New parking charges to take effect in Bushey Heath

a

a

First published in News Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

On street car parking enforcement is being introduced in Bushey Heath for the first time to aid traffic flow and increase vehicle turnaround outside local shops.

Motorists can still park on the side of the road in the High Road in Bushey with a ticket for half an hour for free, but any stay over an hour will be 20p.  This will take effect from next Monday.

Car parking charges are set to change slightly in other parts of Hertsmere, including in the two council-run car parks in Bushey Heath, with slight increases being implemented from August 1.  The cost of some car parking permits will also increase slightly.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:57am Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

When was the election?

Oh, last week. That explains the timing.
When was the election? Oh, last week. That explains the timing. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -7

11:55am Thu 29 May 14

garston tony says...

I dont get it, if you can still park there how is this easing traffic flow?

The only change is that after a certain time you'll have to pay, those the drive off before this time will only be freeing up a spot for the next driver who wants to park.
I dont get it, if you can still park there how is this easing traffic flow? The only change is that after a certain time you'll have to pay, those the drive off before this time will only be freeing up a spot for the next driver who wants to park. garston tony
  • Score: 2

12:00pm Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Motorists = money.

It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act.

It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford.
Motorists = money. It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act. It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

3:02pm Thu 29 May 14

garston tony says...

I was thinking the money making exercise angle too but at 20p per hour they are not going to make a fortune are they! Probably barely enough to cover the cost of enforcing it
I was thinking the money making exercise angle too but at 20p per hour they are not going to make a fortune are they! Probably barely enough to cover the cost of enforcing it garston tony
  • Score: 7

3:45pm Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
I was thinking the money making exercise angle too but at 20p per hour they are not going to make a fortune are they! Probably barely enough to cover the cost of enforcing it
I know, it's pretty pathetic financially, it looks petty.

Maybe this is the thin end of the wedge.

Where will it end and what is wrong with free parking?
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I was thinking the money making exercise angle too but at 20p per hour they are not going to make a fortune are they! Probably barely enough to cover the cost of enforcing it[/p][/quote]I know, it's pretty pathetic financially, it looks petty. Maybe this is the thin end of the wedge. Where will it end and what is wrong with free parking? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -7

4:24pm Thu 29 May 14

D_Penn says...

garston tony wrote:
I was thinking the money making exercise angle too but at 20p per hour they are not going to make a fortune are they! Probably barely enough to cover the cost of enforcing it
It's the old ramp up con.

If they'd brought it in at £1 there would be a noticable outcry. At 20p everyone thinks, 'Oh, it's only 20p, not worth an argument.'

Then next year it will be 30p, 'Only 10p more.' so people will accept it - even though at 50%, it will be an increase more than 15 times that of inflation. In just a few short years we'll all find ourselves paying £1:50 or even £2.

Any bets against?
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I was thinking the money making exercise angle too but at 20p per hour they are not going to make a fortune are they! Probably barely enough to cover the cost of enforcing it[/p][/quote]It's the old ramp up con. If they'd brought it in at £1 there would be a noticable outcry. At 20p everyone thinks, 'Oh, it's only 20p, not worth an argument.' Then next year it will be 30p, 'Only 10p more.' so people will accept it - even though at 50%, it will be an increase more than 15 times that of inflation. In just a few short years we'll all find ourselves paying £1:50 or even £2. Any bets against? D_Penn
  • Score: -2

7:14pm Thu 29 May 14

WatfordAlex says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Motorists = money.

It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act.

It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford.
I guess it was naive to hope that losing the elections might make you question some of your prejudices...

Look Phil, I know you guys are supremely paranoid that the world is against you, but sometime they are not. This scheme represents pragmatic management of a finite resource. Some local shopping parades suffer badly from their limited parking getting blocked up with non-shopper parking (commuters etc). Having a nominal charge for people using the spaces for more than 30 minutes mean people driving to the shops can find a space, while putting off all day parkers. It's really very simple.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Motorists = money. It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act. It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford.[/p][/quote]I guess it was naive to hope that losing the elections might make you question some of your prejudices... Look Phil, I know you guys are supremely paranoid that the world is against you, but sometime they are not. This scheme represents pragmatic management of a finite resource. Some local shopping parades suffer badly from their limited parking getting blocked up with non-shopper parking (commuters etc). Having a nominal charge for people using the spaces for more than 30 minutes mean people driving to the shops can find a space, while putting off all day parkers. It's really very simple. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 8

7:27pm Thu 29 May 14

Feel Coax says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Motorists = money.

It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act.

It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford.
I guess it was naive to hope that losing the elections might make you question some of your prejudices...

Look Phil, I know you guys are supremely paranoid that the world is against you, but sometime they are not. This scheme represents pragmatic management of a finite resource. Some local shopping parades suffer badly from their limited parking getting blocked up with non-shopper parking (commuters etc). Having a nominal charge for people using the spaces for more than 30 minutes mean people driving to the shops can find a space, while putting off all day parkers. It's really very simple.
Here here
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Motorists = money. It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act. It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford.[/p][/quote]I guess it was naive to hope that losing the elections might make you question some of your prejudices... Look Phil, I know you guys are supremely paranoid that the world is against you, but sometime they are not. This scheme represents pragmatic management of a finite resource. Some local shopping parades suffer badly from their limited parking getting blocked up with non-shopper parking (commuters etc). Having a nominal charge for people using the spaces for more than 30 minutes mean people driving to the shops can find a space, while putting off all day parkers. It's really very simple.[/p][/quote]Here here Feel Coax
  • Score: 7

7:39pm Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Not at all Alex, I just question why you need to manage this by taxing people instead of just putting a time restriction on the parking. Much simpler.

Both would have the same effect on traffic, only one would be free.

We come at this from different angles. UKIP believe in taxing people as little as possible and not cashing in on car owners by charging them unnecessarily for parking.
Not at all Alex, I just question why you need to manage this by taxing people instead of just putting a time restriction on the parking. Much simpler. Both would have the same effect on traffic, only one would be free. We come at this from different angles. UKIP believe in taxing people as little as possible and not cashing in on car owners by charging them unnecessarily for parking. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -9

1:04pm Fri 30 May 14

Andrew1963 says...

garston tony wrote:
I dont get it, if you can still park there how is this easing traffic flow?

The only change is that after a certain time you'll have to pay, those the drive off before this time will only be freeing up a spot for the next driver who wants to park.
I agree you would think they would make the off street car parks (there are two in Bushey Heath) cheaper than parking on the road - if it is about traffic flow. When they introduced parking charges in the car parks the amount of on street double parking increased to the point where you really did have to wait in a queue to get around parked cars. While ranting about double parking, can Spar in Bushey village please arrange their deliveries to after the morning rush hour?
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I dont get it, if you can still park there how is this easing traffic flow? The only change is that after a certain time you'll have to pay, those the drive off before this time will only be freeing up a spot for the next driver who wants to park.[/p][/quote]I agree you would think they would make the off street car parks (there are two in Bushey Heath) cheaper than parking on the road - if it is about traffic flow. When they introduced parking charges in the car parks the amount of on street double parking increased to the point where you really did have to wait in a queue to get around parked cars. While ranting about double parking, can Spar in Bushey village please arrange their deliveries to after the morning rush hour? Andrew1963
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Fri 30 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Three votes against less tax, two votes in favour of more tax.

Why do I get the feeling that these comment boards are dominated by the politicians themselves, the councillors, posting under false names?

Because no-one but politicians of the LibLabCon think that higher taxes are a good thing.

It's high time the tired old politicians and their politics were removed from power by those who pay taxes, the voters.
Three votes against less tax, two votes in favour of more tax. Why do I get the feeling that these comment boards are dominated by the politicians themselves, the councillors, posting under false names? Because no-one but politicians of the LibLabCon think that higher taxes are a good thing. It's high time the tired old politicians and their politics were removed from power by those who pay taxes, the voters. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -9

7:04pm Fri 30 May 14

WatfordAlex says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Three votes against less tax, two votes in favour of more tax.

Why do I get the feeling that these comment boards are dominated by the politicians themselves, the councillors, posting under false names?

Because no-one but politicians of the LibLabCon think that higher taxes are a good thing.

It's high time the tired old politicians and their politics were removed from power by those who pay taxes, the voters.
But it's not more tax is it Phil. It is a charge for using a service to ensure that a limited resource is available for people who need to use it. The East Coast Mainline is currently publically owned - is it a 'tax' if I buy a train ticket for that line? Clearly not.

Your party has called speed cameras a 'tax' in the past, but again they are nothing of the sort. They are a fine for breaking the law; not a tax. If you rob a local shop and get arrested and fined are you being 'taxed'? Again, obviously not.

The reason your party got less than 10% of the population voting for them the other day (some 'earthquake') and still don't run a single council or have a single MP is because most people realise your a lot of pub bores who just rant mindlessly and don't understand the real world.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Three votes against less tax, two votes in favour of more tax. Why do I get the feeling that these comment boards are dominated by the politicians themselves, the councillors, posting under false names? Because no-one but politicians of the LibLabCon think that higher taxes are a good thing. It's high time the tired old politicians and their politics were removed from power by those who pay taxes, the voters.[/p][/quote]But it's not more tax is it Phil. It is a charge for using a service to ensure that a limited resource is available for people who need to use it. The East Coast Mainline is currently publically owned - is it a 'tax' if I buy a train ticket for that line? Clearly not. Your party has called speed cameras a 'tax' in the past, but again they are nothing of the sort. They are a fine for breaking the law; not a tax. If you rob a local shop and get arrested and fined are you being 'taxed'? Again, obviously not. The reason your party got less than 10% of the population voting for them the other day (some 'earthquake') and still don't run a single council or have a single MP is because most people realise your a lot of pub bores who just rant mindlessly and don't understand the real world. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 8

10:11pm Fri 30 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

So, basically, it's another tax on the motorist then?

No matter how you spin it Alex, it's another local tax.

Why don't you sit down and try to work out a way of cutting taxes instead of increasing them?

That's what UKIP do.
So, basically, it's another tax on the motorist then? No matter how you spin it Alex, it's another local tax. Why don't you sit down and try to work out a way of cutting taxes instead of increasing them? That's what UKIP do. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -8

10:47pm Fri 30 May 14

WatfordAlex says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
So, basically, it's another tax on the motorist then?

No matter how you spin it Alex, it's another local tax.

Why don't you sit down and try to work out a way of cutting taxes instead of increasing them?

That's what UKIP do.
No Phil. Again you are demonstrating that when you read something that conflicts with your narrow world view your brain goes 'la la la I can't hear you'. It is a evidence based charge to better manage a limited public resource. The charge does not apply to people using the space in a manner that benefits the adjacent private businesses. It's a 'common sense' solution in that it benefits the 'common' (i.e. majority) of people.

As i'm not a politician (otherwise, why am I complementing the tory run council after saying positive things about 3 other political parties) I do not need to work out ways of cutting taxes. In any case UKIP don't cut taxes because they don't run any authority and therefore don't have the ability to alter tax rates!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: So, basically, it's another tax on the motorist then? No matter how you spin it Alex, it's another local tax. Why don't you sit down and try to work out a way of cutting taxes instead of increasing them? That's what UKIP do.[/p][/quote]No Phil. Again you are demonstrating that when you read something that conflicts with your narrow world view your brain goes 'la la la I can't hear you'. It is a evidence based charge to better manage a limited public resource. The charge does not apply to people using the space in a manner that benefits the adjacent private businesses. It's a 'common sense' solution in that it benefits the 'common' (i.e. majority) of people. As i'm not a politician (otherwise, why am I complementing the tory run council after saying positive things about 3 other political parties) I do not need to work out ways of cutting taxes. In any case UKIP don't cut taxes because they don't run any authority and therefore don't have the ability to alter tax rates! WatfordAlex
  • Score: 6

11:13pm Fri 30 May 14

LSC says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Motorists = money.

It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act.

It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford.
I guess it was naive to hope that losing the elections might make you question some of your prejudices...

Look Phil, I know you guys are supremely paranoid that the world is against you, but sometime they are not. This scheme represents pragmatic management of a finite resource. Some local shopping parades suffer badly from their limited parking getting blocked up with non-shopper parking (commuters etc). Having a nominal charge for people using the spaces for more than 30 minutes mean people driving to the shops can find a space, while putting off all day parkers. It's really very simple.
Commuters? On the High Road on Bushey Heath? To and from where, and how? Nearest tube is Stanmore, nearest overground down in Oxhey. Airport would be Heathrow, but I don't know of helipads. Bus routes are the same as the rest of Bushey that has free parking.

This whole thing was brought about because a local garage filled a free car park with it's used car stock without paying rent.

Chase them, not the public.

Yes the charge will go up and up, making a trip to Tescos in Watford even more attractive with it's free parking, rather than local shops.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Motorists = money. It's too easy a target for councils to ignore. Once one gets away with it they all want in on the act. It's just greed. Yet another tax, but just on motorists, who deserve it for driving their dirty polluting cars around. It's all part of the LibLabCon and something we wanted to change in Watford.[/p][/quote]I guess it was naive to hope that losing the elections might make you question some of your prejudices... Look Phil, I know you guys are supremely paranoid that the world is against you, but sometime they are not. This scheme represents pragmatic management of a finite resource. Some local shopping parades suffer badly from their limited parking getting blocked up with non-shopper parking (commuters etc). Having a nominal charge for people using the spaces for more than 30 minutes mean people driving to the shops can find a space, while putting off all day parkers. It's really very simple.[/p][/quote]Commuters? On the High Road on Bushey Heath? To and from where, and how? Nearest tube is Stanmore, nearest overground down in Oxhey. Airport would be Heathrow, but I don't know of helipads. Bus routes are the same as the rest of Bushey that has free parking. This whole thing was brought about because a local garage filled a free car park with it's used car stock without paying rent. Chase them, not the public. Yes the charge will go up and up, making a trip to Tescos in Watford even more attractive with it's free parking, rather than local shops. LSC
  • Score: -7

12:10am Sat 31 May 14

Andrew1963 says...

Yep and other local business owners parking all day in the other car park, so no space for customers to the opticians and other shopsb you need to spend more than 10 minutes at. Free parking for 90 minutes would do the trick
Yep and other local business owners parking all day in the other car park, so no space for customers to the opticians and other shopsb you need to spend more than 10 minutes at. Free parking for 90 minutes would do the trick Andrew1963
  • Score: -3

6:59am Sat 31 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

See Alex?

New parking taxes will put off shopping and negatively affect local shops. Basically, they're a bad idea.

What is more important, supporting local economies or raising a few pounds in tax?

The people know the answer without even having to think about it. Isn't it about time the politicians found out too?

Out of touch politiicians. Who needs them?
See Alex? New parking taxes will put off shopping and negatively affect local shops. Basically, they're a bad idea. What is more important, supporting local economies or raising a few pounds in tax? The people know the answer without even having to think about it. Isn't it about time the politicians found out too? Out of touch politiicians. Who needs them? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -8

2:18pm Sat 31 May 14

WatfordAlex says...

Andrew and LSC. You may well be right about the other car parks but the fact remains that this scheme means it is free to park for 30 minutes which is ample time to nip into a local shop to pick up some stuff. The article does not make it clear how the charge works for 30-60 mins, but says it is 20p for over an hour. It's only 20p FFS - if people are willing to spend several pounds in petrol to drive to somewhere else to save 20p then more fool them!

I used 'commuters' as an example of why you might need to manage parking in a location like this. Your right that it is unlikely to be commuters blocking up the parking here, but something is causing a bunch of people to block up the shops parking, so the exact cause is kind of irrelevant.

And Phil, you still just don't get it. The shops will support this because it means passing customers can find a space when they want to nip in.As has long since been pointed out, the charges are so low that they will put off all day parkers preventing access to the shops but will not raise any meaningful income (I strongly doubt this will even break even).
Andrew and LSC. You may well be right about the other car parks but the fact remains that this scheme means it is free to park for 30 minutes which is ample time to nip into a local shop to pick up some stuff. The article does not make it clear how the charge works for 30-60 mins, but says it is 20p for over an hour. It's only 20p FFS - if people are willing to spend several pounds in petrol to drive to somewhere else to save 20p then more fool them! I used 'commuters' as an example of why you might need to manage parking in a location like this. Your right that it is unlikely to be commuters blocking up the parking here, but something is causing a bunch of people to block up the shops parking, so the exact cause is kind of irrelevant. And Phil, you still just don't get it. The shops will support this because it means passing customers can find a space when they want to nip in.As has long since been pointed out, the charges are so low that they will put off all day parkers preventing access to the shops but will not raise any meaningful income (I strongly doubt this will even break even). WatfordAlex
  • Score: 7

2:44pm Sat 31 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

WatfordAlex, it is you who simply does not get it.

You can achieve the same result without charging. You simply put the same or better time limits on the parking spaces without charges.

It's so simple, I am wondering why you are having problems with the concept.
WatfordAlex, it is you who simply does not get it. You can achieve the same result without charging. You simply put the same or better time limits on the parking spaces without charges. It's so simple, I am wondering why you are having problems with the concept. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -6

4:57pm Sat 31 May 14

D_Penn says...

WatfordAlex keeps bleating on about parking being a limited resource.

Well, in the place in question, it didn't used to be a limited resource, so ask yourself what has changed. You may come to the conclusion that it is related to increased pressure on that resource caused by continual building in Watford.

It's thesame old problem caused because the blinkered LibDems are in charge. Their philosophy is build, build, build regardless of whether the infrastructure is there or not to take so many extra people.

They will continue stuffing people in and then when parking charges, as I predict, are crippling, WatfordAlex will still be arguing that parking spaces are premium as justification.

The same problem applies for traffic queues, school places, hospital queues, doctors, dentists, etc.

Just how daft do you have to be to carry on creating more problems before the message goes home that Watford is FULL!
WatfordAlex keeps bleating on about parking being a limited resource. Well, in the place in question, it didn't used to be a limited resource, so ask yourself what has changed. You may come to the conclusion that it is related to increased pressure on that resource caused by continual building in Watford. It's thesame old problem caused because the blinkered LibDems are in charge. Their philosophy is build, build, build regardless of whether the infrastructure is there or not to take so many extra people. They will continue stuffing people in and then when parking charges, as I predict, are crippling, WatfordAlex will still be arguing that parking spaces are premium as justification. The same problem applies for traffic queues, school places, hospital queues, doctors, dentists, etc. Just how daft do you have to be to carry on creating more problems before the message goes home that Watford is FULL! D_Penn
  • Score: -5

6:50pm Sun 1 Jun 14

WatfordAlex says...

Phil: You really are a genius, except how do you enforce that time limit...except with a fine...which is kind of like a parking charge...which is what they are introducing. Unless of course you are proposing that a man stands permanently on site managing these spaces, because that would really be an efficient use of public money!

David: Bushey is not in Watford and the relevant council has been run by the Conservative Party for a very long while. It's little facts like this that torpedo your little rants.
Phil: You really are a genius, except how do you enforce that time limit...except with a fine...which is kind of like a parking charge...which is what they are introducing. Unless of course you are proposing that a man stands permanently on site managing these spaces, because that would really be an efficient use of public money! David: Bushey is not in Watford and the relevant council has been run by the Conservative Party for a very long while. It's little facts like this that torpedo your little rants. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 5

10:35pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Thank you Alex but really no genius is required.

Look at this like this. there will be some sort of a parking restriction.

It will need policing of some sort, maybe regular, maybe infrequent, that is irrelevant to the argument.

The argument is this. A parking restriction needs enforcing, whether the parking restriction in question is a paid for one or just one that restricts free parking to a period of time.

It requires exactly the same enforcement, so whether it is paid parking or free parking is actually irrelevant. It takes the same policing.

There is therefore a clear choice when putting in a parking scheme like this. Whether to charge for it or not. It costs the same to introduce and police, the council just has to decide whether it wants to make money from it or offer it as a free service, although hardly free as motorists pay more taxes than non-motorists in the first place.

I hope that is clear enough.
Thank you Alex but really no genius is required. Look at this like this. there will be some sort of a parking restriction. It will need policing of some sort, maybe regular, maybe infrequent, that is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is this. A parking restriction needs enforcing, whether the parking restriction in question is a paid for one or just one that restricts free parking to a period of time. It requires exactly the same enforcement, so whether it is paid parking or free parking is actually irrelevant. It takes the same policing. There is therefore a clear choice when putting in a parking scheme like this. Whether to charge for it or not. It costs the same to introduce and police, the council just has to decide whether it wants to make money from it or offer it as a free service, although hardly free as motorists pay more taxes than non-motorists in the first place. I hope that is clear enough. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

11:07pm Sun 1 Jun 14

D_Penn says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Phil: You really are a genius, except how do you enforce that time limit...except with a fine...which is kind of like a parking charge...which is what they are introducing. Unless of course you are proposing that a man stands permanently on site managing these spaces, because that would really be an efficient use of public money! David: Bushey is not in Watford and the relevant council has been run by the Conservative Party for a very long while. It's little facts like this that torpedo your little rants.
Actually, it reinforces it.

It does not matter where you live, new housing is being crammed in everywhere. LibDem, Conservative, Labour; they are all the same.

Higher parking charges are just one minute symptom of many whose source is an overpopulation problem which is not being addressed by the main parties. The birth rate has risen and, with more divorces and people living alone, the pressure on housing and other infrastructure has been increasing. These two problems are not easy to resolve.

What has made the situation much, much worse is, of course, the additional pressure caused by uncontrolled mass immigration. It is manageable but the three old parties, enslaved to the EU, refuse to do anything other than trying to sweep the problems under the carpet rather than accept the obvious that free movement of people across the continent is creating massive resourcing problems.

At local level we see it clearly putting pressure on housing, jobs, wages, schools, the NHS, roads and yes, parking. And before some idiot tries to say anyone against mass immigration is racist, just remember that the effects of overpopulation creates the same problems for immigrants just as much as the indigenous population. Bad planning, or, as in the case of open-door migration, no planning, is not civilised. It is anarchy and it damages peoples lives.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: Phil: You really are a genius, except how do you enforce that time limit...except with a fine...which is kind of like a parking charge...which is what they are introducing. Unless of course you are proposing that a man stands permanently on site managing these spaces, because that would really be an efficient use of public money! David: Bushey is not in Watford and the relevant council has been run by the Conservative Party for a very long while. It's little facts like this that torpedo your little rants.[/p][/quote]Actually, it reinforces it. It does not matter where you live, new housing is being crammed in everywhere. LibDem, Conservative, Labour; they are all the same. Higher parking charges are just one minute symptom of many whose source is an overpopulation problem which is not being addressed by the main parties. The birth rate has risen and, with more divorces and people living alone, the pressure on housing and other infrastructure has been increasing. These two problems are not easy to resolve. What has made the situation much, much worse is, of course, the additional pressure caused by uncontrolled mass immigration. It is manageable but the three old parties, enslaved to the EU, refuse to do anything other than trying to sweep the problems under the carpet rather than accept the obvious that free movement of people across the continent is creating massive resourcing problems. At local level we see it clearly putting pressure on housing, jobs, wages, schools, the NHS, roads and yes, parking. And before some idiot tries to say anyone against mass immigration is racist, just remember that the effects of overpopulation creates the same problems for immigrants just as much as the indigenous population. Bad planning, or, as in the case of open-door migration, no planning, is not civilised. It is anarchy and it damages peoples lives. D_Penn
  • Score: -2

10:41am Mon 2 Jun 14

merryhill says...

Like any motorist I'm not keen on unnecessary parking charges but frequently I have been unable to park in Bushey Heath and local shops loose my custom because of this. Day one of new parking restrictions and I found a space much easier this morning than usual and did my shopping comfortably within the 30 minute free parking allowance (though I doubt the 20p charge will put off the typically affluent local residents). Hopefully there will be some enforcement of the disabled parking bays frequently selfishly used by non badge holders.
Like any motorist I'm not keen on unnecessary parking charges but frequently I have been unable to park in Bushey Heath and local shops loose my custom because of this. Day one of new parking restrictions and I found a space much easier this morning than usual and did my shopping comfortably within the 30 minute free parking allowance (though I doubt the 20p charge will put off the typically affluent local residents). Hopefully there will be some enforcement of the disabled parking bays frequently selfishly used by non badge holders. merryhill
  • Score: 4

2:26pm Mon 2 Jun 14

davidhornet says...

I agree with Merryhill. Great improvement today. The key benefit in having to get a ticket, even for the free 30 mins, is that traffic wardens can see when someone arrived and fine them if they go over time or have no ticket. The selfish use of these parking spaces and disabled spaces needed to be tackled. You cannot control free 1 hour parking without tickets.
I agree with Merryhill. Great improvement today. The key benefit in having to get a ticket, even for the free 30 mins, is that traffic wardens can see when someone arrived and fine them if they go over time or have no ticket. The selfish use of these parking spaces and disabled spaces needed to be tackled. You cannot control free 1 hour parking without tickets. davidhornet
  • Score: 3

2:35pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Free one hour parking is offered at a huge number of sites without tickets.

If anything, it would be the norm.
Free one hour parking is offered at a huge number of sites without tickets. If anything, it would be the norm. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

3:07pm Mon 2 Jun 14

davidhornet says...

Phil Cox what is your point. Have you ever seen the parking in Bushey Heath. You NEED to know when these selfish drivers arrive to enforce it or they leave their cars there all day preventing shoppers from parking. Alternatively you would need someone patrolling all day taking photos and/or writing down reg numbers and arrival times of all cars. Which offers the only practical solution? What do you do exactly apart from losing elections and posting on here? You really are a patronising idiot so would make an ideal politician if elected.
Phil Cox what is your point. Have you ever seen the parking in Bushey Heath. You NEED to know when these selfish drivers arrive to enforce it or they leave their cars there all day preventing shoppers from parking. Alternatively you would need someone patrolling all day taking photos and/or writing down reg numbers and arrival times of all cars. Which offers the only practical solution? What do you do exactly apart from losing elections and posting on here? You really are a patronising idiot so would make an ideal politician if elected. davidhornet
  • Score: 5

4:24pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

David, you clearly do not like people with opposing points of view.

The fact of the matter is most time limited parking schemes are enforced by periodic patrol but not by ticket and there are good cost reasons for doing so.

If tickets are your thing then fine, there is no harm and on occasion they may make a positive difference. I have no problems with tickets where they are beneficial.

My point is, make it free to people to park wherever passible for a reasonable period of time. 30 mins may not be enough. Someone else suggested 90 minutes. Why not 120 minutes, plenty of time to get around the shops even if you have mobility issues.

Incidentally, unless there are patrols to check the tickets, the tickets are meaningless.
David, you clearly do not like people with opposing points of view. The fact of the matter is most time limited parking schemes are enforced by periodic patrol but not by ticket and there are good cost reasons for doing so. If tickets are your thing then fine, there is no harm and on occasion they may make a positive difference. I have no problems with tickets where they are beneficial. My point is, make it free to people to park wherever passible for a reasonable period of time. 30 mins may not be enough. Someone else suggested 90 minutes. Why not 120 minutes, plenty of time to get around the shops even if you have mobility issues. Incidentally, unless there are patrols to check the tickets, the tickets are meaningless. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

6:08pm Mon 2 Jun 14

davidhornet says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
David, you clearly do not like people with opposing points of view.

The fact of the matter is most time limited parking schemes are enforced by periodic patrol but not by ticket and there are good cost reasons for doing so.

If tickets are your thing then fine, there is no harm and on occasion they may make a positive difference. I have no problems with tickets where they are beneficial.

My point is, make it free to people to park wherever passible for a reasonable period of time. 30 mins may not be enough. Someone else suggested 90 minutes. Why not 120 minutes, plenty of time to get around the shops even if you have mobility issues.

Incidentally, unless there are patrols to check the tickets, the tickets are meaningless.
Phil, I do not like people who ignore the basic facts here, it is not a matter of an opposing point of view. In an ideal world I agree with you that parking should be free for 90 mins or 120 mins. The problem in Bushey Heath has been that the limited free spaces have been occupied by selfish drivers who often leave their cars there for far longer than that, preventing other drivers from parking. I have even seen people park in the middle of the road and hold up traffic while they shop and a driver who went around stationary cars and through a red light at the pelican crossing while an old lady struggled to cross. If the occasional patrols caught people in the free bays they could claim that they had just arrived or if no one was in the car the enforcement officer would have to have evidence of some kind that they had over stayed. This is much easier when the driver has to display a ticket in their windscreen showing when they have arrived, unless it is from a faulty meter there should be no dispute. It is also a reference for the driver so they know when they should leave the parking space and it is harder to over stay without being caught. In these bays you used to see cars parked there for hours, even all day. Now there are spaces available for legitimate parking. I would like to see the disabled bays patrolled more regularly as well, often these have cars in them which do not display a blue badge. I use the free parking in Bushey Heath twice a week every week so I know what I am talking about. The only issue is that the signs still say 1 hour max parking and ask drivers to get a ticket at the meter, a few today got caught out who perhaps thought that the first hour was free and did not need a ticket to be displayed. Apparently the 30mins free but ticket to be displayed and 20p for the hour only has to be displayed on the meter, not on the signs by the road. I discussed this with the enforcement officer and suggested this could lead to more parking fines being issued but I guess this will be a happy hunting ground for him until people become aware of how this new scheme works.

P.S. If I got as many thumbs down as you do I would not bother posting any more. Take up a new vocation in life where being unpopular and unelectable would be more acceptable. How about a Parking Enforcement Officer in Bushey Heath? At least then you might know what you are talking about.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: David, you clearly do not like people with opposing points of view. The fact of the matter is most time limited parking schemes are enforced by periodic patrol but not by ticket and there are good cost reasons for doing so. If tickets are your thing then fine, there is no harm and on occasion they may make a positive difference. I have no problems with tickets where they are beneficial. My point is, make it free to people to park wherever passible for a reasonable period of time. 30 mins may not be enough. Someone else suggested 90 minutes. Why not 120 minutes, plenty of time to get around the shops even if you have mobility issues. Incidentally, unless there are patrols to check the tickets, the tickets are meaningless.[/p][/quote]Phil, I do not like people who ignore the basic facts here, it is not a matter of an opposing point of view. In an ideal world I agree with you that parking should be free for 90 mins or 120 mins. The problem in Bushey Heath has been that the limited free spaces have been occupied by selfish drivers who often leave their cars there for far longer than that, preventing other drivers from parking. I have even seen people park in the middle of the road and hold up traffic while they shop and a driver who went around stationary cars and through a red light at the pelican crossing while an old lady struggled to cross. If the occasional patrols caught people in the free bays they could claim that they had just arrived or if no one was in the car the enforcement officer would have to have evidence of some kind that they had over stayed. This is much easier when the driver has to display a ticket in their windscreen showing when they have arrived, unless it is from a faulty meter there should be no dispute. It is also a reference for the driver so they know when they should leave the parking space and it is harder to over stay without being caught. In these bays you used to see cars parked there for hours, even all day. Now there are spaces available for legitimate parking. I would like to see the disabled bays patrolled more regularly as well, often these have cars in them which do not display a blue badge. I use the free parking in Bushey Heath twice a week every week so I know what I am talking about. The only issue is that the signs still say 1 hour max parking and ask drivers to get a ticket at the meter, a few today got caught out who perhaps thought that the first hour was free and did not need a ticket to be displayed. Apparently the 30mins free but ticket to be displayed and 20p for the hour only has to be displayed on the meter, not on the signs by the road. I discussed this with the enforcement officer and suggested this could lead to more parking fines being issued but I guess this will be a happy hunting ground for him until people become aware of how this new scheme works. P.S. If I got as many thumbs down as you do I would not bother posting any more. Take up a new vocation in life where being unpopular and unelectable would be more acceptable. How about a Parking Enforcement Officer in Bushey Heath? At least then you might know what you are talking about. davidhornet
  • Score: 5

6:20pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I get thumbs down from the certain people and parties no matter what I post.

It's the price of standing up for UKIP and a price I am more than willing to pay.

As for the parking, ticket or no ticket, it could still be offered free and the 30 minute time limit could be extended to 60, 90 or 120 minutes. Remember, some people like to have a chat or have mobility problems and the worst thing in the world is for some little parking demon to have slapped a fine on you for shopping at the local shops. That sort of thing would drive anyone to the out of town stores!

Common sense. It's not that difficult.
I get thumbs down from the certain people and parties no matter what I post. It's the price of standing up for UKIP and a price I am more than willing to pay. As for the parking, ticket or no ticket, it could still be offered free and the 30 minute time limit could be extended to 60, 90 or 120 minutes. Remember, some people like to have a chat or have mobility problems and the worst thing in the world is for some little parking demon to have slapped a fine on you for shopping at the local shops. That sort of thing would drive anyone to the out of town stores! Common sense. It's not that difficult. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree