On 19 Feb, 19:08, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
,
Mizter T writes

The article says Brent has done this in 33 locations, whilst no
figures are provided for Harrow.

It is not just local councils that are tightening up on this. Neighbours
just round the corner on the South Circular have been told by TfL that
they are not to park on their forecourts without a dropped kerb being
installed.

No threats of bollards, though - TfL are simply moving their bus shelter
in front of the property in question instead.


Is this just a threat or a definite plan of action then?

On Feb 19, 6:16 pm, MIG wrote:
On 19 Feb, 07:18, Offramp wrote:

On Feb 18, 9:15 pm, Mark W wrote:

Seems relevant.http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=669655
Though ISTR the figure round here (Cambs) is closer to £1000.

I am pretty sure that near me, on Lavender Avenue, Mitcham, the
council altered the pavement of every house to a slipway, so that cars
could be parked in peoples' front gardens rather than on the pavement.
I'm a pedestrian and I thought that was a good idea - and the pavement
does seem a lot clearer now than a year ago, although I suppose some
people have simply taken the opportunity to buy a second car.

One thing that really bugs me, especially if I'm pushing a pushchair,
is when I have to use the road because cars are using the pavements.
Where can I get those "Pavements are for people" stickers?

Does all this mean that all people have to do is ask (and pay) and
they can potentially get an entire kerb dropped so that the whole
length of the pavement can be driven over? I would have thought that
there would be a limit.

I dunno what happened, except that EVERY house on Lavender Ave in
Mitcham, in a few months, all got dropped kerbs. I assumed that the
council did it to rid the streets of parked cars (which has happened).

On Feb 19, 6:45 pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:27 pm, MIG wrote:



On 19 Feb, 18:21, Adrian wrote:

Boltar (Boltar ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Then parking in the road is illegal, as it would cause an
obstruction.
So they can't park on the road and they can't park off it.
Correct.
Are you an awkward sod who thinks he's got a god-given right to park
immediately outside his front door?
Are you the type of awkward sod who wouldn't let people park on the road

If to do so would cause an obstruction, yes. Absolutely. You think that's
a bad thing?

or off it on their own drives

Who's saying that people can't park in their drives? Nobody. This isn't
about whether people can park in their drives or not - but whether they
can park in their front gardens which they'd like to call drives but
haven't actually got vehicular access to.

but expects them to park in the next street?

If that's the nearest, yes.

Or course too bad if the next street is full too with the cars of
people who live in it.

Hiho. Don't like it, don't live in a city. That simple. Or do you think
that absolutely every London resident should be free to park wherever
they like, with no controls or regard to obstruction, in the street they
live in? How's that going to work, then?

I am wondering what legislation allows street parking anyway. I mean,
you can't store other furniture in the street that you can't fit in
your house, so parking cars seems to be a special case, which must be
well defined somewhere.

I've thought that there must be a market for "motorized sheds" that
you could just park outside your house.

Obviously there would be costs involved, at the very least, VED,
insurance and MOT. But presumably they could be electric vehicles with
very little range so probably no VED. Given that they're going to be
very low mileage there's probably the opportunity for a cheap
specialist insurance. And surely it can't cost all that much to get
them through an MOT each year given that they're hardly ever driven.

Tim.

Fantastic idea!! Extremely tall vehicules with 49cc engines! How
clever is that?!

Offramp (Offramp ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I've thought that there must be a market for "motorized sheds" that you
could just park outside your house.

Obviously there would be costs involved, at the very least, VED,
insurance and MOT. But presumably they could be electric vehicles with
very little range so probably no VED. Given that they're going to be
very low mileage there's probably the opportunity for a cheap
specialist insurance. And surely it can't cost all that much to get
them through an MOT each year given that they're hardly ever driven.

Fantastic idea!! Extremely tall vehicules with 49cc engines! How clever
is that?!

Bloody brilliant.

http://www.it.vtl.piaggio.com/prodotti/ape/index.htm

Are you an awkward sod who thinks he's got a god-given right to park
immediately outside his front door?

What's even worse than that is people who are "visiting" another house and
don't want to block the drive of the house they are visiting, so park right
across YOUR drive instead.

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

On 19 Feb, 18:27, MIG wrote:
I am wondering what legislation allows street parking anyway. I mean,
you can't store other furniture in the street that you can't fit in

Its called road fund tax. You don't generally find funiture driving
down the road.

B2003

On 19 Feb, 18:21, Adrian wrote:
If to do so would cause an obstruction, yes. Absolutely. You think that's
a bad thing?

No , but in that case they should be allowed to park in their gardens
if they want, dropped kerb or not.

Who's saying that people can't park in their drives? Nobody. This isn't
about whether people can park in their drives or not - but whether they
can park in their front gardens which they'd like to call drives but
haven't actually got vehicular access to.

If its their property they can call it and do with it what they like ,
its none of the councils business so long as they don't cause a public
nuisance or break planning laws. This damage to pavements argument is
a load of old tosh since kerbstones are pretty damn tough and even
with a dropped kerb the car still has to drive over normal paving
anyway potentialy causing exactly the same damage so whats the
difference? Its just another way for petty officials to extort more
cash out of people.

Hiho. Don't like it, don't live in a city. That simple. Or do you think

Some village streets are even narrower.

Or, perhaps, they could get vehicular access so they can park in their
driveway perfectly legally... Not difficult...

No , just expensive and knowing how councils operate probably with a 6
month waiting list. And for what? To remove a couple of kerbstones and
lower some slabs.

B2003

In message
, at
01:40:44 on Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Boltar remarked:
I am wondering what legislation allows street parking anyway. I mean,
you can't store other furniture in the street that you can't fit in

Its called road fund tax.

Not since 1936. Today it's Vehicle Excise Duty.

--
Roland Perry

Boltar (Boltar ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If to do so would cause an obstruction, yes. Absolutely. You think
that's a bad thing?

No , but in that case they should be allowed to park in their gardens if
they want, dropped kerb or not.

Why?

Who's saying that people can't park in their drives? Nobody. This isn't
about whether people can park in their drives or not - but whether they
can park in their front gardens which they'd like to call drives but
haven't actually got vehicular access to.

If its their property they can call it and do with it what they like ,
its none of the councils business so long as they don't cause a public
nuisance or break planning laws.

Which they are.

Hiho. Don't like it, don't live in a city. That simple. Or do you think

Some village streets are even narrower.

Indeed they are. But without the volume of traffic and the residential
density. Oh, and without the "I live here, I park here" attitude.