On 18 Feb, 19:08, Mizter T wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm

Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than
once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
paving slabs, really do mash them up.

Whether the councils are charging too much for installing the proper
ramp access across the pavement does come into this whole issue, but
if they are just passing on the legitimate costs of so doing then
that's fair enough.

The article says Brent has done this in 33 locations, whilst no
figures are provided for Harrow. I expect the counter argument to
anyone suggesting that this action has further damaged the pavement is
that the pavement was so damaged in the first place it makes little
difference, as the council were going to have to fix it up anyway. It
will certainly make for an effective deterrent.

I have to say that, in some streets, it does sadden me to see so many
driveways in place of front gardens (i.e. places were a conversion has
been done). Of course this really does depend upon the context - size
of the front garden/driveway area, how busy the street is, indeed
whether the house/street was designed like this in the first place.
However I think at some locations introduction of a controlled parking
zone (CPZ), so residents could have a fair degree of certainty they
could park nearby, would have been (indeed could still be) a
preferable solution.

I am however very much aware that in Harrow and Brent, much of the
(often interwar) housing was built with a driveway in the first place,
so even though the properties targeted by the councils' actions might
originally have had gardens and only recently had driveway
conversions, they could well simply be changing to fit in with the
surrounding/nearby housing. Nonetheless if you want to have a driveway
you need to pay up for the appropriate access to get across the
pavement.

I was completely sickened by the interview with the councillor
concerned. Her excuse for impounding people's cars was health and
safety - "people expect cars to drive up ramps but not across
pavements" - whereas actually they are doing it to boost revenue. The
bollards have been built cheaply and look a mess, plus they are an
obstruction for partially sighted and disabled people.

Why did the council choose to ereect bollards when the cars were on
the drive? Why not simply knock on the door or provide 24 hours
warning? The only answer can be shear nastiness. Personally I would
prefer to see cars parked off road than on road. I hold no remit for
car drivers, and I am strongly in favour of parking enforcement,
clamping, the lot.

But this kind of petty nastiness just goes too far.

Ian