On 20 Feb, 10:05, Adrian wrote:
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?

Because its their bloody property! You going to start dictating what
plants they can plant in their gardens next or perhaps what type of
furniture they're allowed to buy??

its none of the councils business so long as they don't cause a public
nuisance or break planning laws.

Which they are.

No they're not.


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.

What exactly is wrong with that attitude? Why shouldn't people have a
reasonable expectation of being able to park near where they live? For
mothers with kids, people who use their car or van for work and
elderly or partially disabled people its almost essential.

B2003

On 2008-02-20, Adrian wrote:
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.

I don't think so - when I lived in a village there were people with that
attitude - they suggested that I should park outside my own house, until
I pointed out that it was on a corner and that parking there would block
one or both routes through the village. I was also yelled at to the
general effect of "I live here, how dare you park opposite!".

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, wrote:

On Feb 19, 6:27 pm, 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
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.

I see from wikipedia that:

"limited use" and agricultural vehicles are exempt from test altogether.

If that's true, if your electric shed was an agricultural electric shed
(an electric greenhouse?), you might not need the MOT. Or does that mean
agricultural vehicles which don't go on the public highway? And what's a
limited use vehicle?

Okay, here we go:

http://www.nfuonline.com/documents/B...Aug%202007.pdf

To be an agricultural vehicle, it has to fall into one of four specific
classes, and i can't see that a mobile shed would. Limited use means
(quoting):

* It is used for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or
forestry; and

* It is used on public roads only in passing between different areas of
land occupied by the same person; and

* The distance it travels on public roads in passing between any two such
areas does not exceed 1.5 km.

There, i think we're in. You have to have two gardens (one could be rented
from a friend), or a garden and allotment, less than a mile apart. You
then build your electric shed in order to drive between them. You keep
your gardening tools in it, so it's for horticultural purposes. Or you
build a mobile greenhouse, as i mentioned. Either way, it meets the
criteria, it's Limited Use, and you don't have to MOT or pay tax on it.

Crossposted to uk.rec.sheds.

tom

--
At Forkmeeter in 12478, the Wracket Dispersal had reached the first
limit of its bounding eastward rush.

On 20 Feb, 11:48, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:27 pm, 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
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.

I see from wikipedia that:

"limited use" and agricultural vehicles are exempt from test altogether.

If that's true, if your electric shed was an agricultural electric shed
(an electric greenhouse?), you might not need the MOT. Or does that mean
agricultural vehicles which don't go on the public highway? And what's a
limited use vehicle?

Okay, here we go:

http://www.nfuonline.com/documents/B...nsport%20116%2...

To be an agricultural vehicle, it has to fall into one of four specific
classes, and i can't see that a mobile shed would. Limited use means
(quoting):

* It is used for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or
forestry; and

* It is used on public roads only in passing between different areas of
land occupied by the same person; and

* The distance it travels on public roads in passing between any two such
areas does not exceed 1.5 km.

There, i think we're in. You have to have two gardens (one could be rented
from a friend), or a garden and allotment, less than a mile apart. You
then build your electric shed in order to drive between them. You keep
your gardening tools in it, so it's for horticultural purposes. Or you
build a mobile greenhouse, as i mentioned. Either way, it meets the
criteria, it's Limited Use, and you don't have to MOT or pay tax on it.

Crossposted to uk.rec.sheds.


For some reason I read that as "Composted ...".

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?

Because its their bloody property!

No, it's the way they use their property which is impacting upon others.

You going to start dictating what plants they can plant in their
gardens next

cough Tree Preservation Orders?

or perhaps what type of furniture they're allowed to buy??

And that would impact upon others how?

its none of the councils business so long as they don't cause a
public nuisance or break planning laws.

Which they are.

No they're not.

So how come the house across the road from me was refused planning
permission for a second vehicular access to the road? How come there's a
development going on at the moment just down from me which has had
vehicular access restrictions placed upon the site?

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.

What exactly is wrong with that attitude? Why shouldn't people have a
reasonable expectation of being able to park near where they live?

Because it just ain't practicable, unless you're the most selfish "I'm
all right, Jack, sod the rest of you" individual.

If your "reasonable expectation" is followed, parking restrictions would
evaporate overnight. Just a free-for-all. No regard to obstruction or
traffic flow. No red routes. No restriction on unfettered commuter
parking. It would be chaos.

All that's being argued about, in practice, is the extent of restrictions
necessary.

Oh, and you may like to bear in mind that every vehicular access from the
road to a driveway is a stretch of road lost - 24x7, whether the off-road
parking is in use or not - to on-road parking.

In message
, at
03:27:55 on Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Boltar remarked:
No , but in that case they should be allowed to park in their gardens if
they want, dropped kerb or not.

Why?

Because its their bloody property! You going to start dictating what
plants they can plant in their gardens next or perhaps what type of
furniture they're allowed to buy??

Ever heard of a conservation area or a listed building? They can tell
you what colour to paint your front door.

Normal housing doesn't have such stringent rules, but neither is it a
case of "no rules".
--
Roland Perry

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 20 Feb, 11:48, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:27 pm, 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
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.

I see from wikipedia that:

"limited use" and agricultural vehicles are exempt from test altogether.

If that's true, if your electric shed was an agricultural electric shed
(an electric greenhouse?), you might not need the MOT. Or does that mean
agricultural vehicles which don't go on the public highway? And what's a
limited use vehicle?

Okay, here we go:

http://www.nfuonline.com/documents/B...nsport%20116%2...

To be an agricultural vehicle, it has to fall into one of four specific
classes, and i can't see that a mobile shed would. Limited use means
(quoting):

* It is used for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or
forestry; and

* It is used on public roads only in passing between different areas of
land occupied by the same person; and

* The distance it travels on public roads in passing between any two such
areas does not exceed 1.5 km.

There, i think we're in. You have to have two gardens (one could be rented
from a friend), or a garden and allotment, less than a mile apart. You
then build your electric shed in order to drive between them. You keep
your gardening tools in it, so it's for horticultural purposes. Or you
build a mobile greenhouse, as i mentioned. Either way, it meets the
criteria, it's Limited Use, and you don't have to MOT or pay tax on it.

Crossposted to uk.rec.sheds.


For some reason I read that as "Composted ...".

That would be to uk.rec.gardening........

Steve

IanB wrote:

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.

There is a real Elf & Safety Issue. Look at how much local councils have
to pay out each year after being sued for Trip and Slips caused by
uneven or rocking slabs.
Where I live no person is (yet) heavy enough to break a paving slab
under their own weight, yet I see broken slabs everywhere caused by
motor vehicles driven on or across footways.

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.

The original source suggested that all these people had been repeatedly
warned that they needed to have a properly constructed footway crossing
complete with dropped kerb.
Where I used to live some idiot insisted on parking his (almost)HGV on
the footway. Apart from the damage and difficulty in getting past with
prams/pushchair etc, the water main beneath the path eventually failed.
Now if only it were worth suing such idiots.

Jim Chisholm

On 20 Feb, 15:42, (Sn!pe) wrote:
MIG wrote:
Crossposted to uk.rec.sheds.

For some reason I read that as "Composted ...".

By all accounts, two-year-old compost is wonderfully friable.


I think we at utl should crosspost to uk.rec.sheds more often! After
all, the major London termini station buildings are referred to as
trainsheds...

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
03:27:55 on Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Boltar remarked:
No , but in that case they should be allowed to park in their gardens if
they want, dropped kerb or not.

Why?

Because its their bloody property! You going to start dictating what
plants they can plant in their gardens next or perhaps what type of
furniture they're allowed to buy??

Ever heard of a conservation area or a listed building? They can tell you
what colour to paint your front door.

They told a friend of mine (or her landlady, anyway) that she shouldn't
have double glazing. This seems a case of priorities not being right.

Normal housing doesn't have such stringent rules, but neither is it a
case of "no rules".

And moreover, in this case, the problem is that get to the private
property, you have to go over public property, the kerb, damaging it in
the process. I couldn't give two hoots about some halfwit parking a car in
their garden, but i don't want to be paying to repair damage they cause in
doing it.

tom

--
At Forkmeeter in 12478, the Wracket Dispersal had reached the first
limit of its bounding eastward rush.