Residential parking blackspots targeted

MORE borough residential parking blackspots are to be tackled after council leaders did a £500,000 U-turn.

Today, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s decision-making Conservative Cabinet is set to approve releasing the six-figure sum to tackle some of the worst problem parking areas in the borough.

This cash injection will dramatically increase the amount set aside to improve parking provision to £1.1million over the next four years.

The £500,000 is in addition to the annual £141,000 budget for borough-wide parking improvement programmes.

Council deputy leader Councillor Ranil Jayawardena billed the move as the “right thing for residents”, while the Labour opposition, who have campaigned on the issue, said it was a “welcome U-turn”.

It is hoped the money will speed up a sluggish rate of improvements.

Seven years ago, a list, ranked by priority, identified 385 streets that needed attention – but since it was published, fewer than 20 have been improved.

The problems of congested streets, and a chronic shortage of parking bays were highlighted by The Gazette last October.

At the time, Cllr Cathy Osselton, Conservative Cab-inet member for partnerships, insisted enough money was being spent on the issue.

And a motion presented to full council in November by the Labour opposition, calling for a £1m cash injection into the borough’s parking programme, was voted down by the Conservatives.

Presenting the new plan, Conservative borough council leader Cllr Clive Sanders said the cash injection has been influenced by the findings of the borough’s recent residents’ survey.

He said that the motion presented by the Labour opposition to release £1m was not backed by the Conservatives because the plan was “financially illiterate”. Labour had urged the council to set aside £1m of the £3.5m budget surplus the council banked during 2011-12.

“That was a paper under-spend,” said Cllr Sanders. “There was never the £1m at the time to spend which is why we voted it down.”

Labour deputy group leader Cllr Paul Harvey, who proposed the original motion, welcomed the U-turn but said it should have happened sooner.

“£500,000 is a significant uplift,” he said. “Nobody is going to say the money is not a good thing – it’s just taken them six years, a council motion, and a petition to do it. There was nothing wrong with our proposal.”

Comments(11)

reader1111111 says...
1:52pm Tue 29 Jan 13

I just expressed an interest in a new 4 bedroom house until the builder told me it had no garage and only one parking space - they said this was a demand from the council to force residents onto public transport. This is fine if you work locally but both my wife and myself have long commutes to work. I would need three bus journeys and a rail trip each way. My wife is self employed and needs her car for home visits. So much for intelligent parking policy, or maybe their attitude is simply if you don't like it go and live somewhere else.

AndrewRH says...
2:14pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Tax payers now funding £500,000 for private car parking, on top of £150,000 for first phase of car-centric Basing View redevelopment plus £360,000 by Hampshire County council to make cycling along London Road more dangerous.

Something doesn't add up for the most vulnerable road users in Basingstoke.

Sam_Walker123456 says...
2:20pm Tue 29 Jan 13

reader1111111, I think your assumption about the council's motives is correct. If they spent their time and our money on improving and reducing the price of public transport instead of burdening motorists with ever more costs and restrictions, then perhaps more of us would give up our cars.

robertspet8 says...
1:50pm Wed 30 Jan 13

AndrewRH, I agree with most of your numerous comments about the lack of investment for cycling in the borough. But there is another neglected form of transport - foot. Basingstoke remains carcentric and mostly ignores the needs of pedestrians. Take the recent snow as an example - it took no time at all to clear the roads, including many estate and side roads, but six days after the initial snowfall most of the main footpaths were still icerinks. Many of these footpaths are also used by cyclists. It was safer to drive than walk or cycle. What message is this sending and how will it encourage us to get out of our cars.

AndrewRH says...
2:40pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Yes, I agree robertspet8 - seems councils like to focus the use of our taxes on just one mode of transport (I accept that clearing some roads first is important, eg to ensure ambulance drivers can get safely to hospitals).

We're all people and our transport needs will vary: we might choose to walk, cycle or drive (hopefully in that order).

So you are right - places where many people walk or cycle should be treated as 'priority' as well when it comes to dealing with snow & ice.

Separation where possible in busy areas has been shown to work - pavement for walking, cycle track for riding, road for driving.

Elsewhere, we need to continue building up a culture of caring backed by the law (20mph in residential areas, overtaking safely, providing adequate parking for people who cycle, ...).

Glad to hear today in Prime Minister's questions that the government is to look into the judicial system's handling of sentencing when people kill others whilst driving dangerously (often the charge is reduced and fines like £35, or nothing!, are given).

The Guardian ran an article on 4 Jan 2013 titled: 'Can cyclists and pedestrians share the road?' which you might be interested in. It also touches upon the disabled and their safety. http://tinyurl.com/b
y86edu

robertspet8 says...
3:09pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Don't get me started Andrew!! But we cannot just rely on legislation, we have to heighten awareness of some of the issues. I am sure people who park across pavements or drop downs in kerbs are not deliberately blocking the routes for wheelchairs, prams and elderly. In fact many would be mortified if they saw a disabled person struggling to get past their vehicles. We already have sufficient laws to prosecute these people but wouldn't it be better to do what we do for some speeders - give them the choice of a fine or attending an awareness course. I know traffic wardens get a bad press, but if they were deployed to keep pedestrian and cycle ways free then they would at least make some friends.

JJ38JJ says...
10:29am Thu 31 Jan 13

A sensible person would not buy a house with an insufficient number of bedrooms and the same applies to parking places. If there are not enough for your needs buy a different house.

jonone says...
12:30pm Thu 31 Jan 13

JJ38JJ wrote:
A sensible person would not buy a house with an insufficient number of bedrooms and the same applies to parking places. If there are not enough for your needs buy a different house.
What planet do you live on? Have you looked at any new build developments recently? We were lucky buying a new house to get one of the rare plots with two parking spaces, but a lot of larger, privately sold houses come with just one space. The exception inevitably is the social housing, where ALL houses come with 2 parking spaces - you'd think these would be the houses where AndrewRH's supposedly vunerable people live. However most of the social hosuing occupants park in the road in front of their houses to cut down the challenging 20 yard walk they'd otherwise need to make to their parking spaces.

AndrewRH says...
3:33pm Thu 31 Jan 13

jonone - everyone who is walking or riding a bicycle on the roads are by definition the most vulnerable because they aren't encased in a bit chunk of metal armour.

My use of the word vulnerable has nothing to do with where you start or finish your journey, or how much money you earn or have in the bank. It is about safety.

(mind, I have more money in the bank for nice holidays now that we sold our second car and I use train/bicycle for commuting)

jonone says...
9:03am Fri 1 Feb 13

Ah well, AndrewRH, many of the "vunerable" are so by their own doing - e.g. cycling along the road along Popley Way, when a separate cycle lane is a few yards away, not wearing helmets, cycling out of side roads without stopping/looking, running red lights etc. I'll always do my best as a car driver, but can only do so much! Not saying all cyclists are bad, but there are too many who consider their safety is entirely my responsibility. It isn't.

AndrewRH says...
9:45am Fri 1 Feb 13

Yes, jonone, you are right - there are idiots and law breakers who choose to walk, cycle and drive! I am glad to hear that you are one of the many people who drive carefully and with consideration - may more people be like you!

I've found that since commuting by bicycle more often, that I have improved my car driving too - more aware of the hazards faced by the vulnerable bicycle rider.

Sometimes cycle paths are actually more dangerous to use than roads and so for safety's sake people choose to stay on the road. Just search the internet for some of the stupid things councils allow!

Thankfully, there are several paths around Basingstoke that are good to use - more should be encouraged - the council needs to get its finger out on this!

More people cycling => fewer cars on road => quicker journeys for those that need to drive!

Helmets may be good for sports but research tends to show they aren't necessarily all they're cracked up to be for utilitarian riding.

People in cars wear helmets when doing sport but not utilitarian commuting. Ditto many who cycle. It's worth doing some research and judging for yourself.

A couple of starting points for your research...
Misconceptions: http://tinyurl.com/c
jsyvlr

Helmets: http://www.cyclehelm
ets.org/

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree