| Home | Bookmark | Tell | Active petitions in over 75 countries | Follow GoPetition |
Petition Tag - car park
1. No to Blackheath Station Car Park Charges 
Network Rail have recently re-taken control of the car park at Blackheath station after the Lewisham Council's lease expired.
They now plan massive, inflation-busting rises in parking charges that threaten the vitality of local businesses and the farmers market, as well as demanding more from hard-pressed commuters who already face large rises in their train fares.
2. Save Parking in the Iffley Road
Oxfordshire County Council proposes to remove the parking bays along the Iffley Road from The Plain to Bullingdon Road in order to make way for a cycle lane.
This plan is permanent and the bays will be gone for good, not just during the current roadworks. This plan will result in
- The severe reduction of parking spaces for local residents, which will be especially grave during the proposed redevelopment of the St Clements' Car Park.
- The severe reduction of parking for customers of businesses in the area with the removal of short term parking bays in the Iffley Road.
- The dramatic increase in road noise and vibration caused by large vehicles passing much closer to the houses in the Iffley Road once the parking bays have been removed.
- The inevitable increase in speeding vehicles in the Iffley Road due to the removal of the parking bays which currently calm traffic and provide an effective chicane, in due course make cycling MORE dangerous not less.
Given that the proposed removal of the parking bays will only provide a cycle lane for a matter of a few hundred yards the overall improvement for cyclists will be minimal, yet it will also be at substantial cost to the already hard-pressed ratepayers of the borough.
Meanwhile the Iffley Road will be turned into a quarter mile straight which cars, buses and lorries can power down unimpeded, with one zebra crossing in the middle – an accident waiting to happen ?
3. Oppose the Redevelopment of St Clements Street Car Park
A planning application has been submitted to Oxford City Council for the redevelopment of St Clements Car Park to provide 4 blocks of student accommodation (141 bedrooms) upto 6 Stories in height.
The development will reduce the number of public car parking spaces from 113 to 63 and there no arrangements in place for the provision of a temporary car park during the estimated 12 - 15 month construction period. Businesses and other services in St Clements and Cowley Road, Iffley Road and the lower end of the High Street are totally dependent on the car park given that the only alternative is strictly controlled on-street permit only residential parking. The inability of customers to park within reasonable proximity will seriously undermine the ability of local businesses to survive, which will lead to the potential decline of what is a well established and vibrant area.
The proposals amount to a vast over development of the site. The amenity of adjacent properties would be adversely affected and the outlook towards the River Cherwell and Angel and Greyhound meadow beyond would be diminished. The design and scale of the buildings would have a harmful impact on the St Clements and Iffley Road Conservation Area and the adjacent Grade II listed James Stirling Florey Building and 27 St Clements Street. Trees which positively contribute to the site will be removed to facilitate the development and proposed new planting is entirely inadequate.
4. Protect Thomas Vale's legacy of a free car park for Stourport
In 1947, Thomas Vale and sons sold a piece of land to the council in Stourport for use as a free car park for residents of the town.
For many people who live in the narrow streets of Mitton, the car park is the only place where they can leave their cars. For worshippers at St Wulstans Catholic church next door, it is the only place to leave cars for services, funerals, christenings etc. For shoppers on Stourport’s beleaguered High Street, it is one of few places to park in the whole town.
Several times in the past, the borough and district councils of Stourport and Wyre Forest have tried to impose parking charges on the site but the local residents and the Vale family have always argued that it was handed over on the promise that it would always be free. The council has always backed down. The last time this battle was fought, the council agreed that it would only ever charge for the car park if a pedestrian crossing was built over Vale Road so that shoppers could more easily reach the town centre.
Now, Wyre Forest is dismissing those former gentlemen’s agreements and imposing charges. The Chief Executive has refuted claims by the Vale family about the use of the land and the Councillor in charge has posted an unsigned and incomplete contract from 1947 as “proof” that the council bought the land without any stipulations.
Meanwhile, the council has given permission for Tesco to build a giant supermarket with 300 parking spaces just far enough away from the town centre to ensure local business doesn’t benefit.
The charges they propose are, they say, in the interests of consistency and equity across Wyre Forest, yet they are twice as much as some other areas. Meanwhile, the residents of Mitton who have nowhere else to park are suddenly being landed with a stealth tax of £260 per year for a permit – double the price of Residents Parking Permits in Central London. Notably, this was not included in the public consultation documents for the parking review, so most residents were unaware that they had a right to complain.
We believe that Thomas Vale gave over the land because he wanted it to be for the benefit of residents and businesses, not for the profiteering of the council.
We believe that there is nothing fair or equitable about forcing residents to pay £260 per year when they have no choice about where they leave their cars at night.
We believe that imposing charges on shoppers for the High Street when Tesco shoppers park for free poses a threat to the economy of the town.
We further believe that the public consultation was not given proper prominence or clarity and that the public have not been given fair opportunity to express their views. The council will finally vote on this matter towards the end of September and we urge people to write to council officers, councillors and the press to complain, as well as placing their signatures on this petition.
5. Hands off the land at Stonebridge City Farm
Stonebridge City Farm is being pressured by the city council to give up of 10% of the farms land as a condition of renewing the lease for the farm. The council wants the land to be used by the farms neighbours to park cars in front of their houses.
A Facebook about this situation has been created and can be found at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=247195272869
After a "consultation" with 31 neighbours next to the farm it is said that 15 neighbours wanted this parking scheme. Were the 10,000 visitors to the farm last year consulted? It appears not...
Stonebridge City Farm has been developed under often stressful conditions to get funding over many years. A lot of work and commitment has gone into bringing green skills and values into the city. It encourages local food growing and draws in vulnerable people into that task. The city council should be really grateful for that. It should be celebrating that. Yet they seem to take it for granted and are now acting in a way that undermines it. It appears that they think nothing of undermining the work of generations of people. Stonebridge City Farm is an institution whose longevity against the funding odds is to be congratulated, not cut back for car parks.
The City Council tells us that it supports sustainability, it assures us that it is working against climate change. We are led to believe that you are working to help prepare the people of Nottingham for peak oil. It passes resolutions. It styles itself as the place which issued the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change. It should live up to its words.
The development of local urban food sources, skilling up local people and drawing in vulnerable people are all a major part of giving tangible expression to what needs to be done in the face of energy problems in the future. Nottingham needs all the community gardens it can get and the city council should be giving them all the support that it can. That means giving them secure tenancies and not undermining their long run security. They are vital to the future of the city, to training in DIY cultivation and food skills, for setting examples to people which will ultimately be key to the maintenance of public health in this city. Around the city Transition Groups are trying to encourage local food growing and community gardens. This is not the message that the city council should be sending out - that after the effort has been put in over many years they will think nothing of putting people's work under tarmac.
They want to take this land away to develop a car park! What does this tell us? It tells us that the City Council have a shallow understanding of climate change and peak oil and the important of secure places to cultivate in the city. It tells us that the city council are not reliable partners. It tells people that if they spend years of time and effort developing a community garden politicians can and will undermine their work if it seems expedient to do so - so why should they bother? It is a very ugly and discouraging message and we want it changed.
6. Having Kids Isn't Really A Disability
Westfield Hornsby is currently completing an upgrade for some but a downgrade for many on their parking facilities. They are increasing the number of “Parking with Prams” car parking spots from a small few to half levels of these specific places.
In the past, disabled parking spots were put in shopping centres near the entrances to allow for easy access for disabled people. In the recent years it seams that the “Parking with Prams” spots are becoming increasingly popular.
A number of shopping centres used to require the display of a permit for parents with prams, however it seems in the new spots at Hornsby, they are not even enforcing a permit. Westfield are making it increasingly easier for mums with young children to go shopping at their centres and inconveniencing all the other shoppers who think that they can’t park in these places. All the normal parking places are very often full, and there are tens of “Parking with Prams” spots available. At Hornsby, they are now even installing electronic signs to indicate where and how many “Parking with Prams” spots are available.
A reason that pops to mind when I think about why they are introducing these new spots is that mums with young children are big spenders. They want to get out of the house, so they go shopping. The children are always growing so they go shopping for new clothes. They seem to grab things off the shelf because it is cute and they’d love it for the baby. It seems to me as though Westfield are providing these spots to the people who bring in the most money. From a profit aspect, this is a great idea, however they are irritating many other customers who don’t have young children, because they can’t find ordinary parking spots. Surely this would drive many other shoppers away, which would lead to a drop in business eventually.
What Westfield is doing is showing the shoppers who they are really wanting to look after. They are not providing many spots at all for disabled people, in fact some of the “Parking with Prams” spots are closer to the entrance than the disabled spots. People are not disabled by children whatsoever. They chose to have children and they chose to take on the responsibility of looking after children whilst still completing all the day to day tasks. Disabled people did not choose to be disabled. People who are disabled should be provided with the necessary facilities so they can go to the shops and do what they want to do without feeling as though it is going to be difficult for them to utilise the centre.
Maybe instead of introducing more and more “Parking with Prams” spots, Westfield can think about some of their other customers and provide extra disabled parking spots. I don’t think approximately 4 or 5 disabled spots surrounded by around 40 or 50 “Parking with Prams” spots is very reasonable at all.
7. Save North Beach Car Park from Closure
We the petitioners call upon Fylde Borough Council to reverse their decision of closing and selling off for development the North Beach Car Park and request that they choose instead to retain the Car Park for the benefit of the People and the Environment.
The Car Park is the only Car Park in the Fylde giving year round access to the beach for all classes of beach user.
Throughout the year the Car Park is used by residents of the borough and visitors who come to take in the stunning views and fresh air and sun.
Some bring their dogs, some bring horses and others just walk by themselves or in groups.
Several TV and film companies have used the location which helps spread the message that the Fylde has great things to offer its visitors and residents.
Kite enthusiasts can often be spotted taking to the air either with small stunt kites or with large powerfoil chutes.
The Car Park is also used by the Local Coastguard and Emergency Services for practice drills. Many horse owners use the Car Park for their horse boxes and regular users include the Police and Army Units.
The location is adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest which provides a rare example of a living maritime dunes system replete with wildlife. The Car Park is important in providing controlled access to the beach and ensuring that the majority of visitors do not encroach on the SSSI area.
The immediate area is low lying classified as at high risk of flooding by the Environment Agency and the Car Park provides a barrier between the sea and local houses and roads. At times of high tide in normal conditions the sea level can almost reaches the car park ground level.
There is no other off road parking in the immediate area and the adjacent road is a main A Road with Yellow Lines and Hazard Markings along most of its length.
Fylde Borough Council wish to develop the Car Park to raise funds to build a New Town Hall, but this plan is flawed as there is talk of the Council merging with neighbouring Wyre Council and they have already started operational role sharing which will result in the loss of Council Jobs locally, thus the need for a New Town Hall is not proven.
The cost of building the New Town Hall is variously estimated at between £5Million and £10Million depending upon which officer or councillor is speaking but at the same time the Council Leader is on record as saying that the Council will be bankrupted by providing free transport for pensioners.
Another reason for building the New Town Hall is to reduce the cost of hiring external rooms, the cost in the last two years for hiring rooms was just £5000.
We beseech our local councillors to reconsider their decision. If they do not retain this much loved asset of North Beach Car Park they will forever deprive visitors and residents of this fantastic amenity.
8. Improve the Countryside and Save It From Destruction
In Croft, there have been many plans to open it up and improve it but so far, all have been thwarted by people intent on keeping it what it is on the flimsy pretext of 'protecting the green belt'. The most recent plan is to re-open the station - a plan that would vastly improve the area. Why? Because they claim that it would involve building a car park to fit 5000 cars. How likely is it that any place that gets (at most) 350 cars a day would build a car park that would leave at least 4000 spaces empty every day? It is almost impossible! The objectors base their claim on environmental issues but I challenge that. If there was a station, there would be less cars on the road. Were there less cars, two things would happen; there would be less pollution and there would be less demand for new roads. By keeping the station shut these people are forcing more cars onto the roads. This means that new roads will have to be built as the existing ones cannot cope with the ammounts of traffic. Building new roads will take up even more green belt than the small space needed for a car park. The car park will not be an eyesore as it will surely be small - it cannot be any otherwise! Even if you do not care about a small village that you probably have not heard of, the environment affects everybody, and it is all of our duty to protect it in whatever way we can. The only way to stop the whole country from being covered in motorways and otherwise trashed is to open it up now - starting with the stations!
