A new crackdown is poised to come into effect to cut even more free parking spaces close to Newbury railway station.

In February, West Berkshire Council started charging for parking in Station Road, creating chaos in nearby streets as commuters scrambled for free spaces.

Residents in Chesterfield Road, Howard Road, Newtown Road, Prospect Place, and Porchester Road complained to the council that they couldn’t park outside their homes. Now, the district council is about to bring in a resident parking scheme, thereby cutting free parking to just 36 spaces.

Commuters have pleaded with the council to stall any further restrictions until various Newbury Vision projects have been completed, as the town has currently lost a third of all parking spaces.

But fed-up residents are pushing for action, and with highways councillor David Betts due to decide next week on the proposal, it looks likely that commuters may have to start looking further afield.

Great news for local residents

Quoted from Administrator

Residents in Chesterfield Road, Howard Road, Newtown Road, Prospect Place, and Porchester Road complained to the council that they couldn’t park outside their homes. Now, the district council is about to bring in a resident parking scheme, thereby cutting free parking to just 36 spaces.

I'm not sure about all these roads but the residents of at least one road has turned down the offer of residents permits. I won't say which in case this brings more unwanted cars parking in  the road!
I think that in light of this decision and noticeably more alien cars in the road, the residents may well change their minds.

Quoted from Bartholomew

I'm not sure about all these roads but the residents of at least one road has turned down the offer of residents permits.

I used to live in a road that really only had a parking problem in the evenings - there were simply too many residents' cars to fit.  The WBC solution - a residents' parking scheme.  I couldn't believe it, I was to be expected to pay for a permit, with no imrpovement to the parking situation as everyone else would have to get a permit as well.  I moved.

Quoted from blackdog

I used to live in a road that really only had a parking problem in the evenings - there were simply too many residents' cars to fit.  The WBC solution - a residents' parking scheme.  I couldn't believe it, I was to be expected to pay for a permit, with no imrpovement to the parking situation as everyone else would have to get a permit as well.  I moved.

What would have been your solution to the residents of a road owning too many vehicles to fit on that road?

Quoted from user23.3

What would have been your solution to the residents of a road owning too many vehicles to fit on that road?

My solution, even though you didn't ask me would be to let them get on with it and advise them (assuming I am WBC) that if they couldn't deal with the situation amongst themselves, I could sell each house one parking space.

Whichever way you look at it someone's stuffed aren't they? The residents can't park outside their house as and when they want, even though the road doesn't actually belong to them. Or. The commuters who are trying to keep their cars off the road and out of congested cities, are not only hit with high train fares but also expensive parking charges on top, plus the inconvenience of hunting down an available parking space. I guess they will just have to leave the roads free and nab all the spaces in the car parks before anyone else gets a chance.

I wouldn't like to make that call would any of you?  Good luck David Betts, you may find tossing a coin your best bet. Either way you're a marked man.

Quoted from brian

My solution, even though you didn't ask me would be to let them get on with it and advise them (assuming I am WBC) that if they couldn't deal with the situation amongst themselves, I could sell each house one parking space.

That's kind of how parking permits work anyway, though the cost of them goes towards paying the wages of whoever administers them rather than actually buying a space.

I wonder if residents could enforce their own permit scheme?

Quoted from user23.3

What would have been your solution to the residents of a road owning too many vehicles to fit on that road?

I guess its a common enough situation these days - especially where new high density developments have been built in recent years without adequate parking provision.  

There may be a good solution - but WBC's residents parking permit system is not one of them.  It does nothing to prevent the conjestion because it does not limit the residents, each of whom can get a permit.  So there is not change to the parking situation, but there are plenty of fed up residents who can't find the parking space they feel entitled to now WBC are charging them for it.

It would help if they ditched the absurd planning rules that prevent developers from supplying adequate parking. That might stop matters getting worse.  They could also act through planning to prevent infill building and houses being converted into flats - the cause of much of the increase in the number of cars in a street.

Parking permits might make some sense if each house was limited to one permit - but imagine the arguments over which flat got the permit!

Quoted from blackdog

I guess its a common enough situation these days - especially where new high density developments have been built in recent years without adequate parking provision.  

There may be a good solution - but WBC's residents parking permit system is not one of them.  It does nothing to prevent the conjestion because it does not limit the residents, each of whom can get a permit.  So there is not change to the parking situation, but there are plenty of fed up residents who can't find the parking space they feel entitled to now WBC are charging them for it.

It would help if they ditched the absurd planning rules that prevent developers from supplying adequate parking. That might stop matters getting worse.  They could also act through planning to prevent infill building and houses being converted into flats - the cause of much of the increase in the number of cars in a street.

Parking permits might make some sense if each house was limited to one permit - but imagine the arguments over which flat got the permit!

Many houses were designed without "adequate" parking, not just modern ones.

If one moves into a house, for example down Russell Road one should accept that perhaps they won't be able to own more than one car in best the interests of their neighbourhood community.

One wouldn't buy a bedsit and then moan that one's four poster bed wouldn't fit in it. Buying a property with insufficient parking space for your needs, then complaining about it is akin to this.

That is all very well, but then the council go and impose a fee for the 'privilege' of not being able to park conveniently, with their residents parking schemes.

Quoted from user23.3

Many houses were designed without "adequate" parking, not just modern ones.

True enough - and there is  good excuse for houses built before the 1960s when car ownership was relatively rare.  There is no excuse now - and it is not the developers' fault.

Quoted from user23.3

If one moves into a house, for example down Russell Road one should accept that perhaps they won't be able to own more than one car in best the interests of their neighbourhood community.

I once looked at a house down there and decided not to buy it because of the parking situation (and I didn't have a car).

Quoted from user23.3

One wouldn't buy a bedsit and then moan that one's four poster bed wouldn't fit in it. Buying a property with insufficient parking space for your needs, then complaining about it is akin to this.

I agree - but that is not my situation. When I bought the house in question I had lodgers to help with the mortgage. Between the three of use we had one car. Neither of my immediate neighbours had cars - nor theirs.  Parking was not a problem - the road was more than capable of holding all the residents' cars.  By the time I left there was more multi-occupancy, the average age of the occupants was younger, every house had at least one car, some more.  The parking was just sufficient.  The parking scheme was announced - apparently to stop non-residents taking up space (which was never the problem).  So the only difference it would make to me was that I would have to pay an annual charge with no improvement to the parking - and no real prospect of it not continuing to get worse. Even worse - the scheme was only enforced during the day when the road had masses of parking space available.

Quoted from Greenham Common

That is all very well, but then the council go and impose a fee for the 'privilege' of not being able to park conveniently, with their residents parking schemes.

As I understand it residents can turn down the offer of a permit scheme if they wish.

Quoted from user23.3

What would have been your solution to the residents of a road owning too many vehicles to fit on that road?

WBC's solution is to build more houses and make the situation worse.

Quoted from 26

WBC's solution is to build more houses and make the situation worse.

WBC don't build houses.

Quoted from user23.3

WBC don't build houses.

No, but they sell off schools for private development & then give planning consent to build houses where the school once stood against overwhelming opposition because of the very issue of lack of parking for existing residents. Worse - they give each of the new houses permission for drives so that not only will there be more residents, there will also be less parking.

Quoted from user23.3

As I understand it residents can turn down the offer of a permit scheme if they wish.

As a collective they might, but what if a minority turn it down?

Quoted from 26

No, but they sell off schools for private development & then give planning consent to build houses where the school once stood against overwhelming opposition because of the very issue of lack of parking for existing residents. Worse - they give each of the new houses permission for drives so that not only will there be more residents, there will also be less parking.

Which school is this?

Quoted from Greenham Common

As a collective they might, but what if a minority turn it down?

Then they should accept the views of the majority of their neighbours.

Quoted from user23.3

Which school is this?Then they should accept the views of the majority of their neighbours.

Why? It is a public highway?  But the point remains, the Council simply make money out of other's inconvenience.  As already pointed out, these parking schemes don't necessarily make things better, except to help fill the shortfall in the expected revenue from parking fines and charges.

Quoted from 26

No, but they sell off schools for private development & then give planning consent to build houses where the school once stood against overwhelming opposition because of the very issue of lack of parking for existing residents. Worse - they give each of the new houses permission for drives so that not only will there be more residents, there will also be less parking.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You make it sound like WBC grant permission for every development. They don't. A developer wanted to turn 10 houses into 73 flats. WBC turned it down. The developers tried again. WBC turned it down.

Also, arent WBC forced to allow a certain amount of house building? As in they HAVE to give planning consent?

The result is developments on greenfield sites.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You make it sound like WBC grant permission for every development. They don't. A developer wanted to turn 10 houses into 73 flats. WBC turned it down. The developers tried again. WBC turned it down.

Also, arent WBC forced to allow a certain amount of house building? As in they HAVE to give planning consent?

|Yes they've been told they must allow a certain number of houses to be built due to the demand for housing in the South East.

Quoted from user23.3

|Yes they've been told they must allow a certain number of houses to be built due to the demand for housing in the South East.

That is pretty much the story these days but in order to turn a profit in the majority, but not all, cases the houses are little boxes packed in as close as they can be with miniscule gardens. They will have to be stacked in even tighter now that the environmental issues have to be carried by the developers. Parking will get even more difficult on infill sites.

Quoted from user23.3

Yes they've been told they must allow a certain number of houses to be built due to the demand for housing in the South East.

They have to build - or allow to be built / encourage to be built - another 10,500 homes by 2025 (I think that's the cut off date).  It would have been 10,000 but they were 500 short on their previous target - which then got added to the new requirement.

The decision has been made to concentrate development around urban centres (ie Newbury, Thatcham & Tilehurst).  The Local Development Framework is the forthcoming replacement for the old Local Plan. It is due out soonish (consultation was a couple of months back).  

Sadly the recent assessment of WBC's performance has criticised them for not building enough 'affordable' housing in rural areas.  I guess this could cause a bit of a rethink, but probably no more than minor tweaking.

They are assuming that the racecourse development will go ahead (1,500 homes), another biggish development in the east (Calcot/Theale area) is anticipated.  Loads of smaller developments, like the 100 home scheme in Hungerford that is causing a fuss at present and, of course, lots of turning houses into flats (1 home into several), block of flats on the Waterside, Parkway etc.

Having done their sums and a lot of guesswork they came up with the expectation that at least 8,500 homes would be built without too much trouble - probably many more.  As a contigency they were looking at three sites for a mammoth 2,000 home development. Siege Cross, Shaw, and Sandleford.  Within a few weeks someone put forward a plan for 2,000 homes at Sandleford -  turning a contingency site into a major development prospect.  

Of course Cameron's Tories are telling us they will get rid of targets.  So the LDF could be obsolete within days of its release.

One WBC employee I spoke to was concerned at the Tory plans - they were worried that the removal of the targets would result in more building, not less.

Quoted from user23.3

Which school is this?

Turnpike.

Quoted from James_Trinder

Turnpike.

I'm fairly sure it wasn't a school when it was sold. It was an empty complex of run down buildings.

Quoted from user23.3

I'm fairly sure it wasn't a school when it was sold. It was an empty complex of run down buildings.

Here we go again with User23 and his fragmented logic.

It wasn't an empty complex of run down buildings until West Berks decided that they could sell the land and put the proceeds into their bank account.

They will soon be using the same tactic for Speenhamland School.

They would even sell Victoria Park for housing if they felt they could get away with it.

Quoted from James_Trinder

Turnpike.

I thought it was St Barts' Wormstall site.

That was who I was thinking of.

Quoted from blackdog

I thought it was St Barts' Wormstall site.

Correct.

And to the poster above who said that WBC do turn down some, I'm sure he's correct, but they were very unlikely to turn down this one were they given that the school is a pet project. A scandalous waste of taxpayer's money if you ask me, as for a fraction of the price the existing buildings could have been updated if it was really necessary.

Quoted from BrianB

Here we go again with User23 and his fragmented logic.

It wasn't an empty complex of run down buildings until West Berks decided that they could sell the land and put the proceeds into their bank account.

They will soon be using the same tactic for Speenhamland School.

They would even sell Victoria Park for housing if they felt they could get away with it.

Perhaps it's just me but that post comes across as very bitter, the last sentence in particular.

Perhaps this affects your judgement and makes my "logic" seem "fragmented" to you?

You seem to have continently forgotten that the run down Turnpike was replaced with the nice new Trinity.

Quoted from user23.3

You seem to have continently forgotten that the run down Turnpike was replaced with the nice new Trinity.

Has Trinity recovered now from failing school status? Nice new schools do not get better results.

Quoted from user23.3

You seem to have continently forgotten that the run down Turnpike was replaced with the nice new Trinity.

Well, the Turnpike school was built in the late fifties so I guess it had reached its sell by date but there are hundreds of schools that are considerably older and still going. If the school was jerry built then I suspect it was right to pull it down and start again but the question of ongoing maintenance is important so if you say it was run down, I wonder why.

Quoted from brian

Well, the Turnpike school was built in the late fifties so I guess it had reached its sell by date but there are hundreds of schools that are considerably older and still going. If the school was jerry built then I suspect it was right to pull it down and start again but the question of ongoing maintenance is important so if you say it was run down, I wonder why.

I should imagine it was because the buildings became harder and harder to keep in good order, hence the need to the move.

The Turnpike / Shaw House / Trinity case was fundamentally flawed.  The refurbishment for the new single site ened up costing around double the quote in the bsuienss case. The Turnpike buildings were by no means derelict - badly maintained, but could easily have been refurbished.  They were nowhere near as old as St Barts premises.  

Returning to the thread topic....... as I understand it (having seen the plans when it was open for consultation) there will still be quite a bit of free parking in Chesterfield and Howard Road. WBC are bringing in parking restrictions which allow for FOUR HOURS of limited waiting between 8am and 6pm. If someone's going to the cinema or off to Reading for the evening they could park there from 2pm onwards until midday the following day if necessary without being given a ticket.

Resident Permit Holders can be exempt from these restrictions if they buy a permit.

Of course whether it's four hours, two hours or six, it won't suit the rail commuter, but it may be suitable for part time workers in the town centre maybe?

Most residents in Howard Road have driveways or garages so they may only need to buy a permit if they are a two, three or four car family.  (Easily done if you can't persuade the kids to fly the nest unfortunately....) But each household can only buy a MAXIMUM of TWO permits, so it starts to manage itself to a certain extent.

For people living in the bottom end of Chesterfield Road near Porchester Road they probably can't wait for this to come in as they have nowhere to park apart from on-street.

Quoted from Bartholomew

I'm not sure about all these roads but the residents of at least one road has turned down the offer of residents permits. I won't say which in case this brings more unwanted cars parking in  the road!
I think that in light of this decision and noticeably more alien cars in the road, the residents may well change their minds.

Careful what you wish for Porchester Road residents....?