Well, that's what they tell me. It's a reminder for when the postie goes out on his round rather than when it's being sorted, though. Some of them obviously have short memories.
I personally use Royal Mail less and less. It is uneconomic to use them for parcels these days.
Explained elsewhere!
We are not in flats.
Yes, it does. So does the stuff about roadworks, railway works (we are near the railway) and other actual letters.
I never suggested you were :-) I was describing my own situation. I doubt if your postie supports the same team as me although there is worldwide support.
Thanks. That makes sense.
Never thought of that. Thanks. ;-)
Just wait until we no longer have a supply of immigrant labour. RM will become competitive again. ;-)
well it needs to expire some time otherwise an incoming resident would never know it was activated
tim
+1 Our council also send out unaddressed letters - the last two were about planning permissions for a large block of flats nearby and the proposed plan to introduce residence parking permits[1]. [1] A few people living close to the railway station don't like people parking in front of their houses and so have lobbied for residents parking permits in their road and for many roads leading to the station. What they don't seem to realise is the permits cost £100/year and don't guarantee any parking places, nor that there will be enough parking spaces for the number of cars owned in the area. Some erroneously believe that the permit is for the space in front of their house. They may get a shock when they cannot park their own car in their street and cannot use adjacent streets because of a different permit.
Is there not a legal duty to notify planning applications to neighbouring properties (neighbour notification)? I suppose the issue is whether they should be addressed rather than unaddressed.
Are you sure they are posted by the council? In my experience, our council tend to send out their own staff with the leaflets to avoid the cost of postage. In that event, any preference expressed to Royal Mail would be irrelevant.
they don't have to cost 100 pound
many schemes work on costs far lower than that
why not, there presumably is at the moment? Otherwise where are all the cars parking?
zones are usually far wider than individual streets
tim
Ours is proposed to be £85.
Close to road junctions, overhanging road junctions, near lanes, double parked, you name it. In the (ungrammatical) words of the Council: 'Indiscriminate and obstructive parking practices affects access by emergency service, delivery and refuse collection vehicles and creates a road safety issue for vulnerable road users including pedestrians.'
I heard of that once. Guy used to sit with his hand on the horn until someone came out to move the vehicle in question. I think most people understand the meaning of 'zone'.
Indeed, ours is for a defined area.
alan_m posted
I am sure they are all perfectly well aware of all that (to the extent that it is true). However, they will feel that it is preferable to the current situation.
That seems unlikely, as the permit scheme will free up a lot more spaces by stopping commuters parking near the railway station.
Unless the problem is mainly at night (as it is here) then the absence or presence of commuters will be irrelevant and the question will be whether there are enough parking spaces for the permits issued.
As a permit payer it's my considered opinion that all CPZ's are a money raising scam. There are too many cars chasing to few parking spaces near stations. When a CPZ is introduced close to the station all that happens is that commuters move out to an outer ring. That is then CPZ'd as well. Until areas are reached which are beyond walking distance of a station.
CPZ's only operate for certain windows during the day so as to catch commuters 9-10 am and 4-5 pm on weekdays or similiar. The scale of the permit charges is determined by these. You'd imagine it would be cheaper the more windows there were, as they could catch more people but the opposite applies.
That means that people living in in CPZ's who use their cars for commuting can't take advantage of this prohibition as they're never usually there. All that happens is that the one or two times when they do park in the CPZ during a window, as a result of sickness or holidays they'll be hammered for ?90/?60 per offence unless they've anted-up the CPZ permit fee.
And then there's no guarentee that there'll be sufficient parking spaces for all the commuters who are ante-ing up for a permit when combined with more static parkers. All that happens is that selling people a permit imbues some of them with an unwarrented sense of entitlement which they'd never previously experienced.
Same as charging high prices in cinemas seems to imbue some people with the idea that they can act up like ****holes given they've paid so much for the priviledge; regardless of the effect on anyone else.
michael adams
...
but the issuing of the permits doesn't create the fact that 150 cars want to park in 100 spaces
If you have that problem afterwards you would have had it before
tim
so how should the problem of freeloading commuters be solved?
tim
Who has ever seriously suggested it *can* be solved *?
Didn't you understand the whole point of my post ?
There are too many cars chasing too few spaces. As I say above charging all residents living within walking distance of a station for a parking permit does nothing to solve that problem. It merely raises money for the councils. While moving the whole process on, to the next station out from the centre.
michael adams
...
I'm not suggesting it does. We do indeed have the problem now. My thesis is that there could be a resentment about having to pay an fee and not getting a parking space in return. People are generally more tolerant about free stuff than stuff they are paying for.
having a CPZ does solve it
but it does
It stops the residents having to compete with non residents for spaces
so, everybody gets a place to park. what's the problem
driving to the station in most of London is a daft thing to do. If you are going to do you journey by PT do the whole bloody journey by PT (Obviously there a few exceptions, but they are very limited)
The problem in London isn't people who drive to the station. It's people who drive all the way to work
No it doesn't. It simply moves the pool of commuter cars looking for somehere to park to stations further out from the centre of town
The only way it could ever be solved would be crushing all those cars, banning those drivers for life and ensuring those measures gained maximum publicity.
And in any case what "problem" does this actually solve ?
Commuters who travel into town by train will typically looking for somewhere to park between 7 - 8 a.m. So the only residents who could poossible lose their space to commuters would be people whose cars were already gone by 7 - 8 a.m
So what proportion of residents do you think that would actually apply to ?
And who would those be, do you think ?
Let's no say people with longer journeys than those commuters. Otherwise they wouldn't have had to leave earlier. But then then if we assume a normal working day then those commuters will already have returned and picked up their cars before the residents return home.
So who are you saying actually benefits ? Apart from this small number of resident/long distance commuters ?
Around my way, the only people agitating for a CPZ were people with dropped kerbs complaining about people blocking their drives. The lines were already in place but the council simply weren't interested in enforcement. However when these freeloaders suggested a CPZ to the Council, requiring everybody else but themselves to pay ?65 per year, the Council couldn't wait to get thing up and running fast enough. With all the usual tosh about deterring commuters. Which it did to the extent that they parked two streets away. So they got a CPZ too !
michael adams
...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.