Another form of taxation, with the motorist being an eaxy target, yet again.
This has nothing to with making parking easier or easing congested roads, just another earner for the coffers, and to be used elsewhere.

"The parking policy was agreed following recommendations from transport consultants who found that residents' parking schemes incurred a small loss and were being subsidised by onstreet parking machines."

When will these idiots beging to understand that they are not running a commercial enterprise that has to make a profit. They must provide a service to the community. So what if one area of parking subsidises another? People should be able to park outside their own homes.

Just another tax. Just another way of screwing us all for more money.

I think it is disgusting that the Council are doing this. Residents should not have to pay when other road users can park there for free for a limited time. Indeed, as quoted above, yet another form of taxation.

This is terrible, why do they need more money, to buy their 3rd home...if they go ahead, more and more people will (if they have one) turn there front gardens into a parking lot...less greenery...

residents' parking schemes incurred a small loss and were being subsidised by onstreet parking machines

It's about time the chavs of Southampton stopped taking hand-outs from motorists from outside...

My property ends at my boundary wall, and does NOT include either the pavement or the road outside!

I pay my road tax, so am entitled to park in the street, where there are no restrictions, but have no more rights to park outside my house than any other payer of road tax!

Who maintains the pavement and road outside of people's houses?

Not the owner of the house! With all the rubbish in the streets, I bet there are precious few that will take a broom out to clean up, yet they think it their divine right to park their car there!

What about the two and three car families? What do they do? Stack them, one on top of the other outside their house! Of course not, they go and park outside someone else's house!

The answer? Either move or rent a garage, but don't think you own the road outside your house - it belongs to us all!

Sorry sailor sam but I think you are wrong.
Years ago, householders owned the land to the centre of the road and the council maintained said road through our rates. The bigger the frontage, the more we paid in rates, so there!.

sailor sam wrote:
My property ends at my boundary wall, and does NOT include either the pavement or the road outside! I pay my road tax, so am entitled to park in the street, where there are no restrictions, but have no more rights to park outside my house than any other payer of road tax! Who maintains the pavement and road outside of people's houses? Not the owner of the house! With all the rubbish in the streets, I bet there are precious few that will take a broom out to clean up, yet they think it their divine right to park their car there! What about the two and three car families? What do they do? Stack them, one on top of the other outside their house! Of course not, they go and park outside someone else's house! The answer? Either move or rent a garage, but don't think you own the road outside your house - it belongs to us all!

Well someone's just gone off on a random rant, without knowing what he's on about.

These homeowners will be asked to pay to park outside their homes. As you point out, everyone has a right to park there - but with these proposals, not everyone will.

So why are you against it?

It has to be a good thing to charge them as they are taking up valuable space.The way things are going its going to be impossible to get emergency services up and down roads.I have a drive way with double garage but have to pay extra for my coucil taxes so why should thease people park free on land that they dont own.

good and brave idea by the counci.well done!

The Echo is wrong.This is a sensible and brave idea by the council-for once!

Steve wrote:

sailor sam wrote: My property ends at my boundary wall, and does NOT include either the pavement or the road outside! I pay my road tax, so am entitled to park in the street, where there are no restrictions, but have no more rights to park outside my house than any other payer of road tax! Who maintains the pavement and road outside of people\'s houses? Not the owner of the house! With all the rubbish in the streets, I bet there are precious few that will take a broom out to clean up, yet they think it their divine right to park their car there! What about the two and three car families? What do they do? Stack them, one on top of the other outside their house! Of course not, they go and park outside someone else\'s house! The answer? Either move or rent a garage, but don\'t think you own the road outside your house - it belongs to us all!

Well someone\'s just gone off on a random rant, without knowing what he\'s on about. These homeowners will be asked to pay to park outside their homes. As you point out, everyone has a right to park there - but with these proposals, not everyone will. So why are you against it?

I assume that it is not just the home owners that have to pay, but ANYONE parking there will have to pay!
They are not being victimised!
I would assumed that a disabled resident would have their own spot, outside their house, for free!
If I visited, if there were parking meters, I would expect to pay.
A previous comment by 'Put Put' informs me of what the law was Years Ago! but we are talking about NOW!
As said, the pavement and road outside a house does not belong to the house owner, but to all tax payers, regardless of Council Tax Banding!
I wonder, when meters were sited in other areas, how many of the current complainants protested! Of course not! Another bunch of Nimbys.

But Sam, you've once again missed the point.

This is about parking permits, not meters. Visitors won't be able to get them - they are only ever for residents.

Everyone has paid for their road tax, so everyone owns the road.

But some people will have to pay an extra £50 to park their car on it. How is that fair?

This is quite shocking, luckily I don't have to pay to park on the private road I live next to.
Sailor sam, jog on mate you're boring, I doubt you can afford a car. Go back to your cardboard box.

You motorists foul the air, block up the steets and are an all round menace to civilised forms of navigation.
Dump your cars and with the money you save on parking an buying polutants you could own some decent footwear.

sailor sam wrote:
My property ends at my boundary wall, and does NOT include either the pavement or the road outside! I pay my road tax, so am entitled to park in the street, where there are no restrictions, but have no more rights to park outside my house than any other payer of road tax! Who maintains the pavement and road outside of people's houses? Not the owner of the house! With all the rubbish in the streets, I bet there are precious few that will take a broom out to clean up, yet they think it their divine right to park their car there! What about the two and three car families? What do they do? Stack them, one on top of the other outside their house! Of course not, they go and park outside someone else's house! The answer? Either move or rent a garage, but don't think you own the road outside your house - it belongs to us all!

Sailor sam,,, I for one agree with you. Well said.

I think it's a great campaign. I don't wanna cough up just to parc my motor outside my house. Im not being an extreme nimby I just dont want too do it.

Steve wrote:
But Sam, you've once again missed the point. This is about parking permits, not meters. Visitors won't be able to get them - they are only ever for residents. Everyone has paid for their road tax, so everyone owns the road. But some people will have to pay an extra £50 to park their car on it. How is that fair?

Apoligies Steve, have re-read the piece, and see that residents will, in all probability, have to pay £50 per year for a resident's parking ticket!
For less than £1 per week, non-residents will not be able to park, so would be able to, more or less, guarantee a parking spot outside your house!
That, to my mind, is not a bad deal, and cheaper than £2 per night in the car park!
It is the 2 and 3 car households that will be hit, and maybe it will stop those driving commercial vehicles, that bring it home and park in the street!
It may also have the effect of making people put their cars in their garages instead of leaving them on the road!

At present, it would to be only under consideration, so assume that all those affected have 'bent the ear' of their councillers!

I can't park outside my home. I have to park half a mile up the road which is a 10 minute walk away. Thats during the week while I work (I work nights so car needs parking during the day). At the weekend and when I'm on holiday etc...I have to park it in a nearby carpark that costs me £7.30 a day. I have already spent an absolute fortune just to park my car near to wear I live. Its diabolical. I can't even get a parking permit along with everyone else on my road as the flat I live in is in a renovated building owned by a housing association that doesn't have planning permission . I argued my case for months with the council but their (Gavin Dick and his buddies) policy is..'if you live in town, you don't need a car'. These people live on another planet I'm sure. I'm waiting to be re-housed at the moment so I'm hoping I move well away from town. My parking problem has brought me nothing but grief and stress and a very sad debit card. No doubt I will be signing the petition.

sailor sam wrote:

Steve wrote:
But Sam, you've once again missed the point. This is about parking permits, not meters. Visitors won't be able to get them - they are only ever for residents. Everyone has paid for their road tax, so everyone owns the road. But some people will have to pay an extra £50 to park their car on it. How is that fair?

Apoligies Steve, have re-read the piece, and see that residents will, in all probability, have to pay £50 per year for a resident's parking ticket!
For less than £1 per week, non-residents will not be able to park, so would be able to, more or less, guarantee a parking spot outside your house!
That, to my mind, is not a bad deal, and cheaper than £2 per night in the car park!
It is the 2 and 3 car households that will be hit, and maybe it will stop those driving commercial vehicles, that bring it home and park in the street!
It may also have the effect of making people put their cars in their garages instead of leaving them on the road!

At present, it would to be only under consideration, so assume that all those affected have 'bent the ear' of their councillers!

Well many areas of the city already have parking permits - which are free for the first car in any household.

They rolled this out, I doubt there'd be much problem, but instead, you'll have to pay for something that is already free.

It's a cash cow, pure and simple.

paul b wrote:
I think it's a great campaign. I don't wanna cough up just to parc my motor outside my house. Im not being an extreme nimby I just dont want too do it.

Paul, why do you keep posting something about "Extreme Nimby" on the petition?

I've been online on and off all day and you keep posting a nonsensical comment that keeps getting deleted. I'm confused as to the significance of it?

No one has the right to park on the road. The road belongs to all of us. If people want to have a space outside their homes then why shouldn't they pay ?

No one has the right to park on the road. The road belongs to all of us. If people want to have a space outside their homes then why shouldn't they pay ?

johnnie wrote:
No one has the right to park on the road. The road belongs to all of us. If people want to have a space outside their homes then why shouldn't they pay ?

If we all own it, why do some have to pay more?

This is just another method to force motorists to give up their cars, to price them out if you will.

Anyone who lives in a densely populated area, particularly terraced housing, knows there are way more cars in the street now than, say, 10 years ago.

You can't just stand there, arms folded, saying 'I have a god-given right to park outside my house'. It's very simple, YOU DON'T!! (I can hear Londoners laughing at you from here!!)

The authorities have to do something. They can't magic up a multi storey car park in the sky, so they get you to make it easier for them by giving up your car.

It's a sad fact of living in a city I'm afraid.

Rufus T Firefly wrote:
This is just another method to force motorists to give up their cars, to price them out if you will. Anyone who lives in a densely populated area, particularly terraced housing, knows there are way more cars in the street now than, say, 10 years ago. You can't just stand there, arms folded, saying 'I have a god-given right to park outside my house'. It's very simple, YOU DON'T!! (I can hear Londoners laughing at you from here!!) The authorities have to do something. They can't magic up a multi storey car park in the sky, so they get you to make it easier for them by giving up your car. It's a sad fact of living in a city I'm afraid.

I kind of agree, but as a resident why should you pay? I agree residents don't own the road, but surely they should be taken into consideration?

Try going down to Southampton City Council Office, you will notice a parking space reserved for the Mayor and everyone else who earns a high wage! So why should the public lose out? What's good for them is good for us?

I can really see the counillors paying for parking! Well actually I could at our expense!

MONEY MONEY MONEY

Thats what it's about!

Its interesting to see how many people eroneously claim the right to park on the road. The Highways Act says that roads are for the passage of goods and vehicles and that ANY parking on them is technically an obstruction. This can be waived by the Council spending tax payers money to firstly establish and then enforce regulations that ALLOW parking in designated areas, either in the form of metered parking or in residents' parking zones. It is absolutely and entirely reasonable that taxpayers should NOT have to bear the cost of introducing and enforcing these regulations, but that the people who benefit from them should - i.e. that people who park at metered parking spaces should pay the charges there, and residents should pay for the benefit of residents' parking. Its another example of people wrongly claining rights that they are not entitled to without considering their responsbilities, and of the Echo getting hold of the wrong end of the stick to give the Council another misplaced, populist beating. Shame on you!

Richard wrote:
Its interesting to see how many people eroneously claim the right to park on the road. The Highways Act says that roads are for the passage of goods and vehicles and that ANY parking on them is technically an obstruction. This can be waived by the Council spending tax payers money to firstly establish and then enforce regulations that ALLOW parking in designated areas, either in the form of metered parking or in residents' parking zones. It is absolutely and entirely reasonable that taxpayers should NOT have to bear the cost of introducing and enforcing these regulations, but that the people who benefit from them should - i.e. that people who park at metered parking spaces should pay the charges there, and residents should pay for the benefit of residents' parking. Its another example of people wrongly claining rights that they are not entitled to without considering their responsbilities, and of the Echo getting hold of the wrong end of the stick to give the Council another misplaced, populist beating. Shame on you!

So who gave the original planning permission for the properties to be built with no parking?

And where did they expect them to park?

So do you expect someone who has lived in a house for 30 years and had free parking (as stated in the original plans) to now have to pay.

I do believe planning laws these days have to take into account parking when building houses/flats. So why should the older houses suffer?

Grrrrrrr wrote:

Richard wrote: Its interesting to see how many people eroneously claim the right to park on the road. The Highways Act says that roads are for the passage of goods and vehicles and that ANY parking on them is technically an obstruction. This can be waived by the Council spending tax payers money to firstly establish and then enforce regulations that ALLOW parking in designated areas, either in the form of metered parking or in residents' parking zones. It is absolutely and entirely reasonable that taxpayers should NOT have to bear the cost of introducing and enforcing these regulations, but that the people who benefit from them should - i.e. that people who park at metered parking spaces should pay the charges there, and residents should pay for the benefit of residents' parking. Its another example of people wrongly claining rights that they are not entitled to without considering their responsbilities, and of the Echo getting hold of the wrong end of the stick to give the Council another misplaced, populist beating. Shame on you!

So who gave the original planning permission for the properties to be built with no parking? And where did they expect them to park? So do you expect someone who has lived in a house for 30 years and had free parking (as stated in the original plans) to now have to pay. I do believe planning laws these days have to take into account parking when building houses/flats. So why should the older houses suffer?

Ask yourself the other question. Why should people who live in areas that DON'T benefit from residents' parking subsidise the parking in those areas by the people who do, which also deprives the people who don't live there of any chance to park in those areas. I don't expect the Council - i.e. other Council taxpayers - to subsidise a place on the street for my fridge because my kitchen isn't big enough for it, so why do you claim that right in respect of your car?

I do take your point but, at the same time the council have to take into consideration the lack of planning in the first place! You wouldn't build a housing estate with no parking would you?

Duh wrote:
I do take your point but, at the same time the council have to take into consideration the lack of planning in the first place! You wouldn\'t build a housing estate with no parking would you?

As far as I know, in most of the places that now need residents parking (and I don't deny the need, in today's society) the houses were built before cars were invented, so planning for cars at that time would have been a true marvel of foresight. Ever since then, anyone who decided to live there AND own a car did so in the knowledge that they would have to rely on someone else to provide a space for the car. Again, I say that it is absolutely NOT reasonable that "someone else", in this case other taxpayers, should pay for providing that space. The fact that the Council (wrongly, in my view) has chosen to penalise people NOT living in residents' parking zones by MAKING them pay for other peoples' parking until now doesn't make it wrong now for them to change their mind and bring in a more just policy.

Richard wrote:

Duh wrote: I do take your point but, at the same time the council have to take into consideration the lack of planning in the first place! You wouldn\\\\\\\'t build a housing estate with no parking would you?

As far as I know, in most of the places that now need residents parking (and I don\\\'t deny the need, in today\\\'s society) the houses were built before cars were invented, so planning for cars at that time would have been a true marvel of foresight. Ever since then, anyone who decided to live there AND own a car did so in the knowledge that they would have to rely on someone else to provide a space for the car. Again, I say that it is absolutely NOT reasonable that \\\"someone else\\\", in this case other taxpayers, should pay for providing that space. The fact that the Council (wrongly, in my view) has chosen to penalise people NOT living in residents\\\' parking zones by MAKING them pay for other peoples\\\' parking until now doesn\\\'t make it wrong now for them to change their mind and bring in a more just policy.

I live in the City and am fortunate enough to have ample parking on my property.

As a tax payer being taxed on every part of my car, why shouldn't I be allowed to park anywhere FREE. I pay tax on my fuel, I pay road tax, what more should I pay?

The next thing will be tax on stopping at a red light.

Where do we stop? Once they have finished taxing the car users, will they start on pedestrians?

Stuoid wrote:

Richard wrote:

Duh wrote: I do take your point but, at the same time the council have to take into consideration the lack of planning in the first place! You wouldn\\\\\\\'t build a housing estate with no parking would you?

As far as I know, in most of the places that now need residents parking (and I don\\\'t deny the need, in today\\\'s society) the houses were built before cars were invented, so planning for cars at that time would have been a true marvel of foresight. Ever since then, anyone who decided to live there AND own a car did so in the knowledge that they would have to rely on someone else to provide a space for the car. Again, I say that it is absolutely NOT reasonable that \\\"someone else\\\", in this case other taxpayers, should pay for providing that space. The fact that the Council (wrongly, in my view) has chosen to penalise people NOT living in residents\\\' parking zones by MAKING them pay for other peoples\\\' parking until now doesn\\\'t make it wrong now for them to change their mind and bring in a more just policy.

I live in the City and am fortunate enough to have ample parking on my property. As a tax payer being taxed on every part of my car, why shouldn't I be allowed to park anywhere FREE. I pay tax on my fuel, I pay road tax, what more should I pay? The next thing will be tax on stopping at a red light. Where do we stop? Once they have finished taxing the car users, will they start on pedestrians?

As I've pointed out above, it costs MONEY to provide car parking, whether metered on street, residents parking, or off-street car parks. The Council spends this money, so that people who choose to use their cars can park without causing illegal obstructions to the highway. The Council therefore either has to get the money it pays to provide car parking from Council taxpayers (some of whom won't ever use the car parks) or else it has to charge the people who use the car parks. Which do YOU think is fairer?

How does it cost money to provide on-street parking you muppet? The streets are maintained regardless! They simply narrow the roads and allow on street parking. The only difference is a parked car causes less damage than a moving one!

SO tell me how it costs money to allow on street parking? Other than the white lines they have to paint?

What a Muppet wrote:
How does it cost money to provide on-street parking you muppet? The streets are maintained regardless! They simply narrow the roads and allow on street parking. The only difference is a parked car causes less damage than a moving one! SO tell me how it costs money to allow on street parking? Other than the white lines they have to paint?

You are aptly named, "What a muppet". Try reading this carefully. The law (the Highways Act) says that generally roads are NOT to be used for parking. The Council can introduce a regulation that allows parking in certain places. A "regulation" is a piece of law and, as anyone knows who has ever dealt with the law, doing things that involve legal proceedings costs MONEY - usually lots of it. Once the regulation has been made, it has to be enforced, otherwise it was a WASTE of MONEY to make the regulation. Enforcement means that the Council has to employ people to go round and check that the people parking in the areas it has designated are entitled to park there, i.e. they have paid the metered charges or they have a permit for the residents parking zone. It costs MONEY to employ people to do this. If these people have to take enforcement action, that means issuing notices that have a legal effect, and so, like any other legal process, it costs MONEY. Of course it also costs a bit of MONEY to paint lines and put up signs, but that is, usually, the least of it. Please try to think just a little bit before you start being abusive AND displaying your ignorance.

Richard wrote:

What a Muppet wrote: How does it cost money to provide on-street parking you muppet? The streets are maintained regardless! They simply narrow the roads and allow on street parking. The only difference is a parked car causes less damage than a moving one! SO tell me how it costs money to allow on street parking? Other than the white lines they have to paint?

You are aptly named, "What a muppet". Try reading this carefully. The law (the Highways Act) says that generally roads are NOT to be used for parking. The Council can introduce a regulation that allows parking in certain places. A "regulation" is a piece of law and, as anyone knows who has ever dealt with the law, doing things that involve legal proceedings costs MONEY - usually lots of it. Once the regulation has been made, it has to be enforced, otherwise it was a WASTE of MONEY to make the regulation. Enforcement means that the Council has to employ people to go round and check that the people parking in the areas it has designated are entitled to park there, i.e. they have paid the metered charges or they have a permit for the residents parking zone. It costs MONEY to employ people to do this. If these people have to take enforcement action, that means issuing notices that have a legal effect, and so, like any other legal process, it costs MONEY. Of course it also costs a bit of MONEY to paint lines and put up signs, but that is, usually, the least of it. Please try to think just a little bit before you start being abusive AND displaying your ignorance.

Keep digging your hole!

I fail to see how the Council Tax payer who pays for the road surfaces and trees/plants etc can be affected by parking? Go out of town, you can park where you like (if you dare) why should City residents suffer. The only reason The City suffers is due to out of town people parking where they can free!

I pay council tax, car tax, Income tax, how many more taxes do you want?

It's all about MONEY Muppet!

What a Muppet wrote:

Richard wrote:

What a Muppet wrote: How does it cost money to provide on-street parking you muppet? The streets are maintained regardless! They simply narrow the roads and allow on street parking. The only difference is a parked car causes less damage than a moving one! SO tell me how it costs money to allow on street parking? Other than the white lines they have to paint?

You are aptly named, \"What a muppet\". Try reading this carefully. The law (the Highways Act) says that generally roads are NOT to be used for parking. The Council can introduce a regulation that allows parking in certain places. A \"regulation\" is a piece of law and, as anyone knows who has ever dealt with the law, doing things that involve legal proceedings costs MONEY - usually lots of it. Once the regulation has been made, it has to be enforced, otherwise it was a WASTE of MONEY to make the regulation. Enforcement means that the Council has to employ people to go round and check that the people parking in the areas it has designated are entitled to park there, i.e. they have paid the metered charges or they have a permit for the residents parking zone. It costs MONEY to employ people to do this. If these people have to take enforcement action, that means issuing notices that have a legal effect, and so, like any other legal process, it costs MONEY. Of course it also costs a bit of MONEY to paint lines and put up signs, but that is, usually, the least of it. Please try to think just a little bit before you start being abusive AND displaying your ignorance.

Keep digging your hole! I fail to see how the Council Tax payer who pays for the road surfaces and trees/plants etc can be affected by parking? Go out of town, you can park where you like (if you dare) why should City residents suffer. The only reason The City suffers is due to out of town people parking where they can free! I pay council tax, car tax, Income tax, how many more taxes do you want? It\'s all about MONEY Muppet!

It might have helped if you had read - better still understood, but that's obviously asking too much (as it usually is for people who resort to abuse as a first line of attack) - the rest of this correspondence, which covers all of the "points" you make. On one thing I agree with you - it IS all about money. Its about whether car users pay for the consequences of the use of their cars or whether other people do. Paying for using facilities provided by the Council at Council taxpayers' expense is not a "tax", its simply a payment for a service, and if the person who uses the service doesn't pay for it, then Council taxpayers have to.

May elections, the only weapon labour and liberal will understand.
Please Please please use your vote.
A little effort will work wonders.

Honour wrote:
May elections, the only weapon labour and liberal will understand. Please Please please use your vote. A little effort will work wonders.

This election is about more then car parking charges, this election is about the future direction that Southampton takes, does Southampton go down the road of cuts from the Conservatives or does this city make investments in key services? do pensioners have reduced use of their bus passes? (something the Conservatives wanted) Do children under 12 lose free swimming? (something which the Conservatives wanted to axe) Do we have reduced lesiure centre hours? another Conservative cut) Do we lose our football and cricket pitches? (yet another tory cut) I could go on and on... Investment from Labour or Cuts from the Conservatives

Lee Whitbread wrote:

Honour wrote: May elections, the only weapon labour and liberal will understand. Please Please please use your vote. A little effort will work wonders.

This election is about more then car parking charges, this election is about the future direction that Southampton takes, does Southampton go down the road of cuts from the Conservatives or does this city make investments in key services? do pensioners have reduced use of their bus passes? (something the Conservatives wanted) Do children under 12 lose free swimming? (something which the Conservatives wanted to axe) Do we have reduced lesiure centre hours? another Conservative cut) Do we lose our football and cricket pitches? (yet another tory cut) I could go on and on... Investment from Labour or Cuts from the Conservatives

Never mind about football pitches, cricket pitches, bus passes, free swimming, leisure centre cuts, FOCUS on the issue Mr Whitbread,
PARKING SCHEMES!
Typical political tactic, divert the discussion away from the real issue and make the residents wait 6 months in the hope you'll be elected by then.
NO CHANCE IF I'VE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!
I would rather spoil my vote than vote for Labour/Lib Dems you are an absolute shower. Good old Labour tax the hard grafters and bring up the wind of the indolent.

Lee Whitbread wrote:

Honour wrote: May elections, the only weapon labour and liberal will understand. Please Please please use your vote. A little effort will work wonders.

This election is about more then car parking charges, this election is about the future direction that Southampton takes, does Southampton go down the road of cuts from the Conservatives or does this city make investments in key services? do pensioners have reduced use of their bus passes? (something the Conservatives wanted) Do children under 12 lose free swimming? (something which the Conservatives wanted to axe) Do we have reduced lesiure centre hours? another Conservative cut) Do we lose our football and cricket pitches? (yet another tory cut) I could go on and on... Investment from Labour or Cuts from the Conservatives

As outlined in my earlier post Mr Whitbread, this is probably not the proper place to discuss leisure centre cuts, free swimming or for that matter any other issue. But while we're here, I live in Shirley and there have been numerous issues regarding planning, conversion of good family homes into HMO's and flats all of which contribute to the parking problems and you lot are contributing to the problem whilst formulating a policy with which to make us pay for your policy gaffes.
Incidentally, the only councillor who showed any interest in this was the conservative, she introduced herself and has made strenuous efforts on behalf of the residents.
Not only did we get no response from the rest of you, I don't even know who you are.
Presumably now that elections are just around the corner, you may appear at my door hoping for my vote, I think my reaction to you is better left imagined than described.

http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/news/behin
dheadlines/residents
parkingpermits.asp#0