January at the Council
House on the residents parking scheme proposed for Brandon Hill (including
Cliftonwood). I am unable to attend this meeting and am therefore writing to
provide the council with my support for this scheme.
I frequently work from home and have come to recognise the commuter cars
that quickly arrive each morning and fill Southernhay Avenue for the rest of
the day. It has got to the stage where I now often decide not to leave the
house solely on the basis that when I return I will probably not be able to park.
I suffer from long-term recurrent back pain and which is aggravated if I arrive
home with heavy grocery/work bags, etc and have to carry these some way to
my front door. I feel it is unacceptable that residents' movements and health
are influenced by commuter parking when there are car parks, park-and-ride
schemes and public transport available.
Southernhay Avenue also has a particular problem every Thursday evening
from an early hour when it again becomes packed with non-residents' cars
presumably in an attempt to park out of the way of the refuse trucks that arrive
on a Friday morning. The only way for me to be able to park anywhere near
my house on a Thursday evening is to leave work at around 4pm which is
clearly not acceptable. This problem has also stopped me from attending my
local Thursday evening art class and means that it is not possible to take
advantage of late night opening hours of shops, hair dressers, etc. As a single
female I do not feel that walking alone at that time of night - particular through
the unlit areas - is an option available to me.
To me the way to manage the limited parking resource in Bristol is simple.
We are all responsible for the choices we make and need to accept the
implications of those choices. If someone chooses to:
live in an area with limited parking, then they should accept a restriction
on the number of cars per household
commute to Bristol city centre, then they need to plan their
arrangements using public transport and/or public parking facilities
The current situation is unsustainable in practicality; environmentally
unacceptable; and has a human cost. I am therefore in support of the
residents parking scheme as I believe it will:
enhance the quality of life for residents whose movements may
otherwise be restricted or health impacted
correct the unsustainable and insensitive practice of multi-car
households in areas where parking resource is limited
improve environmental accountability by forcing households,
commuters and students to rethink the choices they make on how to
get from home to workplace
As well as the environmental and practical benefits, protecting our limited
resource would enhance the quality of life for residents by changing the
little things that make a lot of difference.
Yours faithfully,
B Morgan
Southernhay Avenue,
Statement on Residents' Parking Zones
Cllrs Mark Wright & Alex Woodman (Cabot)
We will not repeat here the extensive points made in our previous statements to Scrutiny
and Cabinet regarding the Cabinet paper and the long story so far, although we very much
hope that officers will revisit those points.
It is not surprising that many people have been left feeling aggrieved at the process so far.
The fact that leading questions and partial options appeared in the first consultation means
that those who oppose an RPZ scheme feel the consultation was biased against them.
The fact that only a ridiculously draconian 24/7 scheme was offered means that those who
support an RPZ scheme feel that the consultation was biased again them! No one is left
We support those therefore, who say that no scheme should be imposed without a fair and
proper public consultation. The consultation in Kingsdown produced figures of over 50% in
favour and under 20% against, and we would be surprised if those figures were
substantively changed in future; but nevertheless, the local community must feel that it has
been clearly and fairly demonstrated that there is support.
We remain supportive of the principle that residents in areas that back RPZs should get
them. Officers drawing up the scheme should show more willingness to take on board
suggestions made by ward councillors and the local community than they have done
previously. We would like to see these guarantees written into the Cabinet report.
We are however disappointed at the apparent attempts by the Conservative Party to
politicise the issue. We are also not supportive of those who feel that parts of the city
should have a veto over other areas taking measures to improve their own quality of life.
This is an illogical viewpoint that would lead to total deadlock on most issues – everywhere
- if applied in other fields of life. The recent rhetoric of the Conservative Party appears to
be opposition to the principle of RPZs, even if local communities support them in their
area. We do not support that position, which is a denial of local community democracy.
Statement to Residents Parking Call-In Meeting – 5th January 2009
Councillor Neil Harrison (Liberal Democrat, Cotham Ward)
Due to a long-planned holiday, I am regrettably unable to attend the call-in meeting, so
please accept this statement concerning Residents’ Parking Zones (RPZs).
My views about the consultation on RPZs undertaken in July 2008 are well-known, having
been made in public on a number of occasions. The consultation was shambolic in both
the approach taken and the materials used. It did not give residents a reasonable
opportunity to express their views on what is always going to be a contentious topic.
Unforgivably, local councillors were not involved in the consultation in any way.
I do not agree with those who say that the consultation was biased in favour of adopting
RPZs. Rather, the bias was polarising, forcing opinions to the extremes, when my
experience, in Cotham Ward at least, is that residents’ views are rather more nuanced and
complex. The process was further undermined by the actions of officers who reportedly
gave residents the impression that it was a ‘done deal’.
The revised RPZ plans that were presented to Cabinet in November 2008 were
significantly different (and more appropriate) than those in the original consultation. In
fact, they tallied much more closely with the proposals that I and my Liberal Democrats
colleagues had been making prior to and during the consultation period. The principles of
different solutions for different areas and the folly of 24/7 operation had been accepted.
As such, I believe that the plans in the November 2008 cabinet papers form a sensible
basis for an on-going dialogue around the issue of RPZs. In principle, I believe that RPZs
have the potential to offer significant gains in quality of life for local residents; they work
well and are broadly popular in many other towns and cities. Bristol needs to have the
same conversation with its residents as these other communities have had.
I believe that Bristol City Council should have a worked-up residents’ parking scheme
available for discussion. I do not agree with those who are opposed to the idea at all
costs or those who want the ability to veto RPZs in areas other than their own. I believe
that residents (along with businesses and community organisations) should have the
ability to opt-in to RPZs where they have majority support. Equally, I do not believe that
residents should have RPZs imposed open them against their will. I also do not believe
that RPZs should be used as a revenue-raising exercise for the Council, and I am
confident that this is not the intention within the current plans.
The July 2008 consultation was deeply flawed. At best, it has given the Council some idea
about those areas where there is significant support for RPZs, although I have no
confidence in the boundaries as currently defined, given the paucity of the data collection
exercise which was used to create them.
Moving forwards, I believe that the following steps need to be taken :
1. A re-consultation needs to be undertaken based around the two proposed pilot zones,
but covering a larger area than the proposed boundaries, to seek the views of residents
on the November 2008 plans (which are quite distinct from the July 2008 plans on
which the initial consultation was based). This should comprise more than simply a
repeated questionnaire, including public meetings and the involvement of local
councillors and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Only if there continues to be majority
support for RPZs should plans progress.
2. A clear project plan needs to be developed and published, detailing how any pilot
zones would be managed. In order to be a ‘pilot’ in the true sense, there needs to be
(a) defined measures of success, (b) periodic evaluation, (c) a defined pilot timeframe,
and (c) an exit strategy. None are currently laid down in the RPZ plans. Specifically, if
it is found after a period of time (perhaps two years) that the RPZs are not offering
benefits to residents, they should be removed.
3. The plans need to incorporate measures to mitigate against knock-on effects of the
implementation of RPZs on surrounding areas due to the displacement of vehicles.
This would include the protection of pavements, dropped kerbs, driveways and corners,
including both physical measures (e.g. yellow lines) and enforcement. It is important
that RPZs do not create additional problems for residents outside the zones.
4. The finalised detailed plans need to worked up with the full involvement of the local
community, but then need to be brought back to Cabinet for final approval, giving
residents in the affected areas a final chance to register their opposition in public and to
seek to amend or dispose of the proposal.
If these four conditions are met, I am happy that the plans should proceed to the next
stage. This does not mean that I support the inevitable implementation of the two pilot
zones as defined in the November 2008 plans. It means that I want to see a “fair and
proper consultation” (to use the phrase of the Keep Parking Free campaign) before zones
are put into place. However, if that consultation results in the finding that residents in
certain areas do indeed want to be part of an RPZ, then I would support them in their
Regrettably, the ‘call-in’ process is likely to serve to polarise debate even further, causing
antagonism between neighbours – like many councillors, I am being lobbied by both those
for and against. The Conservatives contributed little or nothing to the discussion about
RPZs prior to the November 2008 Cabinet meeting, despite ample opportunities. They
have now used the call-in process to make political capital for themselves, sadly
demonstrating once again that they are keen on opportunistically seeking to take credit,
but not responsibility, for how the city is governed.
We wish to register our Approval in Principle of the proposed RPS for
There are many key issues which require working out in detail, which could
either make the scheme exemplary, or otherwise ineffective and
unnecessarily intrusive.
The Principles we wish to see guiding the project are;
the scheme must be targetted to eliminate commuter parking and
displacement parking for the hospital & university.
single car per household must be given the highest priority.
businesses which require some space for customer parking must be
the Conservation Area status covering the area must guide the detailed
implementation of the scheme. (minimal road markings, especially on
setts; signs fixed to walls & railings wherever possible; sensitive
location of other related street furniture).
residents should be involved in the detailed design of the scheme. We
and a number of residents have already offered to help with surveys &
Yours Sincerely
Richard & Joan Guise
Somerset St
PS Why is there no enforcement of the double line 'no parking' on lower
Horfield Road by the bus stop & new hospital extension? This causes road
obstruction & inconvenience for bus users.
Statement to the call in committee 5th Jan 2009 regarding residents parking in
Please will you read my statement if I am unable to attend the meeting due to
childcare issues.
I live within the proposed pilot resident parking zone of Cotham/Kingsdown. I
see the problem as not only a parking one, but also a
traffic and environmental one.
Around the boundary of my house there is enough room to park nine cars.
During the weekdays I cannot get one space here, or anywhere within
acceptable walking distance of my home. However at evenings and
weekends I have my pick of spaces. Therefore it is very evident to me that
the weekday parking problems are caused by commuters taking advantage of
free parking.
Hence I support a Residents Parking Scheme in Kingsdown. And from
opinions that I have gathered from local friends and neighbours I believe there
to be a lot of support if the scheme is right.
Like it or not the consultation demonstrated a majority in favour of the most
draconian residents parking. There will be a lot more in favour of something
more locally approved. I do not approve of the way that the results from the
consultation are currently being endlessly called into question, and being used
as a political tool.
It is a great waste of money, time and energy that could be put to good use
Thank you.
Hilary Jelbert
Fremantle Road
I am writing to express my support for the proposed Residents' Parking
Scheme in Kingsdown. The current situation degrades the environment, ties
up valuable police time, impedes normal working for service vehicles, and in
the worst cases has prevented emergency vehicles from responding
effectively to calls.
It is clear that action of some sort must be taken, and the proposals appear to
offer the best solution.
Paul Robinson
21a Somerset St
I fully support the RPZ and question the motives or understanding of anyone
who would oppose it.
The NO campaign complains about a biased consultation. As a resident of
Jacobs Wells Road the only bias I saw was the relentless propaganda leaflets
and posters for the NO campaign.
We must embrace positive change and not let this opportunity to solve traffic
problems slip through our hands.
Graham Jennings
I wish to lodge the full support of the Highbury Residents Association for the
Council's proposals to introduce Residents' Parking in our area.
The Highbury Residents' Association represents the views of the permanent
residents in Highbury Villas, Tyndalls Park Mews and the top of St Michaels
Hill. This is an area with a high student population and limited parking control.
We are also a favourite parking spot for those that work in Bristol - including
the BRI and University. Like the majority of Kingsdown residents - who are in
the "front line" for commuter and student parking - we wish to see this scheme
introduced as soon as possible.
The difference in the parking situation in our area over the Christmas period is
stark. The usual problems we experience of double parking and prevention of
access for emergency vehicles and rubbish collection are gone and it is
possible to park both safely and legally. The quality of the area is also
significantly improved.
The Residents' Association has already written to the Council to fully support
this scheme and to put forward our area for one of the pilots. Once again,
please take this as our full support for these proposals which we see as the
only way to start to control the use of the private car in Bristol. To leave the
situation as is currently stands, with no controls in place in areas such as
ours, is just not an option.
Yours sincerely
Liz Dunn
Parking has significantly worsened in Clifton Wood over the 29 years I have
lived here. Commuters now queue to get into the street from 7.00am and do
not leave until early evening. They often park badly which means we are often
unable to receive deliveries from companies and some Council Services.
Street cleansing, drain cleansing, refuse collection, recycling and general road
maintenance sometimes do not take place due to lack of access and if not for
the patience and skill of the drivers might be missed more often. Emergency
vehicles are frequently unable to gain access as well.
The situation can not be allowed to "sort itself out" it needs strong persuasion
to encourage drivers to use the Park & Rides that are already in operation and
provide a demand for more to be built.
I have taken part in the previous attempts to introduce a CPZ which have
been stopped by the "NO" group, most of whom do not live on the front line as
we do. Their main concern seems to be that if we resolve our problem they
might have a problem in future. That should not be a reason to refuse us our
At the Call-In meeting on 5th of January I urge you to vote Yes to continuing
discussions on the CPZ and introducing the two trial zones.
Simon Banbury
Bellevue Crescent
Residents Parking Scheme - Kingsdown
Please would you consider this statement at the meeting on January 5th
As a resident in Kingsdown I would gladly pay £30 for the RPS service.
It would be such a relief not to have cars jostling for a space outside my
house every morning from 7am onwards. There is such competition for a
space between commuters that they wait with their engines on until someone
will move, or they will just drive around.
This is a question about the amenity of the residents, not of the commuters or
the students, so it is entirely correct that that the vote is by the residents of the
area affected, not the commuters.
The motive of the no campaign is actually their ability to have a free all-day
car park outside our homes.
We as residents see the fee as something we would welcome for the
provision of this excellent service.
Yours faithfully
Dr. Cameron Dunn
Highbury Villas
As a resident of Bellevue Crescent in Clifton Wood for the last 25 years I am
writing to request there should be no further delay in creating a Resident's
Parking Scheme for my local area. I have written on this in detail in my
previous letters, statement’s to the City Council both verbal and written, letters
to the press and photographic evidence of the need on the website <> .
I list below the reasons for Clifton Wood & Brandon Hill to have a resident's
parking scheme.
Complete gridlock of the local area with commuter parking/City of Bristol
college students & tutors parking.
The entire area under discussion is a free car park for whoever comes to
town, day & night.
We are on the edge of the current controlled parking zone for the city & are
suffering because of it.
Major chaos on bin-collection days, we pay our council-tax & can't get bins
emptied if access is blocked by poor parking.
Emergency access is prevented by vehicles left on street corners & damage
to property has occurred because of it.
Council Policy is to tackle congestion through managing commuter parking,
providing better neighbourhoods as a result.
The present situation is UNSUSTAINABLE!
I would like to have the opportunity to speak on this matter at the Call-in
Meeting on 5/01/09.
Helen Tierney.
Bellevue Cres.
In haste, due to the time limit, imposed before the Call n meeting on Monday
January 5th, I am writing to register that my husband and I are in support of
the Residents Parking Scheme pilot scheme proposed for the Kingsdown area
(specifically including Fremantle Road. We feel it is in line with recommended
principles for generally controlling car use as an environmental and health
measure and is also becoming essential for ease of access for any residents in
the area.
Shelley Davies
Trevor Davies
Please record our strong support for the introduction of a residents parking
scheme for Kingsdown, subject to a full review after one year.
Ben Hamilton-Baillie & Jennifer Hill
Kingsdown Parade
Dear Sir/Madam,
In anticipation of the meeting scheduled for the 5th of January, I would like to
send a statement of opposition to the RPZ. I do not support the RPZ for a
number of reasons:
Impact on local businesses: One of the key reasons for living in this area
are the excellent local businesses on our doorsteps; the pubs, restaurants,
deli's, and myriad other small traders that make the area unique. Such variety
and choice is not paid for entirely by the local residents but by other
Bristolians and visitors who come to the area. An RPZ would deter these
visitors from 'nipping to' or 'swinging by' these often small, independent shops
and they'd be pushed towards the large supermarkets and out of town
shopping centres with their free parking. In my own area (that I know of)
Jamesons, Fresh and Wild, New Heights, Hamptons, Quinton House pub and
Le Monde restaurant (not to mention the Post Office) have all closed recently
so making it harder to customers to frequent these businesses seems the last
thing we would want to do.
Sufficient spaces for residents: If the aim is to improve availability of
spaces for residents this will at best improve the lot for those in the RPZ but
simply move the parking density through the displacement of cars making
things equally worse for others. At worst it will have no impact - let's be
realistic, the average Clifton street is full of converted flats so the fundamental
nature of the area will mean parking is always in short supply.
Environmental Impact: As well as the actual increase in car miles going
to the large out of town shopping malls as mentioned above, commuter
traffic/parking (which seems to be a main focus of the scheme) wouldn't be
reduced. Making people walk a couple of hundred metres more (when they
park in the next few streets further out not covered by the RPZ) isn't a
particularly large stick to make people switch to the bus. Perhaps a local
carrot to go with existing central governments tax-based sticks would be a
better approach to achieve this change?
Timing and financial Impact: Clearly an additional cost to local
households is the last thing that is wanted in the present economic climate
when all the government initiatives are around putting more disposable
income in peoples pockets.
Aesthetic Impact: Clifton is of course a beautiful part of Bristol. The
bright white and yellow painted lines on roads, parking signs every few 10's of
metres, traffic wardens, meter machines and so on that are part and parcel of
an RPZ will detract from the look and feel of the area as surely as graffiti or
the unsympathetic modern buildings would.
Psychological Impact: There is also the nature of these new additions to
the street scene: they will be placing more restrictions on what ordinary
Bristolians can do and reminding us of this every time we walk down the
street. Personally I would like to feel relaxed and 'at home' in my
neighbourhood rather than reminded of rules, enforcements and penalty fines
everytime I walk down the street. Access for emergency services is the main
altruistic argument that I have seen for RPZs but this is already a requirement
and one backed up in law already so RPZs tackle that issue are a
sledgehammer to crack a nut.
So in summary, an RPZ would be a huge use of time, energy and resources
at a cost to local residents (when they least want new financial burdens) and
which would have a detrimental impact on not just the look and feel of one of
Bristol's most beautiful historic areas but also on the exact type of business,
retail and residential mix that we should be encouraging. And despite this
high cost (and one which is not easy to reverse) it would not fundamentally
alter the experience of residents in the zone (and I speak from personal
experience from the implementation/extension of the scheme in Bath) and
would displace cars into surrounding areas making their situation worse. I
imagine that many, if not the majority of residents are like me and live in this
area precisely because of the positives mentioned above that would be
adversely affected by the RPZ (beautiful surroundings, abundant local
independent shops, bars and restaurants, proximity to city centre, etc).
Many thanks for your time, I hope this well-meaning but deeply flawed
proposal can soon be put aside in favour of more positive improvements to
the city!
Mr RJ Burton
10 Richmond Hill
PS - although it does not directly bear in the relative merits of an RPZ, I would
also like to take the opportunity to express my disappointment in the
leadership of the council department that released such an obviously slanted
and biased survey on the RPZ. This is hardly good PR for local government
democracy and was ultimately a waste of the opportunity (and cost) of the
survey. The resultant report was also heavily biased, ultimately containing
insufficient raw information to enable Councillors to make an independent
decision. This should be raised in any 'lessons learnt' sessions if there is an
Please go ahead with the residents parking scheme. I live in Alfred Place and
I am over 60 and I can almost never park in my street. Even when the
students are away the parking is taken up by hospital staff and people using
us as a car park when they walk into town. People park on corners and on
pavements, and it is sometimes impossible to access certain streets. I pay
my rates, and I do feel I am badly served by the situation. I sometimes have
to carry heavy things quite a long way to my house. I think you should be firm
and support the residents of this tiny street.
Caroline Hunt
Please record this email as strong support in favour of the proposed scheme.
It is a sensible attempt to deal with the present problem.
Best wishes.
Giles Woodward.
Giles Woodward
Barcan Woodward Solicitors
Gloucester Road
02/01/2009 12: 49
The Call-in Committee
Bristol City Council
College h
Bristol BS 1 5TR
23 =IQ
1 Ambra Vale South
Clifton Wood
Bristol BS8 4RN
29 D
D m Sirs,,
Residents P~rkinrr.Zone- Clifton Wood
I am writing in support of the proposed RPZ.
Ambra Vale South is a narrow cul-de-sac, made even mrmwm
having raised the pavements on both sides of the street to
cars on them. It is a side street off the narrow and steep
eses baa the busy Hutwells Road.
One Monday morning a few weeks ago, 1bas waiting at
South with Ambra Vale while my husband de-frosted the
reversed it out of our street While I was e t i n g , a flood
professionals h v e up Ambra Vale to use our residential stre&
ride. They either walk into the centre h m here or catch
Clifton Wood is R very wnvenient parking place for students
Bfistal College in St George's Road.
At the junction of Ambra Vale and Hotwells Road are student flats 'th allocated
parking spaces mder the building. The students have to pay for the allocated spaces
s, sometimes
and some prefer to avoid these charges by leaving their cars in our
for weeks on end.
~ S O shoppers
d Clifton Wood a very convenient, k
All of this has caused immense parking problems for the
difficultiesfor the 2 repychg lorries which
week and for the rubbish lorry which wmes once a
runadcable drivihg skills of thc lorry drivers that
addition,emergency vehicles have sometimes
no fatalities.
We have been notifiedby leaflets through the door that the
aligned themselves with the "NO" campaign. I cannot under
live in Clifton or outside Bristol and are completely oblivious to
suffered by the residents of Clifton Wood.If any one of them
week with me monitoring our
problems, I would be p
Yours FaiWly,
Telephone G Fax. 01 17 927 6206
02/01/2009 12: 49
12: 49
Paul Haynes
Avonside Guest House
106 Coronation Road
BS3 1A.X
I represent a group of 15 small businesses in Southville, for the past year we have
been meeting to discuss the proposed residents parking scheme. We are aware that
there are no proposed schemes for the Southville area but would like to bring to your
attention our view on any scheme as we are so concerned about the impact on any
When you look at the figures of people in the pilot areas who responded to wanting
this scheme they are only a small number compared to the people who will have to
pay to use the compulsory scheme. This alone needs to be revisited and further
consultation needs to happen in the pilot areas before money is spent on design.
In the current economic climate it is madness to impose this to residents and
I attended all of the previous Scrutiny and Cabinet meetings and the residents who are
in favour who submitted statements were wanting the scheme for some of the
following reasons:
'To ensure emergency vehicles can get down streets in the night which are currently
blocked by parked cars'
Why cant the roads be cleared and yellow lined now, this is the Councils
responsibility and nothing to do with residents scheme. Also at night only residents
were parked there as commuters would have gone home.
'I run a business fiom home and this scheme would create parking spaces for my
customers to be able to park to use my services'
I can understand why this business person wants the scheme but would this help his
neighbours who want the scheme to be able to park by their homes. By the time
parking spaces are lost to pay and display bays, businesses given 'bespoke parking
solutions' I cant see that the residents will be able to park.
This is a city wide issue it may start in 2 areas but the problem will grow and spread
into all areas of the city and all citizens will be affected if they have to pay at a metre
every time they leave their parking zone.
Use the examples of other Cities, enable good value public transport fist and the
commuter parking will solve its self and this will be to the benefit of the whole city.
What is the rush to bring this in? what secret deadline.are the council working to?
Paul Haynes
Mrs A Haynes
Allington Rd
Ref: Residents Parking Scheme
Dear Sirs
I simply request that today you take the opportunity to ensure that the
wider impact on the city is taken into account
The statistics and percentages in the 17/11/08 report are not open and
transparent therefore any decision to go ahead with the pilot will be
based on mis-information.
Call in group this is your chance to show the citizens of Bristol that the
decision making processes in Bristol City Council are robust and that
members of the public can have a real impact and involvement into those
How can the consultation results which do not include the majority of the
Students who live in the areas be used to pilot? Why cant the pilot areas
be asked again before thousands of pounds are used drawing up the
Hear our voice today and recommend this whole scheme is approached in
a different way, a way the citizens of Bristol want.
Mr J Ward
Ref: Residents Parking Scheme
Dear Sirs
The statement I would like to make is that I cannot understand why
Bristol City Council is rushing ahead with this Residents Parking Pilot
with out proper consultation.
I cannot find a reference in the report, produced on 17/11/08,to any
deadlines that this project must adhere to, therefore it only makes sense
to take the time to get this scheme right.
Please do not allow the pilot areas to commence with out further
consultation with the city as a whole.
John Ward
Mrs Paul
Ref: Residents Parking Scheme
Dear Sirs
The cost to those in the pilot areas could be many hundreds of pounds
per household, but what will the cost of the scheme be, per person, for
the council tax paying people of Bristol in general when they have to pay
to park every where, as this scheme is bound to spread to all areas
This is a city area issue please use your vote to take this to full council so
each councillor can represent the people who voted for them.
Mrs Wilson
Ref: Residents Parking Scheme
Dear Sirs
Having attended the previous 2 meeting at the council hse regarding this
scheme I would ask that you look very closely at the financial side of
this, the first report stated that the cost per house hold would be £100 for
visitor passes and a higher cost for permits and that the cost would be nil
to the council tax payer as the scheme would be self funding.
In the next report the cost of visitor permits had reduced to £50 and the
cost of permits had reduced as well as the hours of operation (I assume
reduction in pay and display income come with this.) yet still stating the
scheme would be self hnd-ing. How can this be?
Please look very closely it seems that some hiding of the truth is going on
here and this meeting is the last chance to bring the truth out into the
Mrs Wilson
Mrs Bye
Ref: Residents Parking Scheme
Dear Sirs
I have been closely following the meetings and documents of the
Scrutiny and Cabinet out comes for this scheme, I'feel that the large
sums of money proposed to set this scheme up, although funded through
the 'spend to save' post could be better spent on providing affordable
public transport.
Has any study been undertaken to discover which type of commuters are
parking where and why, perhaps this scheme would not solve any
Question for Council Meeting 5'h January 2009
2"' January 2009
Ref: Proposed RPS
Dear Sirs
Why will a scheme that operates for 2 hours per day between, say, 12pm and 2 pm not work
(section 17 of the Report).
The logic from the report suggests that commuters will park their car in a CPZ in the morning
then, at some time before 12pm, leave their place of work to walk to their car move their car to
some unspecified location and then return to work before once again returning some time before
2pm to move their car back to Ws original parking space in the CPZ
The logic here is flawed for the following reasons:
How many workers have the benefit of being able to take 2 lunch breaks over a 2 hour period
Even with flexible working arrangements who would consider using the whole of their lunch hour
everyday to move their car.
Where is the unspecified location where the car will be moved to? and If there is such a bountiful
choice of car parking then is there a need for the scheme?
The scheme is being designed to deter commuter parking. Commuters arrive between 7am and
9am and leave between 4:30pm and 6:OOpm. There is not a massive wave of commuters at or
after lunchtime.
Please provide clarification of the perceived problems of the '
2 hours per daf option.
if there is concem about commuters moving their cars during lunchtime the scheme could operate
from loam - 12pm.
Yours Faithfully
75 Hamilton Road
Question for Council Meeting 5'h January 2009
Ref Residents Parking Scheme
2ndJanuary 2009
Dear Sirs
Please advise the number and details of parking surveys that have been carried out in the
proposed pilot areas. (Brandon Hill and Kingsdown) What were the dates and times of the
surveys? I would expect that separate surveys for moming and evening and for weekday and
weekend parking patterns were performed.
In addition please advise the ratio of car spaces that will be available in each of the areas
compared to the number of households.
Please advise the number of permits that will be sold for each available space?
Yours Faithfully
Julie Dodd
Glanville Guest House
122 Coronation Road
Question for Council meting srnJanuary 2889
Residents' Parking Schemes
2"6January 2009
Dear Sirs
Can you please advise us how you will provide for the visitors to guest houses within the pilot
zones and in subsequent areas where the RPS is rolled out.
The background to the question is as follows.
Bristol City Council has a high aspirations in terms of tourism for the city.
The local plan recognises the importance of tourism. Section 10.2.2 states that "tourism is
important in generating economic activity and new job opportunities."
Currently demand for budget accommodation outstrips supply . The Local development plan (and
alterations) also recognises that there is a specific shortage of budget accommodation in Bristol.
Indeed the adopted plan specifically singles out the need to encourage guest houses.
within the Section 'Tourism" states:
"[als part of the Council's commitment to the expansion of the tourism industry it is
essential to provide a full range of visitor accommodation and associated facilities to meet the
needs of all tourists. Proposals for guest houses will generally be favoured. The success of the
tourism strategy will depend as much on the first impression a tourist has of the city, how easy it is
to obtain information and accommodation, as on the experience of the visiting attractionsn.
In our area existing guest houses have operated successfully alongside residents for well over 30
Ready made solutions do exist as illustrated in current CPZ's operated by Bath, Exeter, Plymouth
and York for example. The guests are recognised as visitors and daily, weekly or annual visitor
permits are issued accordingly. Guest houses in the CPZ are simply providing accommodation for
many 'visitors" to Bristol. Typically permits are made available at a rate of 1 per day per bedroom.
Unfortunately a response to the above question that states that individual areas will be dealt with
on a case by case basis is neither appropriate or helpful in this case. Unlike the impacts on
residents a CPZ scheme is not simply a costly inconvenience. Instead a badly designed scheme
that does not provide forguest house visitor parking is the death knell for these family run
businesses taking away the income for a family and further reducing the availability of
accommodation for visitors to Bristol.
In order to remove the stress and uncertainty, and to allow us to plan our future we need
assurances that the guest houses affected will be given permits to allow their guests to park.
Yours faithfully
Greg Clark
Amy Clark
121 Coronation Road
Question for Council Meeting 5'" January 20009
Ref: Proposed RPS Scheme
zndJanuary 2009
Dear Sirs
If a resident cannot find a place to park in their zone, where will they park? How far from their
house will they have to park and will there be an additional cost for this?
Ilive in an area not particularly affected by commuter parking, where I can usually park within a
few doors from my house. I am concerned that, having paid for a parking permit, with reduced
spaces available, there will be nowhere to park.
I have 3 children and often have a car full of shopping, prams, car seats etc and I will not be able
to unload the car miles from my house. I seek assurance that having paid for a permit I will be
able to park close to my house (as I can at the moment).
Yours faithfully
Amy Clark
Amy Clark
121 Coronation Road
Question for Council 5'" January 2009
2ndJanuary 2009
Ref: Residents Parking Scheme
Dear Sirs
The schemes due to be introduced in Kingsdown and Brandon Hill have been s ~ ~ t i n i s e
changed to take into account residents' requirements and concerns. Will this level of scrutiny and
ability to change the detail of the scheme be applied to all the schemes if they are implemented in
I seek your assurance that the Council will consult with residents' and business owners in each
area of Bristol before implementing a CPZ so that the scheme can be tailored to each particular
area. The parking requirementsvary from area to area (indeed sometimes varying street by
street) these need to be considered and responded to before implementing a CPZ.
In other areas of the country where CPZs have been introduced the first couple of pilot schemes
introduced received a great deal of scrutiny and public input (and changes to the detail as a result
of this). However, as the CPZs were rolled out throughout the city the subsequent schemes did
not receive such attention and residents were not able to impact on the detail of the CPZ This
has resulted in residents being very unhappy and the CPZs not solving the parking problems in
such areas and not meeting residents' requirements.
Yours faithfully
Amy Clark
Statement for Call in meeting January Sm 2009 at 5.30 p.m.
Having spoken to business owners within the Kingsdown pilot zone, it is clear that
people are still entirely unaware of any scheme, pilot or otherwise? What is clear, is
that those with businesses, big and small, do not want the pilot zones or the scheme
because they know it will affect their ability to trade in an already treacherous
Surely, the aim of the council must be to help businesses thrive and not put
obstacles, likeafewer (and metered) parking spaces, in the way of people spending
with the businesses within our communities?
For the many businesses that are desperately trying to keep their head above water,
this scheme means they are sure to go under. Even with a very questionable and tiny
margin apparently in favour of the pilot, how many businesses are the council
prepared to sacrifice to introduce this scheme?
June Jeff reys
Hillside, Clifton.
Statement for Call in meeting January Sth 2009 at 5.30 p.m.
What benchmarks have you put in place to measure any parking improvements and
the overall success of the scheme?
Sue Paterson
Clifton, Bristol
Statement for Call in meeting January 5" 2009 at 5.30 p.m.
If the council wanted us to believe that the consultation was anything other that a
flawed attempt to introduce a money-raising scheme under the radar, why was the
consultation conducted during the summer and in the absence of those to whom it
mattered most i.e. the students, lecturers and employees who were on their summer
Julie Ellis
Gloucester Row, Clifton.
Statement for Call in meeting January 5'" 2009 at 5.30 p.m.
It is clear that the scheme will reduce the number of spaces available while not
guaranteeing residents a space. It also seems clear that there is no written strategy
whatever to get people off cars and on public transport. If there is please could the
council direct me to this strategy paper because I would iike to learn about how the
scheme will reduce C02 emissions, offer alternative and greener forms of transport
to commuters and residents, and how this parking scheme fits into an overall plan.
I ask, because I have heard no mention of any grand plan other than introducing a
scheme that will not solve the problems it says it will, is unwanted and does very little
except introduce another form of tax for an ill-conceived 'service'
Simon Fuller
Princess Buildings, Clifton.
Statement for Call in meeting January 5m2009 at 5.30 p.m.
On page 3 of your report you detail your Policy point 2 as 'enabling residents to park
more easily'. Given there will be less spaces because of the scheme, that it will not
guarantee a space to residents and that there is significant cost to residents both
within and outside the scheme, exactly how will the scheme make more easy to park
than it is now?
Susan Parsons
Cotham Gardens, Cotham
Statement for Ca in meeting January 5°"2009 at 5.30 p.m.
Campaigners fo?against the proposed scheme share more than we differ,
particularly in the way we are united by our willingness to take action. However, on
examination of the arguments set forth by the Yes-to-RPS campaigners it seems that
their arguments represent fallacy after fallacy.
There are already many procedures in place to ensure access to emergency
vehicles. Cars parked in 2 way that block access in such situations can be towed.
There is no need for a residents' parking scheme to tackle this problem, one that we
agree is a problem. Simpl
up the phone to the police or council and save us all
the millions in costs.
Yes, we would agree there will be more double yellow lines. We corr~pletely
agree in fact. We agree because more yellow lines solve the problems for which Yesto-RPS want a residents' scheme introduced. By recognising more yellow lines will
stop people parking in a dangerous or unthoughtful manner the Yes-to-RPS
campaigners effectively negate their argument almost entirely.
There will not be more spaces for residents'. This argument by Yes-to-RPS is
misleading. With more double yellow lines and paFking meter bays come less
spaces. To think otherwise is idiocy.
Visitors have no guarantee that they will park more easily. The only guarantee is
that their parking will be more costly. Again, to suggest anything else is illogical and
If the scheme is not a tax, what is it? It is a levy to park your vehicle outside your
own home. Come on, guys.
The scheme is poorly constructed, just like the consultation. Where do
commuters go? How do they get to work? On the new Park & Ride scheme? None
exists. On the new bicycle lanes? None have been introduced. Where do the cars
go? Nowhere, there is no grand plan for getting us off our addiction to cars. There is
no insight and there is no leadership. Just a flawed consultation followed by a flawed
and unwanted scheme.
Kieran Battles
York Gardens, Clifton.
Statement for Call in meeting January 5fh2009 at 5.30 p.m.
There are many significant parallels between the consultation process for this
scheme and the process that took place in Camden, North London in the midnineties, highlighted in the case of Regina v Camden London Borough Council.
Perhaps most notably, is the same manner in which both Camden then and Bristol
City council novfie. with such determination to introduce a parking scheme that it
becomes introduced illegally.
In the case in London, Mr Justice McCullough found that where the local authority
failed adequately to consult residents on the introduction of the scheme that it would
be illegal and could therefore be quashed.
So many councillors have spoken out about the flawed and biased nature of the
consultation. So man) residents have petitioned the council about the failure of the
consultation to actually consult. Given this, it does beg the question as to whether the
do so in
council are so adamant to go ahead regardless m a r e
an illegal manner.
Nigel Furey
Kensington Place, Clifton.
Statement for Call in meeting January 5"' 2009 at 5.30 p.m.
Given the current economic climate, and the uncertainty about
are you in such a hurry to spend vast amounts of the council tax we pay you, not on
education or health but on parking meters, yellow lines and traffic wardens? Why are
you in such a hurry to further burden the hard working, income tax paying, value
added tax paying, council tax paying, road tax paying people of Bristol?
David Ansell
Victoria Walk, Cotham.