On 9 Jan 2008 at 10:20pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Did anyone read in the 28th edition of Sussex Express that ESCC made their temporary parking scheme (June 2006)permanent on that day?
Bit of a cheek failing to consult with residents - it IS the residents car parking scheme after all!
Also, bit if a cheek notifying the public between Christmas and New Year. But what do we expect from ESCC? They have a reputation of being underhand, immoral and sneeky.
On 9 Jan 2008 at 10:21pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
28th edition of S Express should have read 28th December (otherwise we'd all be in the Dark Ages - maybe we are?)
On 10 Jan 2008 at 1:43pm new2town wrote:
talking of parking.
Over Xmas my Brother (who lives in Scotland) decided to drive down to see me and my New Born. After 10 hours driving He parked outside the house in the evening of 27th. And yes the next morning by 9am he had a parking ticket.......Winkers!!!
We're not in the dark ages, this its run by money grabbing bstards!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 1:48pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Their intial consulation was pathetic. Their response to all manner of surveys, letters form our MP, comments from the Town Council have been met by arrogance and stubborness.
We should all call for Councillors Matthew Lock's resignation.
I am not suprised by this stealth. It is bit like when they increased the charges renaging on previous commitments.
On 10 Jan 2008 at 1:56pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Money grabbers who have managed not to make a profit!!!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 2:23pm dats wrote:
...because of all the naughties that keep blowing up the meters, allegedly! Nothing to do with mismanagement and inefficiency, I am sure! (28th issue of SE made me laugh!)
On 10 Jan 2008 at 2:27pm I dont live in lewes anymore wrote:
Ex mayor now Cllr Merlin Milner says that the parking meters should have been insured... bl**dy high premiums I would have thought!
PhilX
On 10 Jan 2008 at 2:32pm FA wrote:
= much higher poll tax
On 10 Jan 2008 at 2:41pm Merlin Milner wrote:
Tunbridge Wells have a £100 excess on their 100 pay and display machines. When Lewes District Council ran the off street car parks (before the scheme) the meters were insured and I am realibaly informed that the premiums were very low. WE (tax payers) have lost £300k due to the vandals and non-insurance. The premiums would have a been a very samll fraction of this figure IF they had insured the metres at the beginning. Obviously it is too late now.
So if ESCC had got their fingure out we owuld not be in this mess. Even better if they had introduced a scheme that befits the town.
On 10 Jan 2008 at 4:41pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
We all know that ESCC and LDC are the worst thing in East Sussex - the above entry just rubs are noses in it.
Can Norman Baker refuse to have the existing County and District Councillors on his party? The Lib-Dem's need to pull their socks up and get a few proper candidates - preferably the old fashioned type who were educated, approachable and prepared to champion the interests of their constituents and the locality. Whereas our current ESCC and LDC councillors..............don't start me off!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 4:45pm common man wrote:
lol fairy tales
On 10 Jan 2008 at 4:51pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Surely Lewes, birthplace of democracy, should lead the way towards a responsible and purposeful local government.
We live in Lewes and represent it - maybe more should take an interest in the next batch of voting!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 4:57pm Merlin Milner wrote:
Sadly ESCC is Tory run and the power base is not in Lewes.
On 10 Jan 2008 at 5:02pm Merlin Milner wrote:
I hope I can count on your vote!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 5:09pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
You are a Town Councillor, and yes, you can count on my vote (as long as you give up the veggie mission)!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 7:30pm Apple Cart wrote:
Tell Norman that there's a conspiracy involved in the parking scheme and he will be all over it like a rash!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 8:00pm For The Record wrote:
Here we go again - round and round about the NCP parking regime. Wouldn't it be nice if one of the councillors were to take the challenge? I agree with "common man" - that is a fairy tale!
On 10 Jan 2008 at 8:15pm Merlin Milner wrote:
Councillor Matthew Lock should take the challenge and resign!
On 11 Jan 2008 at 12:48pm I dont live in lewes anymore wrote:
My Dear MM...
I think those that walk amongst with even a semi working brain stem would very much like Cll. Lock to resign as he's now so disconnect from public opinion that he's dangerous.
I don't agree with you regarding your comment that WE (the taxpayer) wouldn't have lost £300K if parking meters were insured.
Though you're technically correct the point is that WE (the taxpayer) have lost £300K because ESCC have attempted to scurrilously impose a parking scheme whose purpose is to generate funds and not to ease parking woes as promised.
PhilX
ps. Why are the funds which are collected from the County Hall car park spirited away and used to fund subsidised travel for ESCC employees???
On 11 Jan 2008 at 12:50pm I dont live in lewes any more wrote:
tinyurl.com/2yf9au
On 11 Jan 2008 at 1:23pm Merlin Milner wrote:
If the meters had been insured at the start of the scheme the financial burden caused by the damage could have been dramatically reduced. Therefore the supposed monetary benefit of the scheme (ie surplass) could have been partially realised after excess and insurance costs have been deducted. As a result the parking tariffs have been increased dramatically just to break even.
ESCC should have looked at other Council's best practice rather than been dogmatic in sticking to a policy of non insurance that is their policy for items such as signage and street furniture etc. If Tunbridge Wells can insure why cannot ESCC?
On 11 Jan 2008 at 4:46pm common man wrote:
thats because escc are a bunch of dimwits
On 11 Jan 2008 at 4:55pm I dont live in lewes anymore wrote:
In theory you are correct, initially insuring the meters would have saved monies in the first year. However, long term, after the demise of so many meters the insurance company would prohibitivey have raise the premiums after year one.
Cllr Lock is under the impression that if he waves a big stick then the general public can be forced into submission.
He obviously doesn't believe is rule by consent...
Also remember that County Hall carpark returns a profit.
The question I raise with you is...
Why isn't that profit used to help offset the losses born by the rest of the town instead of being used to feather the nests of ESCC employees?
All very cosy.
It really is a disgrace.
Equally a disgrace is that the parking charges for ESCC employees were not increased inline with the rest of Lewes, infact after a few snotty email exchanges from staff on their Intranet site theres wasn't increases at all!!!
Food for the troops to keep them sweet maybe?
PhilX
READ ON Mc DUFF
Titled
Parking Charges at County Hall
And sent by
Bob Wilkins, Director of Transport and Environment
It reads thus...
There has been a rather prolonged correspondence on the intranet's ?Exchange and Mart' section concerning parking charges at County Hall and I would like to clarify the situation.
Last month, the Lead Member for Transport and Environment approved a report recommending increases to some permit and pay and display charges in Lewes in order to offset the additional costs incurred as a result of a criminal campaign of vandalism to parking machines throughout Lewes.
While the report focussed on on-street parking, it also indicated what equivalent increases might be introduced at County Hall.
However, the Chief Officers Management Team (COMT) does not plan to increase charges at County Hall for the foreseeable future and would only do so following consultation with staff.
The imminent changes that are most likely to affect staff working at County Hall are charges for all day parking in some of the roads around County Hall. These will increase from £1.20 to £1.50.
Free parking is still available on-street within a 10 minute walk of County Hall.
For those staff for whom bus travel is an option, half price fares to and from County Hall are available.
The discount is being funded from the surplus from ticket machines in car parks at County Hall, which has always been ring-fenced to support staff travel incentives.
All you have to do is show your County Hall pass at the security desk and you can buy a weekly (£7.25) or monthly (£24.50) saver ticket for travel between Tunbridge Wells and Brighton (services 28 and 29). For more local journeys and Rider services you should show your pass to the driver and ask for a child's fare.
On 11 Jan 2008 at 7:26pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Bob Wilkins........ha!
I think many ESCC staff would not know how to get on a bus, let alone understand the destination or what type of ticket to purchase.
Can I take it that this half price fares applies to weekends as well? Surely we (as tax payers) should be demanding our money back!
On 12 Jan 2008 at 1:14am greenwytchmoonstone wrote:
....and dam*ed be he who first cries 'park, enough!' nothing good can ever be gained from waving a big stick and hoping to beat the huddled masses into submission. it all sounds a bit like an exlplosion waiting to happen. but that is JMHO.
On 13 Jan 2008 at 11:49pm S.Oliver wrote:
I was told that the Council do not actually own the meters we have to pay to replace, so why didn't NCP insure them? What kind of agreement has ESCC got us all into which involves all the risk and burden being placed on taxpayers, when we don't even own the meters?
There is apparently a meter 'graveyard' including some damaged ones that have been partially salvaged as well as totally destoyed meters. Perfectly OK meters have been replaced in the street with even more expensive new ones even though they have not been damaged, and I know of at least one that is damaged at the base (plastic melted by a torch on bonfire night) that has not been replaced. What is going on?
I don't remeber being consulted about meters, vouchers or other alternatives, and don't think the consultation was carried out legally.
On 14 Jan 2008 at 12:16pm Merlin Milner wrote:
They are owned by NCP but are part of a leasing agreement with ESCC. So when the contract is up ESCC will own then. A bit like if you lease a car, you have to insure it yourself.
On 14 Jan 2008 at 12:25pm Taff wrote:
So who really wants the parking scheme? Certainly around the area of Lewes I live it has not improved anything. In fact I would say that Prince Edwards Road has become more hazardous to drive in. Do the shopkeepers want it? Do businesses want it? Do the majority of residents want it?
If, due to whatever reasons there is no profit being made then why keep it?
On 14 Jan 2008 at 12:42pm Catwoman wrote:
Personally, I think the scheme is a disgusting money making scheme, supposedly created to ease congestion, whilst actually worsening the problem, by the creation of parking spaces where there weren't any before (see above post). Apparently we have a contract with NCP which runs for something like 3 years, but why not pull out now?
On 14 Jan 2008 at 1:01pm Merlin Milner wrote:
If anyone wants to meet up and discuss the scheme I am more that happy to do so.
On 14 Jan 2008 at 3:58pm Taff wrote:
What is the point of discussion now? There was no discussion to commence the scheme originally was there?
On 14 Jan 2008 at 4:44pm s.oliver wrote:
So NCP are making money out of a hire purchase arrangement twice. What geniuses agreed to that arrangement!? Of course the machines should have been insured. I am confused as to how so few machines though could cost 300,000. And it still doesn't explain why undamaged machines have been replaced or why ESCC 'rented' plastic machines that melt, to be used on bonfire procession routes. This is the kind of 'make it up as you go along' mentality that is the result of failing to consult properly the people who are actually affected by the scheme.
In Zone B the Council have also admitted that the Zone doesn't work, but have done almost nothing to improve it. The main problem is that residents cannot use the car parks like they used to do, and only have one choice of permit bays but all the visitors can use share bays or the carparks with little or no difference. There was no proper survey done to establish how many cars would need to be parked by residents and the number is rising becuase the District Council is completely failing to provide suitable parking with new developments. There was, and maybe still is no policy at all about parking permits for new flats and houses, so the numbers of spaces to residents is constantly shrinking. Business permit holders all want to park in the zone too, as it is near their premises. This leaves residents with the fewest spaces, in an area with no parking on many streets and in competition with everyone else. It is a classic cock up.
On 14 Jan 2008 at 9:36pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Even if the NCP regime were to be abolished now, I fear that things would not revert to how they were a few years ago, as I suspect there has been a significant reduction in town centre car parking spaces, an increase in local traffic and an increase in the dreaded "disabled" car parking badges!
On 15 Jan 2008 at 12:35pm Taff wrote:
I think the scheme has improved some parts of town, you can now get service vehicles to most places easier. So I guess it has had its good spinoffs.
Its the 'small print' that peeves me. Why, for instance, as a permit holder in zone A should i pay extra to park on say School Hill? I may want to do this to use a local shop to pick up a purchase. Why not abolish fees for residents who need to use their car to shop, whenever. Or perhaps it makes more sense to encourage them to travel further out resulting in no funding to anyone local, including the council! Damn idiots.
On 15 Jan 2008 at 4:45pm Double Yellow Line wrote:
Oh do stop all your incessant moaning.
If you don't like the parking scheme the answer is quite simple.
GET RID OF YOUR CAR!
Why do people need a car in a town the size of Lewes anyway? You can walk from one end to the other (or get a bus if you are so inclined) in 20 minutes.
On 15 Jan 2008 at 4:54pm FA wrote:
LMFAO @ DYL....nice one.
On 15 Jan 2008 at 9:51pm George Doors wrote:
What on earth does this mean FA "LMFAO @ DYL"
Is this some truncated email address, wierd texting or am I being typically thick?
On 15 Jan 2008 at 10:49pm Apple Cart wrote:
I suspect the majority of people in Lewes don't want the parking scheme and would happily join a campaign to have it abolished - i certainly would. The trouble is, how many people agree what the replacement should be? Everyone has their own ideas and any campaign would be split by those wanting different outcomes post abolishment (if successful).
Thoughts?
On 16 Jan 2008 at 4:49am s.oliver wrote:
Double yellow line is right to be smug about not owning a car, but not everyone can achieve this. And the problems are not being caused because there is nowhere to park. just take a look at the completely empty car parks at night. Residents who used to be able to park in them, are now being dangerously cramped into narrow historic streets. Few people think that there should be no scgheme, but that is not an excuse to accept the badly thought out mess that we are having to put up with now. To challenge the scheme people need to focus on the common ground, for example, that that the current scheme is inept,that the original consultation was flawed, and that a rethink is required.
On 16 Jan 2008 at 5:10pm council bod wrote:
after 18.00hrs you may park free in any car park in Lewes so why clog up the streets after 18.00 hrs its because people are to lazy to move them . get rid of ncp you will only have another contractor and it will be patrolled by the same staff that patrol it now the machines cost about £7500 each the ones in car parks cost a little less and my job is safe whoever enforces in Lewes do you think the councils will abandon the parking scheme if you do then you are dreaming the councils have shelled out to much dosh to get shut of it now
On 17 Jan 2008 at 5:37am s.oliver wrote:
Flawed logic I am afraid, as unfortunately you have to move your car from the car park in the morning to avoid a ticket. This not only makes parking there impracical for most residents but moving your car at 8.30 rush hour would cause unnecessary traffic in conflict to Council policy.
I would love to know why a ticket machine costs 7,500. That is not the price I was quoted.
Of course the contact is worth changing. that is why it has a fixed term, giving the opportunity to make a better deal.
For example the Council could find a contractor that didn't issue over 10,000 tickets that are then promptly cancelled. we are footing the administrative bill to have this done, at no cost to NCP. they can issue as many tickets as they like without worrying about the cost of cancelling them.
AsI have already said, the Council themselves have acknowledged parts of the scheme do not work, so how are they going to fulfil a legal obligation to ensure that they do.
Incidentally, i understand that Council employees were sent an e-mail encouraging them to park in free residential areas, and offering benefits for Council employees and exemptions that the rest of us do not recieve.
Thanks for helping!
On 17 Jan 2008 at 7:51am Double Yellow Line wrote:
County Hall employees should be allowed to park wherever and wherever they like.
If County Hall ever relocated out of Lewes the town would die.
On 17 Jan 2008 at 8:22am expat wrote:
Surely that's a bit discriminating? What about the other sectors. Police,doctors, traffic wardens?
On 17 Jan 2008 at 8:25am Taff wrote:
Why should county hall employees have parking rifghts when residents do not! Thats the kind of crap that comes out of CH!
If it closes then some commerce may well reduce but think of the pleasure in seeing that ghastly building demolished. Brick by brick if necessary to be greener, assuming there bricks in it? Yes I said bricks, relating to its structure not relating to those inside!
On 17 Jan 2008 at 9:10am SHS wrote:
I think it highly unlikely that CH would be demolished - it would be converted into flats and maybe another block put next to it. More flats = more money from the land when sold by ESCC and more council tax when occupied. The traffic jams caused by all the new cars will then justify a Lewes congestion charge.
On 17 Jan 2008 at 11:16am Amethyst wrote:
With regard to residents parking in the car parks being lazy, I can drive several times past the car park near my house which is half empty but would have to pay £3 to park in there. If I did park in there overnight I would have to get the kids up extra early, go to the car park and move my car before 8am then go back home and sort the kids out for school. Before you mention it I do not use the car for the school run we walk and I do not use the car every day - that said I do need a car for the journeys out of town to which the buses or trains do not run - which is most places. If residents were allowed to park in car parks they would and in my area it would be beneficial to ESCC because if visitors were to park on the road they would have to pay £1.50 for one hour!
Therefore residents should be allowed to park anywhere - they are the ones who have shelled out £90 for a permit!
On 17 Jan 2008 at 1:19pm Taff wrote:
If county hall closed then Lewes would lose some trade. Lunchtime in particular. Then again it is the employed there that are the few ones to take lunch in Lewes because they have already committed to parking. But just think what it would be like not having to see that monstrosity of a building.
Why you could build a decent size car park on that plot!
Delusions DYL?
On 17 Jan 2008 at 1:24pm Its Not Rocket Science wrote:
Seems to me there are only two people in Lewes in favour of the parking scheme. That is Double Yellow Line and Council Bod. However with the weak arguments and glib comments they come out with on the subject, I cant see anyone taking their point of view very seriously. For example, in one post cars are unnecessary in a town the size of Lewes, and in the next, county hall employees should be able to park theirs anywhere they want. Why do they need them then, and why would the town die without them ?
On 17 Jan 2008 at 10:15pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
The town would not die but the townsfolk would probably die laughing!
On 23 Jan 2008 at 7:20pm You couldnt make these things up ! wrote:
Eastbourne Council are continuing to fight ESCC (but in reality Cllr. Lock) re the parking scheme proposed for Eastbourne.
Despite Eastbourne Council objecting to the scheme from the time they were elected in May 2007, Cllr Lock went ahead spending OUR money, installing parking meters, signing contracts with NCP etc. etc. Eastbourne Council will continue to fight Cllr Lock re this scheme.
On 23 Jan 2008 at 7:27pm You couldnt make these things up ! wrote:
Eastbourne Council are continuing to fight ESCC (but in reality Cllr. Lock) re the parking scheme proposed for Eastbourne.
Despite Eastbourne Council objecting to the scheme from the time they were elected in May 2007, Cllr Lock ignored them went ahead spending OUR money, installing parking meters, signing contracts with NCP etc. etc. Eastbourne Council will continue to fight Cllr Lock re this scheme. Eastbourne is now in the absurd position of having no parking scheme, the old scheme has now been superceded and the new scheme has been judged illegal. So parking in Eastbourne is a free-for-all and Cllr Lock (ESCC) is losing about £40,000.00 per month (again of OUR money) for nothing.
Maybe the most surprising thing about this fiasco is that no-one is demanding Matthew Lock's resignation.
On 16 Mar 2008 at 5:25pm philip smith wrote:
ncp are the antichrists and the wardens are hitlers=evil/They are nothing but cheats they slap the ticket on and zoom of on there scooters /i like to shove there digital cams up were the sun dont shine cos they try to get as many tickets as they can so they get more money in there pockets .money is the route of all evil as we see from n.c.p.and lewes council=greed . God forgive them for they not no what they have done .amen
On 16 Mar 2008 at 6:16pm FA wrote:
Borstal closed today ?