Jump to content
IGNORED

resident parking to include saturdays.


markyou

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Olé said:

I was just wondering this. The zone in question isn't even next to the ground. On that basis it would seem like NIMBYism of the worst kind. People who live around the ground clearly don't have a problem with presumably the same or higher levels of congestion, but people in Southville side of North Street, do? What is the difference? Only one I can think of is a few more anti-football brigade.

For what it's worth, this affects me a lot. I alternate between train and driving depending on how much time I have, but when I drive (3 hours+ one way from South East London), I park in this zone as I bring a lot of South Bristol stock which people know they can get from the Spanish Bar (also in the zone) and I don't want to have to be miles away having to carry lots of stock (after 3 hours driving).

I'll probably never drive again, it's not worth the hassle - which is obviously the intention, but bit of a joke when it relates to people coming from hours away. To be honest when I'm there by 1pm there isn't any problem parking in this particular zone - there are plenty of spaces, i.e. the residents clearly aren't struggling, which again leads me back to my original question, why this zone is the problem?

I get picked up by a mate from South Wales who has to drive across and we park in a particular street in the Southville zone. We get there about 12.30/12.45 and generally have never had a problem getting a space. Since about the end of November, we have struggled to get a space there or anywhere else around Southville. Clearly, people are just getting there earlier which is what will start to happen in the Ashton areas. If that goes RPZ, then clearly there will be a fundamental issue with matchday travelling especially as the council does not appear to want to work with the club on alternative options  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, richwwtk said:

I found the most shocking part of the story was the fact that they have been paying a company £300K+ a year to open and close the LA Park & Ride every day, a subsidy that was supposed to have ended 16 years ago!

Exactly. Everybody knows that Los Angeles is in the USA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only positive I can take from this farce of a council is they won't have any reason to spend tax payers cash on a statue to themselves any time in our lifetime.

Their combined contribution to delivering anything positive to the development of Bristol remains firmly at zero.

Wastrells stealing a living and title. They should be Impeached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I make out,the LA park and ride,is actually in North Somerset,so any changes to its use would have to be changed by them,via their planning department,and with their previous history of trying to get the New Stadium accesss road stopped,I wouldn’t hold my breath..........could be wrong mind........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this is tied in with the issue the council has with BCFC. I believe there was a clause in the planning permission that if 3 consecutive games at The Gate reached capacity, BCFC would have to contribute to a parking scheme or initiate one at a cost to BCFC. The council say the recent games meant the clause would come into affect.  City have said the Wolves games didn’t hit that attendance as ST holders didn’t all turn up as backed up by turnstile figures.  So BCFC are contesting the request by the council for the parking scheme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Septic Peg said:

 

Pretty sure the RPZ was created by George Ferguson and not a Labour politician. 

 

Fwiw, I'm a lefty Labour girl and I'm very disappointed in Marv's mayorship. He's literally looking for a legacy just like George did. Marv wants the Tube like George has the RPZs and the Metrobus.

 

I'd like the tube, I could get it to the footy and not bother about the rpz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ApplePress said:

I wonder if this is tied in with the issue the council has with BCFC. I believe there was a clause in the planning permission that if 3 consecutive games at The Gate reached capacity, BCFC would have to contribute to a parking scheme or initiate one at a cost to BCFC. The council say the recent games meant the clause would come into affect.  City have said the Wolves games didn’t hit that attendance as ST holders didn’t all turn up as backed up by turnstile figures.  So BCFC are contesting the request by the council for the parking scheme. 

Probably the 2 fairly linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this is all being put in place for when our arena/hotel/multi-storey car park/new store etc is being announced. There is bound to be objections from the local, and not so local residents. Is this to appease them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ApplePress said:

I wonder if this is tied in with the issue the council has with BCFC. I believe there was a clause in the planning permission that if 3 consecutive games at The Gate reached capacity, BCFC would have to contribute to a parking scheme or initiate one at a cost to BCFC. The council say the recent games meant the clause would come into affect.  City have said the Wolves games didn’t hit that attendance as ST holders didn’t all turn up as backed up by turnstile figures.  So BCFC are contesting the request by the council for the parking scheme. 

it has everything to do with that, legally they can't beat the club so they hammer the public instead, its about par for the pettyness that goes on with the council

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Hilarious.

But not necassarily incorrect to an extent.

And I have no view on any of our inept so called political parties.

Fact remains that for the majority Bristol has always been labour. We've also for the majority had inept councils, hence the countless incomplete projects never followed through.

To avoid this becoming political, do we know whats happening in terms of parking for the arena? Is there room for a multi-story car park?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

I don't quite follow you. You believe it to be correct or incorrect?

Just merely mean its possible Corbyn did have a hand in the vetting.

Could of been direct, indirect; it couldve happened, it may not of etc.

End of the day. Unless someone knows and has evidence. Whitchurch could be right. Or you could be right that its unlikely.

However an indirect influence on vetting would almost impossible to disprove. So using logic, which is merely based on my opinion and my thoughts only, its highly likely that even to some microscopic degree - he could of influenced the selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fuber said:

Just merely mean its possible Corbyn did have a hand in the vetting.

Could of been direct, indirect; it couldve happened, it may not of etc.

End of the day. Unless someone knows and has evidence. Whitchurch could be right. Or you could be right that its unlikely.

However an indirect influence on vetting would almost impossible to disprove. So using logic, which is merely based on my opinion and my thoughts only, its highly likely that even to some microscopic degree - he could of influenced the selection.

I think it's worth remembering Marvin ran against  Ferguson in the previous election and lost, which if I'm not mistaken was before Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party.   But, of course none of that should detract from Whitchurch's drivelling on about the dangerous revolutionary, hamster eating Corbyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

I think it's worth remembering Marvin ran against  Ferguson in the previous election and lost, which if I'm not mistaken was before Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party.   But, of course none of that should detract from Whitchurch's drivelling on about the dangerous revolutionary, hamster eating Corbyn.

Fair enough, I do agree on the latter. Ens of the day politics is non football. 

I just wish they would re-allow parking along the side of Greville on the Cumberland Basin. :fingerscrossed:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stadium has been there over a hundred years . Now unless Ashton Park has s secret fountain of youth giving residents eternal life , I'm guessing the Gate was there when said residents moved there . WHY BUY A @@@@@@@ HOUSE NEXT TO A FOOTY STADIUM THEN MOAN ABOUT PARKING !!!!!! What did you honestly expect ?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ZiderMeUp said:

People hated old George, but at least he got stuff done. If he was still in charge the arena would be half way to being built,  I expect.

Why do you think that? Gorgeous George left a huge debt for us all to pay for and coupled with the statutory cuts dumped on all local councils by the Tory central government, ( except some Tory ones) I would think it nigh on impossible for the red trousered one to have bought the first breeze block. Still, at least the Tory Kensington council had a huge surplus of cash swilling around in a bank account whilst fire raged in the substandard cladding at Grenfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a consultation so why not implore thousands of City fans to register their interest seeking to understand, from an equality impact assessment perspective, what the local authority has done to protect the interest of residents and non-residents alike? How many parking spaces (by number and percentage) are available to non-residents who have every right to access the area. There are scores of people who, whilst not requiring blue badges, are not mobile such require reasonable distance access arrangements. The authority has a care of duty to ensure all representative groups are covered not only residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with LA P&R seems to be the involvement of a private company in a public project..... Something which Corbyn is against. Let's see why the Council desperate for money, huge year on year cut in funding by Tory Government, presumably wasted on tax cuts for the wealthy. And high public transport costs linked to privatisation, by the Tories.

Still, it's all Corbyn's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, Bristol City Council only ever look at why they can't do something or what can't be done, as opposed to looking at what can be done.

Look at the simple solution, which is utilising the park and ride. Rather than going into massive effort and expense to stop people parking in certain areas, simply give them somewhere else to park. 

Work smarter, not harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...