COUNCIL leaders were last night accused of trying to fool the electorate after an apparent climbdown over plans to charge residents to park outside their homes.
The Labour and Lib Dem coalition Cabinet provoked uproar from residents when it agreed to charge residents for the first parking permit yet refused to guarantee them a space.
It was further revealed that most of the Cabinet wouldn't need to pay as they have driveways or garages.
The Daily Echo also launched our Parking Mad campaign demanding a U-turn.
Last night council leader June Bridle sought to draw a line under the row by pledging no new permit charges for at least 12 months.
But she refused to rip up the hated policy and said higher charges may even be brought in for second permits.
Now, the council has been accused of merely shelving the plan because of the local government elections in May.
But Cllr Bridle insisted:
"Why would we not
approve a policy that at
some stage in the future
may be implemented?
There is no need to amend
the policy. We will implement
things as and when
they are warranted."
Cabinet member for
transport Jill Baston had
defended the controversial
plan saying it was fairer
permit holders paid for the
loss-making scheme rather
than all taxpayers.
But she created confusion when she
was unable to confirm where and when
the charges would be brought in.
The controversial policy says there
should be more residents' parking zones
outside the city centre where demand
for spaces was high.
Yesterday the joint administration
said: "It is not the intention for the
administration to charge residents for
the first car parking permit issued to a
household. Neither party in the administration
had any commitment to this
issue in their budget, and this remains
the case."
Cllr Bridle went further adding: "If
it's this administration (in office) there
will be no new charges in the next 12
months at least."
She said other options
would be looked at to
try to make the residents'
parking scheme
self-funding.
"It might be the second
permit needs to be
more expensive and
you don't need to pay
for the first," she said.
She said new zones
would only be brought in if residents
wanted them and again blamed residents
not using their drives for creating
the problem.
Conservative Transport spokesman
councillor Gavin Dick said: "She is
scrabbling around to try to get out of
the mess she's in.
"It's an administration that doesn't
know what it's doing. If they don't want
to implement it let's have them pull the
policy.
He added: "They're trying to fool the
electorate by kicking it into the long
grass. I think we need a more honest
approach and a pledge to remove this
policy before the May elections."
Peter Wirgman, chairman of the
Southampton Federation of Residents'
Associations, said the Cabinet had
already made a "gaffe" by agreeing the
policy adding: "I think they would find
themselves a lot more popular if they
just scrapped the whole thing."
Jean Wawman from the East Bassett
Residents' Association, one of the city's
largest, said the council had created a
parking problem in her area by allowing
the expansion of the university.
Parking Policy - Provision & Management 
MORE IN TODAY'S DAILY ECHO
12:37pm Thursday 27th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Voter on 9:19am Thu 27 Mar 08
"Last night council leader June Bridle sought to draw a line under the row by pledging no new permit charges for at least 12 months."
I know we have elections this May but what about next year? Is that the year we don't get a vote?
"Last night council leader June Bridle sought to draw a line under the row by pledging no new permit charges for at least 12 months."
I know we have elections this May but what about next year? Is that the year we don't get a vote?
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 9:50am Thu 27 Mar 08
The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign.
Ian Murray, why don't you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you're editing the Daily Mail?
The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign.
Ian Murray, why don't you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you're editing the Daily Mail?
Posted by: lionel, Southampton on 9:52am Thu 27 Mar 08
This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges.
Either way, they are going to get you.
This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges.
Either way, they are going to get you.
Posted by: hmm on 9:57am Thu 27 Mar 08
I think it was the online echo petition that did it
I think it was the online echo petition that did it
Posted by: Ciaran, Southampton on 9:57am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
<b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign.
Ian Murray, why don\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\'re editing the Daily Mail?</b>[/quote] Seeing as there is a copy of the report approved by councillors on this very site, I think you should stop trying to further your political career, despite being too scared to say who you are.
Gladstone wrote:
<b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign.
Ian Murray, why don\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\'re editing the Daily Mail?</b>
Seeing as there is a copy of the report approved by councillors on this very site, I think you should stop trying to further your political career, despite being too scared to say who you are.
Posted by: k, southampton on 9:57am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don't you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you're editing the Daily Mail?[/quote] adrian i wish you would use your own name
Gladstone wrote:
The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don't you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you're editing the Daily Mail?
adrian i wish you would use your own name
Posted by: Jimbo, Southampton on 9:59am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Voter[/bold] wrote:
"Last night council leader June Bridle sought to draw a line under the row by pledging no new permit charges for at least 12 months." I know we have elections this May but what about next year? Is that the year we don't get a vote?[/quote] Yes there is no vote in 2009. Also, 2010 will be the first year for Southampton under the new local government legislation which requires elections every 4 years for a 4-year term. Should be interesting!
Voter wrote:
"Last night council leader June Bridle sought to draw a line under the row by pledging no new permit charges for at least 12 months." I know we have elections this May but what about next year? Is that the year we don't get a vote?
Yes there is no vote in 2009. Also, 2010 will be the first year for Southampton under the new local government legislation which requires elections every 4 years for a 4-year term. Should be interesting!
Posted by: Numpty Basher on 10:03am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
<b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign.
Ian Murray, why don't you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you're editing the Daily Mail?</b>[/quote] Ha, what a numpty. Trying to ignore the fact that this is a plan that the cabinet have ALREADY approved.
You sir, are a dinlo.
Gladstone wrote:
<b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign.
Ian Murray, why don't you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you're editing the Daily Mail?</b>
Ha, what a numpty. Trying to ignore the fact that this is a plan that the cabinet have ALREADY approved.
You sir, are a dinlo.
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 10:05am Thu 27 Mar 08
I have no idea who Adrian might be. He is certainly not me. Adrian Vinson? Not very likely.
But the point is that there are many options in the report and they have not all been implemented and this one was not going to be (at least not by the current administration) regardless of the Echo's "campaign".
Perhaps it should have followed up at the time when the then Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about this policy at the scrutiny committee before the Tories lost control.
This is documented and easily checkable by any journalist or member of the public with an open mind.
I have no idea who Adrian might be. He is certainly not me. Adrian Vinson? Not very likely.
But the point is that there are many options in the report and they have not all been implemented and this one was not going to be (at least not by the current administration) regardless of the Echo's "campaign".
Perhaps it should have followed up at the time when the then Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about this policy at the scrutiny committee before the Tories lost control.
This is documented and easily checkable by any journalist or member of the public with an open mind.
Posted by: Fred on 10:15am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jimbo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Voter[/bold] wrote: "Last night council leader June Bridle sought to draw a line under the row by pledging no new permit charges for at least 12 months." I know we have elections this May but what about next year? Is that the year we don't get a vote?[/quote] Yes there is no vote in 2009. Also, 2010 will be the first year for Southampton under the new local government legislation which requires elections every 4 years for a 4-year term. Should be interesting![/quote] Should be interesting - you got that right. These changes are unhelpful and will do nothing to re-engage voters.
Jimbo wrote:
Voter wrote: "Last night council leader June Bridle sought to draw a line under the row by pledging no new permit charges for at least 12 months." I know we have elections this May but what about next year? Is that the year we don't get a vote?
Yes there is no vote in 2009. Also, 2010 will be the first year for Southampton under the new local government legislation which requires elections every 4 years for a 4-year term. Should be interesting!
Should be interesting - you got that right. These changes are unhelpful and will do nothing to re-engage voters.
Posted by: Captain Birdseye, Soton on 10:16am Thu 27 Mar 08
Gladstone,
You are a Labour activist.
Gladstone,
You are a Labour activist.
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 10:17am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ciaran[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote: <b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\'re editing the Daily Mail?</b>[/quote] Seeing as there is a copy of the report approved by councillors on this very site, I think you should stop trying to further your political career, despite being too scared to say who you are.[/quote] Yes it is in the report. It is a report by an independent organisation and contains many recommendations and was published under the Tories. The new cabinet voted to accept the report but has not voted to implement all of its recommendations including the one that has so upset the Echo.
Think about it. If you were a new administration who had just taken over, would virtually your first act (after stopping the Tory cuts to children's services, libraries, leisure centres and the rest) be to alienate thousands of voters?
I'm not trying to further my political career - I gave that up years ago. I'm not scared to say who I am either. I often post on this site in my own name. However, some times it's nice to be able to comment anonymously, as I'm sure you agree.
Ciaran wrote:
Gladstone wrote: <b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\'re editing the Daily Mail?</b>
Seeing as there is a copy of the report approved by councillors on this very site, I think you should stop trying to further your political career, despite being too scared to say who you are.
Yes it is in the report. It is a report by an independent organisation and contains many recommendations and was published under the Tories. The new cabinet voted to accept the report but has not voted to implement all of its recommendations including the one that has so upset the Echo.
Think about it. If you were a new administration who had just taken over, would virtually your first act (after stopping the Tory cuts to children's services, libraries, leisure centres and the rest) be to alienate thousands of voters?
I'm not trying to further my political career - I gave that up years ago. I'm not scared to say who I am either. I often post on this site in my own name. However, some times it's nice to be able to comment anonymously, as I'm sure you agree.
Posted by: Disgusted, Southampton on 10:18am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote:
This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.[/quote] To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
lionel wrote:
This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.
To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
Posted by: Ken on 10:27am Thu 27 Mar 08
There has to be some sort of rationing of parking spaces. Often I cannot park outside my own house because my neighbours not only have cars, but also white vans, pickups, motor caravans, a boat trailer, a car transporter, etc., etc. The public highway was never intended to be an unlimited free carpark. Perhaps one free permit per household should be the limit.
There has to be some sort of rationing of parking spaces. Often I cannot park outside my own house because my neighbours not only have cars, but also white vans, pickups, motor caravans, a boat trailer, a car transporter, etc., etc. The public highway was never intended to be an unlimited free carpark. Perhaps one free permit per household should be the limit.
Posted by: bemused onlooker, Southampton on 10:27am Thu 27 Mar 08
Drop the proposal, continue free of charge exclusive parking for residents in public roads. Thank you Echo, the costs will continue to be met by the Council Tax payers (most of whom are not allowed to park in these places).
Drop the proposal, continue free of charge exclusive parking for residents in public roads. Thank you Echo, the costs will continue to be met by the Council Tax payers (most of whom are not allowed to park in these places).
Posted by: ed, Soton on 11:17am Thu 27 Mar 08
If this is what they do after 5 weeks in office imagine what they will do with another 2 years.
Prepared to pay pay pay.
If this is what they do after 5 weeks in office imagine what they will do with another 2 years.
Prepared to pay pay pay.
Posted by: Numpty Basher on 11:22am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Ciaran[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote: <b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don\\\\\\\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\\\\\\\'re editing the Daily Mail?</b>[/quote] Seeing as there is a copy of the report approved by councillors on this very site, I think you should stop trying to further your political career, despite being too scared to say who you are.[/quote] Yes it is in the report. It is a report by an independent organisation and contains many recommendations and was published under the Tories. The new cabinet voted to accept the report but has not voted to implement all of its recommendations including the one that has so upset the Echo. Think about it. If you were a new administration who had just taken over, would virtually your first act (after stopping the Tory cuts to children\\\'s services, libraries, leisure centres and the rest) be to alienate thousands of voters? I\\\'m not trying to further my political career - I gave that up years ago. I\\\'m not scared to say who I am either. I often post on this site in my own name. However, some times it\\\'s nice to be able to comment anonymously, as I\\\'m sure you agree. [/quote] They've voted for it.
Therefore, if they want to implement it, they can.
If they weren't going to do it, they shouldn't have approved the whole report.
They've only backed down now because of the backlash - being so close to the election.
I'm surprised that one who claims to have been involved in politics for so long can be so naive.
Gladstone wrote:
Ciaran wrote: Gladstone wrote: <b> The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don\\\\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\\\\'re editing the Daily Mail?</b>
Seeing as there is a copy of the report approved by councillors on this very site, I think you should stop trying to further your political career, despite being too scared to say who you are.
Yes it is in the report. It is a report by an independent organisation and contains many recommendations and was published under the Tories. The new cabinet voted to accept the report but has not voted to implement all of its recommendations including the one that has so upset the Echo. Think about it. If you were a new administration who had just taken over, would virtually your first act (after stopping the Tory cuts to children's services, libraries, leisure centres and the rest) be to alienate thousands of voters? I'm not trying to further my political career - I gave that up years ago. I'm not scared to say who I am either. I often post on this site in my own name. However, some times it's nice to be able to comment anonymously, as I'm sure you agree.
They've voted for it.
Therefore, if they want to implement it, they can.
If they weren't going to do it, they shouldn't have approved the whole report.
They've only backed down now because of the backlash - being so close to the election.
I'm surprised that one who claims to have been involved in politics for so long can be so naive.
Posted by: bingolover, southampton on 11:44am Thu 27 Mar 08
I'm very fortunate in that I can either park on the road outside my flat or in the provided car park. I wouldn't mind paying for this IF I could be absolutely guaranteed a space EVERY day, regardless of the time. We all know that there are too many cars on the road, and I'm certainly not about to get rid of mine as it's impossible to get about without it. If the council are serious about encouraging people to think about living without their cars, public transport in this city needs a radical improvement. There are simply not enough reliable buses, and they don't run enough services to out-of-town areas after dark.
I don't believe for one moment that this policy will be shelved for long, regardless of who we vote in. However, if they pledged to plough all the additional revenue that they're going to make into decent public transport for the whole city, I wouldn't be quite so against it either.
I'm very fortunate in that I can either park on the road outside my flat or in the provided car park. I wouldn't mind paying for this IF I could be absolutely guaranteed a space EVERY day, regardless of the time. We all know that there are too many cars on the road, and I'm certainly not about to get rid of mine as it's impossible to get about without it. If the council are serious about encouraging people to think about living without their cars, public transport in this city needs a radical improvement. There are simply not enough reliable buses, and they don't run enough services to out-of-town areas after dark.
I don't believe for one moment that this policy will be shelved for long, regardless of who we vote in. However, if they pledged to plough all the additional revenue that they're going to make into decent public transport for the whole city, I wouldn't be quite so against it either.
Posted by: Ian, Turkey on 12:06pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Disgusted[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.[/quote] To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.[/quote] The powers that be are considering a review of the council tax sytem, and will be looking at properties that have off street parking and views and will increase charges based upon this.
If so, they have lost your vote, and I suspect, along with many. many more.
Disgusted wrote:
lionel wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.
To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
The powers that be are considering a review of the council tax sytem, and will be looking at properties that have off street parking and views and will increase charges based upon this.
If so, they have lost your vote, and I suspect, along with many. many more.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 12:43pm Thu 27 Mar 08
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy.
Who can take these guys seriously any more?
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy.
Who can take these guys seriously any more?
Posted by: Ec-who?, Portswood. on 12:57pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?[/quote] Totally agree. The Council have continued to reiterate their position while the Echo is hell bent on the 'barking mad' campaign. Our local rag is rapidly becoming a sensationalist tabloid.
Red Rooster wrote:
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?
Totally agree. The Council have continued to reiterate their position while the Echo is hell bent on the 'barking mad' campaign. Our local rag is rapidly becoming a sensationalist tabloid.
Posted by: Hi on 1:03pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Disgusted[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.[/quote] To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.[/quote] I thought they were bringing in parking charges for parking on public roads outside residential properties.
Do you own the road outside your house?
Disgusted wrote:
lionel wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.
To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
I thought they were bringing in parking charges for parking on public roads outside residential properties.
Do you own the road outside your house?
Posted by: Disgusted, Southampton on 1:20pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Hi[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Disgusted[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.[/quote] To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.[/quote] I thought they were bringing in parking charges for parking on public roads outside residential properties. Do you own the road outside your house?[/quote] Hi Hi,
Suggest you read before you comment and make a prat of youself.
Hi wrote:
Disgusted wrote: lionel wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.
To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
I thought they were bringing in parking charges for parking on public roads outside residential properties. Do you own the road outside your house?
Hi Hi,
Suggest you read before you comment and make a prat of youself.
Posted by: Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge on 1:22pm Thu 27 Mar 08
This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st
This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st
Posted by: Single working male, Southampton on 1:29pm Thu 27 Mar 08
"Think about it. If you were a new administration who had just taken over, would virtually your first act (after stopping the Tory cuts to children's services, libraries, leisure centres and the rest) be to alienate thousands of voters?"
Would those be the Tory cuts that would have reduced the amount of money by which the working middle class subsidise the lazy and the feckless? Some of us might have been in favour of those cuts. You know. those of us that actually earn a living and subsidise those who feel it is their right to spawn children they cannot afford.
"Think about it. If you were a new administration who had just taken over, would virtually your first act (after stopping the Tory cuts to children's services, libraries, leisure centres and the rest) be to alienate thousands of voters?"
Would those be the Tory cuts that would have reduced the amount of money by which the working middle class subsidise the lazy and the feckless? Some of us might have been in favour of those cuts. You know. those of us that actually earn a living and subsidise those who feel it is their right to spawn children they cannot afford.
Posted by: Single working male, Southampton on 1:37pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Additionally, since when did either the Labour party or the Lib Dems care about alienating people who can afford to pay taxes?
Additionally, since when did either the Labour party or the Lib Dems care about alienating people who can afford to pay taxes?
Posted by: Chipper, Southampton on 2:10pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Disgusted[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.[/quote] To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.[/quote] ..but you don't own the roads. If you do own the road outside of your house, it's private property and you wouldn't need road tax or permission to use it.
I thought the point of the previous post was that councils are considering putting up council tax for those who don't have a driveway or privately-owned parking spaces, and are therfore routinely parking on publicly-owned roads?
Please explain where is the suggestion that you could be charged to pay on your own property?
Disgusted wrote:
lionel wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.
To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
..but you don't own the roads. If you do own the road outside of your house, it's private property and you wouldn't need road tax or permission to use it.
I thought the point of the previous post was that councils are considering putting up council tax for those who don't have a driveway or privately-owned parking spaces, and are therfore routinely parking on publicly-owned roads?
Please explain where is the suggestion that you could be charged to pay on your own property?
Posted by: Steve on 2:21pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?[/quote] Above are links to the [bold]actual[/bold] reports the Lab/Lib cabinet [bold]approved[/bold] earlier this month.
Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really.
Now, I wouldn't want to go as far as say you're lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...
Red Rooster wrote:
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?
Above are links to the
actual reports the Lab/Lib cabinet
approved earlier this month.
Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really.
Now, I wouldn't want to go as far as say you're lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...
Posted by: concerned, southampton on 2:37pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ken[/bold] wrote:
There has to be some sort of rationing of parking spaces. Often I cannot park outside my own house because my neighbours not only have cars, but also white vans, pickups, motor caravans, a boat trailer, a car transporter, etc., etc. The public highway was never intended to be an unlimited free carpark. Perhaps one free permit per household should be the limit.[/quote] if there were just even one frepermit per house in each road then that would make my road impassable
Ken wrote:
There has to be some sort of rationing of parking spaces. Often I cannot park outside my own house because my neighbours not only have cars, but also white vans, pickups, motor caravans, a boat trailer, a car transporter, etc., etc. The public highway was never intended to be an unlimited free carpark. Perhaps one free permit per household should be the limit.
if there were just even one frepermit per house in each road then that would make my road impassable
Posted by: Ian, Turkey on 3:47pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Chipper[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Disgusted[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.[/quote] To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.[/quote] ..but you don't own the roads. If you do own the road outside of your house, it's private property and you wouldn't need road tax or permission to use it. I thought the point of the previous post was that councils are considering putting up council tax for those who don't have a driveway or privately-owned parking spaces, and are therfore routinely parking on publicly-owned roads? Please explain where is the suggestion that you could be charged to pay on your own property?[/quote] "More than eight million homes are facing council tax increases because they enjoy nice views or for having off-street parking, claim the Tories.
Ministers have admitted they are building a database covering all 23million homes in England, and Conservatives say this means that residents of good neighbourhoods could be hit by huge council tax hikes.
Bills for next year are dropping on doormats up and down the country, with the Government expected to announce this week that in many areas the increases will exceed 5 per cent"
Taken from a recent news article
Chipper wrote:
Disgusted wrote: lionel wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.
To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
..but you don't own the roads. If you do own the road outside of your house, it's private property and you wouldn't need road tax or permission to use it. I thought the point of the previous post was that councils are considering putting up council tax for those who don't have a driveway or privately-owned parking spaces, and are therfore routinely parking on publicly-owned roads? Please explain where is the suggestion that you could be charged to pay on your own property?
"More than eight million homes are facing council tax increases because they enjoy nice views or for having off-street parking, claim the Tories.
Ministers have admitted they are building a database covering all 23million homes in England, and Conservatives say this means that residents of good neighbourhoods could be hit by huge council tax hikes.
Bills for next year are dropping on doormats up and down the country, with the Government expected to announce this week that in many areas the increases will exceed 5 per cent"
Taken from a recent news article
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 3:56pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge[/bold] wrote:
This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st[/quote] Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn't answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said "we have no intention of implementing this policy" but instead he refused to answer; why was this?
And wasn't it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council's car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January.
Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you've got Ian Murray on your side so you weren't pressed on the matter.
Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge wrote:
This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st
Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn't answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said "we have no intention of implementing this policy" but instead he refused to answer; why was this?
And wasn't it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council's car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January.
Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you've got Ian Murray on your side so you weren't pressed on the matter.
Posted by: Paramjit Bahia, Southampton on 4:18pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\'re editing the Daily Mail?[/quote] [bold]When all else fails you can count on faceless friends of mixbred (New Labour & Lib-Dems)to start attacking the Echo editor Ian Murray.
But then they also pretend in protecting free press. It is sheer HYPOCRICY.[/bold]
Hardly surprising this guy wants to remain faceless and hide behind Gladstone. Because likes of him/her also keep on trying to kiss the backside of Echo staff for pushing their misleading press statements. DOUBLE STANDRAD
Come on Gladstone tell us the real truth, who commissioned the report in the first place?
If it was the work of the Tories then why on day one Bridle and Vinson did not bin it?
Why this Tory document was approved and campaign of both New Labour MPs (Alan Whitehead and John Denham) for 20mph speed limit near schools has not been funded? DOES NOT SAY A LOT FOR SLOGANS OF SAFETY OF CHILDREN DOES IT?
Obviously June Bridle's mob has no time for very able people like Whitehead any more than Gordon Brown, who in search for talent went with begging bowl to Tories and Lib-Dems (Like traitor of Labour Shirley William etc) but could not spot Alan.
[bold]I am convinced this latest exercise by Bridle is to buy time till the elections are over. People of Southampton deserve some honesty.[/bold]
Gladstone wrote:
The only peopl trying to fool the electorate are the Echo and the Tories. The pay-for-a- first-permit option is just one of many contained in a report which was published while the Tories were in charge. At the time, Tory Cabinet member Gavin Dick refused to answer questions about whether or not this option would be implemented. Contrasting with that, the current Lab-Lib administration has specifically ruled it out and told the Echo that before it started its ridiculous campaign. Ian Murray, why don\'t you concentrate on reporting the news rather than making it up to suit your agenda? Do you think you\'re editing the Daily Mail?
When all else fails you can count on faceless friends of mixbred (New Labour & Lib-Dems)to start attacking the Echo editor Ian Murray.
But then they also pretend in protecting free press. It is sheer HYPOCRICY.
Hardly surprising this guy wants to remain faceless and hide behind Gladstone. Because likes of him/her also keep on trying to kiss the backside of Echo staff for pushing their misleading press statements. DOUBLE STANDRAD
Come on Gladstone tell us the real truth, who commissioned the report in the first place?
If it was the work of the Tories then why on day one Bridle and Vinson did not bin it?
Why this Tory document was approved and campaign of both New Labour MPs (Alan Whitehead and John Denham) for 20mph speed limit near schools has not been funded? DOES NOT SAY A LOT FOR SLOGANS OF SAFETY OF CHILDREN DOES IT?
Obviously June Bridle's mob has no time for very able people like Whitehead any more than Gordon Brown, who in search for talent went with begging bowl to Tories and Lib-Dems (Like traitor of Labour Shirley William etc) but could not spot Alan.
I am convinced this latest exercise by Bridle is to buy time till the elections are over. People of Southampton deserve some honesty.
Posted by: Steve, Southampton on 4:19pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Chipper[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Disgusted[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.[/quote] To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.[/quote] ..but you don't own the roads. If you do own the road outside of your house, it's private property and you wouldn't need road tax or permission to use it. I thought the point of the previous post was that councils are considering putting up council tax for those who don't have a driveway or privately-owned parking spaces, and are therfore routinely parking on publicly-owned roads? Please explain where is the suggestion that you could be charged to pay on your own property?[/quote] "More than eight million homes are facing council tax increases because they enjoy nice views or for having off-street parking, claim the Tories. Ministers have admitted they are building a database covering all 23million homes in England, and Conservatives say this means that residents of good neighbourhoods could be hit by huge council tax hikes. Bills for next year are dropping on doormats up and down the country, with the Government expected to announce this week that in many areas the increases will exceed 5 per cent" Taken from a recent news article [/quote] Because the Tories claim it doesn't mean it's true. It could happen of course in the same way that having a database of all the cars in the country means that owners could be forced to paint them all yellow; or having a database of doctors means they could all be forced to go and practice in Luton. All of these things could theroretically be made easier by having a database but simply having a database doesn't mean that any will happen. The silly Dail Mail story of people being charged extra for nice views has been rubbished several times over.
And the Council Tax increase in Southampton wss 3.49%.
Ian wrote:
Chipper wrote: Disgusted wrote: lionel wrote: This story has to be viewed in conjunction with recent reports that nationally, councils are assembling a database of all properties with offroad parking, so that they can add a charge on council tax. If that happens, there will be a strong argument for bringing in on-road resident parking charges. Either way, they are going to get you.
To charge me for parking ON MY OWN PROPERTY is the quickest way for any politician to lose my vote, and I am sure there are many like me. To increase my Council Tax because at my expense I have provided my car parking off their roads would be a bl**dy cheek and will ensure my future opposition at every opportunity.
..but you don't own the roads. If you do own the road outside of your house, it's private property and you wouldn't need road tax or permission to use it. I thought the point of the previous post was that councils are considering putting up council tax for those who don't have a driveway or privately-owned parking spaces, and are therfore routinely parking on publicly-owned roads? Please explain where is the suggestion that you could be charged to pay on your own property?
"More than eight million homes are facing council tax increases because they enjoy nice views or for having off-street parking, claim the Tories. Ministers have admitted they are building a database covering all 23million homes in England, and Conservatives say this means that residents of good neighbourhoods could be hit by huge council tax hikes. Bills for next year are dropping on doormats up and down the country, with the Government expected to announce this week that in many areas the increases will exceed 5 per cent" Taken from a recent news article
Because the Tories claim it doesn't mean it's true. It could happen of course in the same way that having a database of all the cars in the country means that owners could be forced to paint them all yellow; or having a database of doctors means they could all be forced to go and practice in Luton. All of these things could theroretically be made easier by having a database but simply having a database doesn't mean that any will happen. The silly Dail Mail story of people being charged extra for nice views has been rubbished several times over.
And the Council Tax increase in Southampton wss 3.49%.
Posted by: simon, west end on 4:20pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge[/bold] wrote: This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st[/quote] Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn't answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said "we have no intention of implementing this policy" but instead he refused to answer; why was this? And wasn't it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council's car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January. Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you've got Ian Murray on your side so you weren't pressed on the matter. [/quote] You should come out of the closet
Gladstone wrote:
Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge wrote: This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st
Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn't answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said "we have no intention of implementing this policy" but instead he refused to answer; why was this? And wasn't it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council's car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January. Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you've got Ian Murray on your side so you weren't pressed on the matter.
You should come out of the closet
Posted by: Paramjit Bahia, Southampton on 4:25pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge[/bold] wrote: This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st[/quote] Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn't answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said "we have no intention of implementing this policy" but instead he refused to answer; why was this? And wasn't it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council's car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January. Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you've got Ian Murray on your side so you weren't pressed on the matter. [/quote] [bold]Hardly surprising people are saying 'They are all the same'[/bold]
Gladstone wrote:
Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge wrote: This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st
Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn't answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said "we have no intention of implementing this policy" but instead he refused to answer; why was this? And wasn't it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council's car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January. Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you've got Ian Murray on your side so you weren't pressed on the matter.
Hardly surprising people are saying 'They are all the same'
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 4:38pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Parmi, I don't know who commissioned the report as I am not a councillor. It may have been the previous Lib Dem administration or it may have been the Tories. Either way, commissioning an independent review of parking had the support of all three parties.
It was published while the Conservatives were in charge (as it would have been if they had not been) and Gavin Dick was asked directly at the scrutiny committee whether he would implement the recommended policy of charging for the first parking permit. He refused to answer. You may wonder why.
The council then changed hands and the new administration accepted the report but that did not mean that it would implement all of it. It covers the whole topic of parking in the city and I assume each recommendation will be looked at in detail and either implemented or not.
You used to be a councillor and you know very well that councils commission advice and then will decide whether to implement parts of the recommendations. They don't just vote through all the recommendations en bloc.
The importatnt thing is that the new administration has specifically ruled out implementing a charge for the first permit and the Echo knew this before it launched its Barking Mad campaign. It was not in the budget and there is no need to do it.
The Tories didn't go into the last election campaign promising to massively increase the fees in car parks but that's what they did.
Parmi, I don't know who commissioned the report as I am not a councillor. It may have been the previous Lib Dem administration or it may have been the Tories. Either way, commissioning an independent review of parking had the support of all three parties.
It was published while the Conservatives were in charge (as it would have been if they had not been) and Gavin Dick was asked directly at the scrutiny committee whether he would implement the recommended policy of charging for the first parking permit. He refused to answer. You may wonder why.
The council then changed hands and the new administration accepted the report but that did not mean that it would implement all of it. It covers the whole topic of parking in the city and I assume each recommendation will be looked at in detail and either implemented or not.
You used to be a councillor and you know very well that councils commission advice and then will decide whether to implement parts of the recommendations. They don't just vote through all the recommendations en bloc.
The importatnt thing is that the new administration has specifically ruled out implementing a charge for the first permit and the Echo knew this before it launched its Barking Mad campaign. It was not in the budget and there is no need to do it.
The Tories didn't go into the last election campaign promising to massively increase the fees in car parks but that's what they did.
Posted by: baz, southampton on 4:44pm Thu 27 Mar 08
another good idea defeated by a lily- livered council and a short sighted petition.No more Daily Echo" for me!
another good idea defeated by a lily- livered council and a short sighted petition.No more Daily Echo" for me!
Posted by: stuart, Shirley on 5:03pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote:
Parmi, I don't know who commissioned the report as I am not a councillor. It may have been the previous Lib Dem administration or it may have been the Tories. Either way, commissioning an independent review of parking had the support of all three parties. It was published while the Conservatives were in charge (as it would have been if they had not been) and Gavin Dick was asked directly at the scrutiny committee whether he would implement the recommended policy of charging for the first parking permit. He refused to answer. You may wonder why. The council then changed hands and the new administration accepted the report but that did not mean that it would implement all of it. It covers the whole topic of parking in the city and I assume each recommendation will be looked at in detail and either implemented or not. You used to be a councillor and you know very well that councils commission advice and then will decide whether to implement parts of the recommendations. They don't just vote through all the recommendations en bloc. The importatnt thing is that the new administration has specifically ruled out implementing a charge for the first permit and the Echo knew this before it launched its Barking Mad campaign. It was not in the budget and there is no need to do it. The Tories didn't go into the last election campaign promising to massively increase the fees in car parks but that's what they did. [/quote] your argument is based on hatred towards the tories which shows that you are someone who is very shallow, and scared to show your true identity.
the fact that neither the Labour party or Liberals read something which they passed as policy shows that they cant run a city.
If the tory Gavin Dick did not answer a question whether they were going to implement this or not you and i will never know as the moment has gone.
time to grow up and move on
Gladstone wrote:
Parmi, I don't know who commissioned the report as I am not a councillor. It may have been the previous Lib Dem administration or it may have been the Tories. Either way, commissioning an independent review of parking had the support of all three parties. It was published while the Conservatives were in charge (as it would have been if they had not been) and Gavin Dick was asked directly at the scrutiny committee whether he would implement the recommended policy of charging for the first parking permit. He refused to answer. You may wonder why. The council then changed hands and the new administration accepted the report but that did not mean that it would implement all of it. It covers the whole topic of parking in the city and I assume each recommendation will be looked at in detail and either implemented or not. You used to be a councillor and you know very well that councils commission advice and then will decide whether to implement parts of the recommendations. They don't just vote through all the recommendations en bloc. The importatnt thing is that the new administration has specifically ruled out implementing a charge for the first permit and the Echo knew this before it launched its Barking Mad campaign. It was not in the budget and there is no need to do it. The Tories didn't go into the last election campaign promising to massively increase the fees in car parks but that's what they did.
your argument is based on hatred towards the tories which shows that you are someone who is very shallow, and scared to show your true identity.
the fact that neither the Labour party or Liberals read something which they passed as policy shows that they cant run a city.
If the tory Gavin Dick did not answer a question whether they were going to implement this or not you and i will never know as the moment has gone.
time to grow up and move on
Posted by: gladstone, Southampton on 5:14pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]simon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Gladstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge[/bold] wrote: This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st[/quote] Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn\'t answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said \"we have no intention of implementing this policy\" but instead he refused to answer; why was this? And wasn\'t it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council\'s car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January. Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you\'ve got Ian Murray on your side so you weren\'t pressed on the matter. [/quote] You should come out of the closet [/quote] Are you asking me for a date? I'm flattered but I think I'll have to say no.
simon wrote:
Gladstone wrote: Paul Holmes, Conservative Candidate for Redbridge wrote: This is just another example of Labour and the Lib Dems desperately trying to retain power, this is a cynical move which they hope, will be wiped from peoples minds until the election. I for one, hope that the people of Southampton remember what Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to do, and vote accordingly on May 1st
Could you ask your colleague Councillor Dick why he wouldn\'t answer questions about this policy when he was in charge? He could have said \"we have no intention of implementing this policy\" but instead he refused to answer; why was this? And wasn\'t it the Conservatives who have criticised every rise in fees for the council\'s car parks for years but nevertheless implemented massive rises in January. Come on. be honest, your lot were going to bring this charge in after the election. But you\'ve got Ian Murray on your side so you weren\'t pressed on the matter.
You should come out of the closet
Are you asking me for a date? I'm flattered but I think I'll have to say no.
Posted by: Married working male, Southampton on 5:37pm Thu 27 Mar 08
"the fact that neither the Labour party or Liberals read something which they passed as policy shows that they cant run a city."
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You may want to support the Conservatives and that's absolutely fine. But please do it based on facts rather than misunderstanding. The cabinet can accept a report but still have to make decisions on whether to implement individual recommendations.
I've just been and looked at what the report says. I quote:
[italic]· Residents’ Parking Schemes should be introduced where there is
excessive parking in an area by non-residents.
· Times of operation should be only those necessary to address the
problem.
· No time limits should be applied to residents.
· Business permits should be time-limited to prevent their use for
commuting purposes.
· Non-residents should be allowed to park if there is space available, but
recognising the value of the space and the cost of managing it, they
should pay for use.
· On the same basis, all types of permit should attract a fee, albeit on a
sliding scale.
· The objective should be to make Residents’ Parking Schemes selffunding.[/italic]
Nothing there about charging for the first permit. No figures mentioned. There's a cost to providing and enforcing residents' parking zones. Should this be borne by those who live elsewhere or should it be borne by the people who benefit from them? But the council has ruled out charging for the first permit so will either have to increase the charge for second permits or the rest of us will have to continue to pick up the bill whether or not we have cars or driveways on which to put them.
"the fact that neither the Labour party or Liberals read something which they passed as policy shows that they cant run a city."
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You may want to support the Conservatives and that's absolutely fine. But please do it based on facts rather than misunderstanding. The cabinet can accept a report but still have to make decisions on whether to implement individual recommendations.
I've just been and looked at what the report says. I quote:
· Residents’ Parking Schemes should be introduced where there is
excessive parking in an area by non-residents.
· Times of operation should be only those necessary to address the
problem.
· No time limits should be applied to residents.
· Business permits should be time-limited to prevent their use for
commuting purposes.
· Non-residents should be allowed to park if there is space available, but
recognising the value of the space and the cost of managing it, they
should pay for use.
· On the same basis, all types of permit should attract a fee, albeit on a
sliding scale.
· The objective should be to make Residents’ Parking Schemes selffunding.
Nothing there about charging for the first permit. No figures mentioned. There's a cost to providing and enforcing residents' parking zones. Should this be borne by those who live elsewhere or should it be borne by the people who benefit from them? But the council has ruled out charging for the first permit so will either have to increase the charge for second permits or the rest of us will have to continue to pick up the bill whether or not we have cars or driveways on which to put them.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 6:08pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?[/quote] Above are links to the [bold]actual[/bold] reports the Lab/Lib cabinet [bold]approved[/bold] earlier this month.
Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really.
Now, I wouldn't want to go as far as say you're lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...[/quote] Okaaaaay, please point me to the bit in those documents where it says the Council WILL charge residents to park outside their own home.
There are lots of bits in the report which talk about various charging strategies, but no mandate to take on any particular one. Seriously- did you read those reports before making that last post?
Steve wrote:
Red Rooster wrote:
The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?
Above are links to the actual reports the Lab/Lib cabinet approved earlier this month.
Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really.
Now, I wouldn't want to go as far as say you're lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...
Okaaaaay, please point me to the bit in those documents where it says the Council WILL charge residents to park outside their own home.
There are lots of bits in the report which talk about various charging strategies, but no mandate to take on any particular one. Seriously- did you read those reports before making that last post?
Posted by: Ciaran on 6:18pm Thu 27 Mar 08
If Red Rooster is right, the councillors approved this policy without reading what they were approving or they knew full well and were waiting until after the Election to implement it.
Which is it? Incompetent or underhand?
If Red Rooster is right, the councillors approved this policy without reading what they were approving or they knew full well and were waiting until after the Election to implement it.
Which is it? Incompetent or underhand?
Posted by: Steve on 6:26pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote: The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?[/quote] Above are links to the [bold]actual[/bold] reports the Lab/Lib cabinet [bold]approved[/bold] earlier this month. Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really. Now, I wouldn't want to go as far as say you're lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...[/quote] Okaaaaay, please point me to the bit in those documents where it says the Council WILL charge residents to park outside their own home. There are lots of bits in the report which talk about various charging strategies, but no mandate to take on any particular one. Seriously- did you read those reports before making that last post?[/quote] Section 4(b)ii in the second document.
[quote]· Residents’ Parking Schemes should be introduced where there is
excessive parking in an area by non-residents.
· Times of operation should be only those necessary to address the
problem.
· No time limits should be applied to residents.
· Business permits should be time-limited to prevent their use for
commuting purposes.
· Non-residents should be allowed to park if there is space available, but
recognising the value of the space and the cost of managing it, they
should pay for use.
· On the same basis, [bold]all types of permit should attract a fee[/bold], albeit on a
sliding scale.
· The objective should be to make Residents’ Parking Schemes selffunding.
· The total number of permits issued for a zone should relate to the
available amount of parking space in that zone.
· There should be no guarantee of space for every resident.[/quote]
Or shall I draw you a picture?
Red Rooster wrote:
Steve wrote: Red Rooster wrote: The Echo's coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn't actually happening. Then they claim 'victory' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?
Above are links to the actual reports the Lab/Lib cabinet approved earlier this month. Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really. Now, I wouldn't want to go as far as say you're lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...
Okaaaaay, please point me to the bit in those documents where it says the Council WILL charge residents to park outside their own home. There are lots of bits in the report which talk about various charging strategies, but no mandate to take on any particular one. Seriously- did you read those reports before making that last post?
Section 4(b)ii in the second document.
· Residents’ Parking Schemes should be introduced where there is
excessive parking in an area by non-residents.
· Times of operation should be only those necessary to address the
problem.
· No time limits should be applied to residents.
· Business permits should be time-limited to prevent their use for
commuting purposes.
· Non-residents should be allowed to park if there is space available, but
recognising the value of the space and the cost of managing it, they
should pay for use.
· On the same basis, all types of permit should attract a fee, albeit on a
sliding scale.
· The objective should be to make Residents’ Parking Schemes selffunding.
· The total number of permits issued for a zone should relate to the
available amount of parking space in that zone.
· There should be no guarantee of space for every resident.
Or shall I draw you a picture?
Posted by: Ciaran on 6:27pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Ha ha, that blew up in Red Rooster's face pretty spectacularly.
Ha ha, that blew up in Red Rooster's face pretty spectacularly.
Posted by: nidge, shirley on 6:59pm Thu 27 Mar 08
The councillors are cowards and treating the electorate with disdain. They obviously believe that we are a bunch of dimwits who will have forgotten about this come the local elections in May.
The councillors are cowards and treating the electorate with disdain. They obviously believe that we are a bunch of dimwits who will have forgotten about this come the local elections in May.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 7:11pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote: The Echo\'s coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn\'t actually happening. Then they claim \'victory\' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?[/quote] Above are links to the [bold]actual[/bold] reports the Lab/Lib cabinet [bold]approved[/bold] earlier this month. Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really. Now, I wouldn\'t want to go as far as say you\'re lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...[/quote] Okaaaaay, please point me to the bit in those documents where it says the Council WILL charge residents to park outside their own home. There are lots of bits in the report which talk about various charging strategies, but no mandate to take on any particular one. Seriously- did you read those reports before making that last post?[/quote] Section 4(b)ii in the second document.
[quote]· Residents’ Parking Schemes should be introduced where there is
excessive parking in an area by non-residents.
· Times of operation should be only those necessary to address the
problem.
· No time limits should be applied to residents.
· Business permits should be time-limited to prevent their use for
commuting purposes.
· Non-residents should be allowed to park if there is space available, but
recognising the value of the space and the cost of managing it, they
should pay for use.
· On the same basis, [bold]all types of permit should attract a fee[/bold], albeit on a
sliding scale.
· The objective should be to make Residents’ Parking Schemes selffunding.
· The total number of permits issued for a zone should relate to the
available amount of parking space in that zone.
· There should be no guarantee of space for every resident.[/quote]
Or shall I draw you a picture?[/quote] Still looking. There is nothing in that document that mandates a new charging structure. 'Should' isn't the same as 'will.'
For example: you 'should' read the context in which these documents are produced before sounding off. But I'm sure you 'will' continue to sound off without a proper understanding of how Council policy is set.
Steve wrote:
Red Rooster wrote:
Steve wrote: Red Rooster wrote: The Echo\'s coverage of this is just fascinating. First, they whip up outrage about a policy that isn\'t actually happening. Then they claim \'victory\' when the Council restates its position that they have no intention to institute said policy. Who can take these guys seriously any more?
Above are links to the actual reports the Lab/Lib cabinet approved earlier this month. Sort of blows what you are saying out of the water, really. Now, I wouldn\'t want to go as far as say you\'re lying, but it certainly looks inaccurate...
Okaaaaay, please point me to the bit in those documents where it says the Council WILL charge residents to park outside their own home. There are lots of bits in the report which talk about various charging strategies, but no mandate to take on any particular one. Seriously- did you read those reports before making that last post?
Section 4(b)ii in the second document.
· Residents’ Parking Schemes should be introduced where there is
excessive parking in an area by non-residents.
· Times of operation should be only those necessary to address the
problem.
· No time limits should be applied to residents.
· Business permits should be time-limited to prevent their use for
commuting purposes.
· Non-residents should be allowed to park if there is space available, but
recognising the value of the space and the cost of managing it, they
should pay for use.
· On the same basis, all types of permit should attract a fee, albeit on a
sliding scale.
· The objective should be to make Residents’ Parking Schemes selffunding.
· The total number of permits issued for a zone should relate to the
available amount of parking space in that zone.
· There should be no guarantee of space for every resident.
Or shall I draw you a picture?
Still looking. There is nothing in that document that mandates a new charging structure. 'Should' isn't the same as 'will.'
For example: you 'should' read the context in which these documents are produced before sounding off. But I'm sure you 'will' continue to sound off without a proper understanding of how Council policy is set.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 7:26pm Thu 27 Mar 08
I'll add a bit more detail for those who are interested in what the Council policy actually says. The minutes of the scrutiny panel where this was discussed are available here:
http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/thecouncil
/thecouncil/meetings
-agendas-reports/mee
tingpapers/ShowDocum
ent.asp?PKID=7729
This is what was minuted about the parking strategy:
"The panel received and noted the report on Planning and Sustainability setting out the background to the development of the development of a Strategic Parking Policy for the city and seeking the views of the Panel on the content of the [bold]current draft[/bold] .
RESOLVED that the Cabinet member for Environment and Transport be advised to:
i) consider options for City Centre residents to have access to the parking resources currently available to the City Council in a more flexible way; and
ii) ensure that an [bold]ongoing dialogue and consultation[/bold] takes place between officers and the Panel on the development of a Strategic Parking Policy."
That's IT. That's all that was decided based on that document. Everything else, including the charging proposal, was merely 'noted.'
But of course that doesn't sell papers or scare people as much, does it? You people should be ashamed.
I'll add a bit more detail for those who are interested in what the Council policy actually says. The minutes of the scrutiny panel where this was discussed are available here:
http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/thecouncil
/thecouncil/meetings
-agendas-reports/mee
tingpapers/ShowDocum
ent.asp?PKID=7729
This is what was minuted about the parking strategy:
"The panel received and noted the report on Planning and Sustainability setting out the background to the development of the development of a Strategic Parking Policy for the city and seeking the views of the Panel on the content of the
current draft .
RESOLVED that the Cabinet member for Environment and Transport be advised to:
i) consider options for City Centre residents to have access to the parking resources currently available to the City Council in a more flexible way; and
ii) ensure that an
ongoing dialogue and consultation takes place between officers and the Panel on the development of a Strategic Parking Policy."
That's IT. That's all that was decided based on that document. Everything else, including the charging proposal, was merely 'noted.'
But of course that doesn't sell papers or scare people as much, does it? You people should be ashamed.
Posted by: Adrian Smith on 7:45pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Rooster, does the phrase grasping at straws mean anything to you?
It's there in black and white. That is what was recommended to the council's (current) cabinet and that was what they approved.
Go on trying to deny it all you want but you're just coming across and blinkered and desperate.
It looks like you do need that picture Steve offered to draw you after all.
Rooster, does the phrase grasping at straws mean anything to you?
It's there in black and white. That is what was recommended to the council's (current) cabinet and that was what they approved.
Go on trying to deny it all you want but you're just coming across and blinkered and desperate.
It looks like you do need that picture Steve offered to draw you after all.
Posted by: Ciaran on 7:51pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
I'll add a bit more detail for those who are interested in what the Council policy actually says. The minutes of the scrutiny panel where this was discussed are available here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/thecouncil /thecouncil/meetings -agendas-reports/mee tingpapers/ShowDocum ent.asp?PKID=7729 This is what was minuted about the parking strategy: "The panel received and noted the report on Planning and Sustainability setting out the background to the development of the development of a Strategic Parking Policy for the city and seeking the views of the Panel on the content of the [bold]current draft[/bold] . RESOLVED that the Cabinet member for Environment and Transport be advised to: i) consider options for City Centre residents to have access to the parking resources currently available to the City Council in a more flexible way; and ii) ensure that an [bold]ongoing dialogue and consultation[/bold] takes place between officers and the Panel on the development of a Strategic Parking Policy." That's IT. That's all that was decided based on that document. Everything else, including the charging proposal, was merely 'noted.' But of course that doesn't sell papers or scare people as much, does it? You people should be ashamed.[/quote] Ah you must be a councillor Rooster, as no-one else would try and pass off a document from a meeting almost two months ago (it's dated February 6, 2008) as the one approved this month.
You truly are pathetic. I'm doubly glad I signed the petition if it helps get people like you out of power.
Red Rooster wrote:
I'll add a bit more detail for those who are interested in what the Council policy actually says. The minutes of the scrutiny panel where this was discussed are available here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/thecouncil /thecouncil/meetings -agendas-reports/mee tingpapers/ShowDocum ent.asp?PKID=7729 This is what was minuted about the parking strategy: "The panel received and noted the report on Planning and Sustainability setting out the background to the development of the development of a Strategic Parking Policy for the city and seeking the views of the Panel on the content of the current draft . RESOLVED that the Cabinet member for Environment and Transport be advised to: i) consider options for City Centre residents to have access to the parking resources currently available to the City Council in a more flexible way; and ii) ensure that an ongoing dialogue and consultation takes place between officers and the Panel on the development of a Strategic Parking Policy." That's IT. That's all that was decided based on that document. Everything else, including the charging proposal, was merely 'noted.' But of course that doesn't sell papers or scare people as much, does it? You people should be ashamed.
Ah you must be a councillor Rooster, as no-one else would try and pass off a document from a meeting almost two months ago (it's dated February 6, 2008) as the one approved this month.
You truly are pathetic. I'm doubly glad I signed the petition if it helps get people like you out of power.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 8:22pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ciaran[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
I'll add a bit more detail for those who are interested in what the Council policy actually says. The minutes of the scrutiny panel where this was discussed are available here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/thecouncil /thecouncil/meetings -agendas-reports/mee tingpapers/ShowDocum ent.asp?PKID=7729 This is what was minuted about the parking strategy: "The panel received and noted the report on Planning and Sustainability setting out the background to the development of the development of a Strategic Parking Policy for the city and seeking the views of the Panel on the content of the [bold]current draft[/bold] . RESOLVED that the Cabinet member for Environment and Transport be advised to: i) consider options for City Centre residents to have access to the parking resources currently available to the City Council in a more flexible way; and ii) ensure that an [bold]ongoing dialogue and consultation[/bold] takes place between officers and the Panel on the development of a Strategic Parking Policy." That's IT. That's all that was decided based on that document. Everything else, including the charging proposal, was merely 'noted.' But of course that doesn't sell papers or scare people as much, does it? You people should be ashamed.[/quote] Ah you must be a councillor Rooster, as no-one else would try and pass off a document from a meeting almost two months ago (it's dated February 6, 2008) as the one approved this month.
You truly are pathetic. I'm doubly glad I signed the petition if it helps get people like you out of power.[/quote] Hi! You see that document that the Echo linked to in order to 'prove' this was a genuine story? Have a gander at the date on the bottom- FEBRUARY 2008. That's what the Echo is writing about. If you don't understand that, no wonder you don't understand the document's meaning.
Also, I'm not a councillor. Frankly I hope they have better things to do with their time than post on here.
So, in short, you're WRONG about the policy document, and WRONG about me. Care to try for a third?
Ciaran wrote:
Red Rooster wrote:
I'll add a bit more detail for those who are interested in what the Council policy actually says. The minutes of the scrutiny panel where this was discussed are available here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/thecouncil /thecouncil/meetings -agendas-reports/mee tingpapers/ShowDocum ent.asp?PKID=7729 This is what was minuted about the parking strategy: "The panel received and noted the report on Planning and Sustainability setting out the background to the development of the development of a Strategic Parking Policy for the city and seeking the views of the Panel on the content of the current draft . RESOLVED that the Cabinet member for Environment and Transport be advised to: i) consider options for City Centre residents to have access to the parking resources currently available to the City Council in a more flexible way; and ii) ensure that an ongoing dialogue and consultation takes place between officers and the Panel on the development of a Strategic Parking Policy." That's IT. That's all that was decided based on that document. Everything else, including the charging proposal, was merely 'noted.' But of course that doesn't sell papers or scare people as much, does it? You people should be ashamed.
Ah you must be a councillor Rooster, as no-one else would try and pass off a document from a meeting almost two months ago (it's dated February 6, 2008) as the one approved this month.
You truly are pathetic. I'm doubly glad I signed the petition if it helps get people like you out of power.
Hi! You see that document that the Echo linked to in order to 'prove' this was a genuine story? Have a gander at the date on the bottom- FEBRUARY 2008. That's what the Echo is writing about. If you don't understand that, no wonder you don't understand the document's meaning.
Also, I'm not a councillor. Frankly I hope they have better things to do with their time than post on here.
So, in short, you're WRON
