Talkswindon

Big Local Issues & Enquiries => Swindon Residents Parking Scheme => Topic started by: DaveWood on July 17, 2007, 06:15:40 PM

Title: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 17, 2007, 06:15:40 PM
I was emailed in the last half hour to say that the RP report is finally in the public domain.

The 'topsheet' report is here:
http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000285/M00003039/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf (p.79 or 83)

The appendices including consultant report are here:
http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000285/M00003039/$$Supp707dDocPackPublic.pdf

I'll just put my initial thoughts for now because I've got to do someting shortly.  I'll post later with my views on the process etc.

The Good News
- [Albeit carefully worded] Commitment to stop house-splits and redevelopments having permits that flood extra cars onto the streets.  Seriously good for stemming the tide of permits.
- Recommendation that all permit holders be allowed to use Borough Car Parks for free during off-peak times (i.e. when on-street parking is less available).  Not everyone directly benefits but most zones indirectly benefit.
- Creation of a (hopefully public and accountable) RP Group to guide the process, develop a workplan and provide focus
- Commitment to get rid of unnecessary yellow lines to free up more than 300 'news' spaces in zones.  And hopefully we'll be able to find many more.
- A few others bits I'll comment on soon.

The Bad News
- Well, not news, but the length of time we've waited for this.  But more on that later.
- The firm recommendations and costings are good.  But the lack of timescales for these things to happen is bad.
- Similarly the rather weak stance on paying for it could be very bad!
- There is meant to be an appendix giving the survey results.  But it seems to be absent!

Overall.  It's hurrendously late, as we all know.  In itself it has some very good proposals.  But it does feel like the proposals are being shunted off onto a group with no timescales and no identified budget.

I hope this doesn't mean more delays and inaction.. but the report does leave the Council that option.

Mixed.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 17, 2007, 06:53:50 PM
Why does the website require me to log in, doesn't it know who I am?

B@st@rd website.

I was feeling analytical as well.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Alex on July 17, 2007, 07:14:32 PM
I tried too- neither page was accessible- so still not actually in the public domain yet.....  ???

And I got all interested again... should have known....will I never learn?
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 17, 2007, 07:18:25 PM
Bleeding, bl00dy useless tossers.

Just as well I am feeling conciliatory.

Dave, sort it, I voted for you once and I don't even like lentils or sandals, I believed your vision of Swindon as a car park for my personal use.

Seriously matey, what the flip?

Isn't this a broken pledge?
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Alligator on July 17, 2007, 07:19:26 PM
I think there's a problem with the links.  You need to copy and paste the entire line into your browser (right up to the .pdf).  For some reason the whole url isn't recognised.

http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000285/M00003039/$$Supp707dDocPackPublic.pdf

http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000285/M00003039/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 17, 2007, 07:25:12 PM
Well, I am, I admit it, vaguely impressed.

But also moderately concerned you know this stuff.

I may be gone some time, I shall return with some half arsed poorly considered, perhaps even inaccurate, overtly biased observations.

15 months of hard labour dismissed by a semi literate cynic in 30 minutes, here we go then.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dale Heenan on July 17, 2007, 07:51:31 PM
It looks like it is item 9 on the agenda for next week's meeting - http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/ieIssueDetails.asp?IId=14448&Opt=3&J=9

Firstly I'll say that this report represents fundamental step change in thinking in how the issue is tackled, a single report cannot possibly cover every issue. Personally I think the recommendation that will have the single biggest impact in the future is the formation of an RP Advisory group of Cllrs and Officers. It will be able to look in detail at ongoing issues in a planned and measured way so that any recommendations the group puts forward are fully costed and the impact can be determined.  Issues such as the free use of carparks overnight by residents is the kind of thing this group will tackle - it would have been wrong to include this point in this report as 1 person wanted. The removal of yellow lines is another, the work has been conducted within the Highways department (so things have been happening in the background) and the Advisory Group will see it's results and recommend which areas are a priority for it to happen. There is only a limited pot of money but it's 300 spaces (10% increase in capacity) at a cost of £70k - there may well be ways to reduce that amount, but how it happens is for the group. We needed the Halcrow report to tie this up in a proper Cabinet report so it could be formally setup.

The actual wording of the Advisory Group recommendation is:

Create a Residents Parking Advisory Group (RPAG) as an Advisory group to the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Strategic Planning with representatives from the Elected Members within whose Wards Residents Parking Zones exist, supported by appropriate officers and with a remit to advise on the management of Residents Parking; to address residents concerns and where necessary, by way of recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Strategic Planning, and/or the Director of Transport, to initiate change.

On the Planning sections of the report, these aren't just a committment it formally goes to the next Planning Committee as policy - I think it's 10th August. The latest draft was emailed to me this morning so some light reading tonight while I tweak it.

The Halcrow report is very thorough and looks at a variety of options, just because someone may not agree with some of them it doesn't mean it's wrong to consider them.

Just on the timescales, yes I would have loved to have this out a few months ago. However, starting from when I first got involved - October was the public meetings and the start of Halcrow's work, December/January the survey was out. In February, the results were collated and while running in parallel to Halcrow it did influence it's direction, in March first versions of draft were circulated then we hit election time. As we saw from that, certain people played Politics with the issue and nothing was going to be announced. May was all change on the Committees etc but with final drafts almost ready a meeting with local Cllrs occurred in June and it was placed onto July's Cabinet agenda. As a comparision, the new Grassroots Community grants policy was put together over Christmas/New Year by me, January/Feburary saw it go through the normal Council process and then it needed a 3 month Consultation period. A full 7 months later it is in place, what the recommendations of this report cover represent's a different level to that.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dale Heenan on July 17, 2007, 07:54:14 PM
I think there's a problem with the links.  You need to copy and paste the entire line into your browser (right up to the .pdf).  For some reason the whole url isn't recognised.

[url]http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000285/M00003039/[/url]$$Supp707dDocPackPublic.pdf

[url]http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000285/M00003039/[/url]$$ADocPackPublic.pdf
You don't need to post the urls quite like this for Cabinet reports. If you click on the "Find out more" link, the reports are always in the meetings section.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Alligator on July 17, 2007, 08:23:55 PM
You don't need to post the urls quite like this for Cabinet reports. If you click on the "Find out more" link, the reports are always in the meetings section.

Dale, the issue with this is that the problem I encountered as two duff links being posted.  I was never presented with a page that offered a 'find out more' link. The resulting screen simply said "You are not authorized to view this page".
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dale Heenan on July 17, 2007, 08:29:12 PM
No idea then, it works fine for me here. Anyhow, I've zipped and uploaded the files to my website - I'll keep this live for the next couple of days before taking down.

http://www.covinghamandnytheintouch.com/rp.zip
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 17, 2007, 08:33:36 PM
Why. oh why, is there teenage pregnancy stats?

Is there a slimmed down version to come please?
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 18, 2007, 12:58:47 AM
It's great isn't it that after finally becoming available, I won't have chance to look at the output until next week at the earliest.
Bugger.

James

(We're off camping this weekend in Much Wenlock, so I'm REALLY REALLY hoping the waether forecast is very wrong.)
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Geoff Reid on July 18, 2007, 06:31:57 AM

Why. oh why, is there teenage pregnancy stats?

Is there a slimmed down version to come please?


Oh yes indeedy  :)

http://www.talkswindon.org/pdfs/RP.pdf


Text here....too knackered to re-format it, may do so later.

Quote
Central Area Resident and On-Street Parking Review
CABINET Date: 25 July 2007
Further information on the subject of this report can be obtained from Geoff Bryant on
463675 or Email gbryant@swindon.gov.uk.
Author: Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Strategic Planning, and
the Group Director, Environment and Regeneration
Parish / Wards Affected: Central; Eastcott; Old Town
Purpose
• To present to Cabinet the Halcrow review of Central Area Resident and On-Street
Parking and to seek approval in respect of recommendations emanating from this
document and a survey of residents’ within Resident Parking Zones.
Recommendation
Cabinet is requested to
• Note the content of the review and the survey and retain Residents Parking Zones
in Swindon, but modify their management by authorising the Director of Transport
to pursue the following:-
(a) Create a Residents Parking Advisory Group (RPAG) as an Advisory group to
the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Strategic Planning with
representatives from the Elected Members within whose Wards Residents
Parking Zones exist, supported by appropriate officers and with a remit to
advise on the management of Residents Parking; to address residents
concerns and where necessary, by way of recommendations to the Cabinet
Member for Highways, Transport and Strategic Planning, and/or the Director
of Transport, to initiate change.
(b) Subject to the costs being contained within existing budgets, increase
capacity for residents parking by:-
(i) Converting, where safe to do so, existing double yellow and single
yellow parking restrictions into Residents Parking Bays at an
estimated cost of £11K.
(ii) Undertake a phased programme to introduce “No Waiting At Any
Time”, Traffic Regulation Orders on those backways within
Residents Parking Zones and which form part of the public highway
at an estimated cost of £10k per Zone.
To oversee this commitment the RPAG advise on recommendations from the
Director of Transport on a zone-by-zone basis as to the extent of these
proposals, the final cost involved, funding availability and implications and
timescales for implementation. Given that the budget for this action plan is
Agenda Item 9

Page 79

Central Area Resident and On-Street Parking Review
CABINET Date: 25 July 2007
Further information on the subject of this report can be obtained from Geoff Bryant on
463675 or Email gbryant@swindon.gov.uk.
insufficient, implementation will only take place when sufficient funding has
been identified and secured.
(c) Control the impact of development upon residents parking schemes within
the Borough by:-
(i) Encouraging more rigorous use of the Council’s
Local Plan Policy H12 "sub-division of dwellings" in order to refuse
and/or strictly control parking arrangements for houses in multiple
occupation and
(ii) Through planning controls limit the parking arrangement for new
developments on brownfield sites within Residents Parking Zones.
(c) That Resident Parking Permit Holders be allowed to park overnight in
appropriate car parks between the hours of 2200 and 0800 at no additional
charge. The RPAG to recommend which car parks are, for this purpose,
appropriate.
(d) In order to maximise on-street car parking capacity, particularly during Town
Centre regeneration, the Director of Transport be authorised to extend the
use of on-street parking meters where this does not directly reduce the
capacity of residents parking.
(e) That the schedule outlined Appendix 1 to this report, be prioritised for
inclusion on the initial agenda of the RPAG and that other possible options
identified in the Halcrow report and the residents survey as shown in
Appendix 2 of this report, be programmed for assessment and future
consideration by RPAG.
(f) Confirm that all personal information be removed from visitor permits.
1. Reasons
1.1 To consider the Halcrow review of Central Area Resident and On-Street
Parking.
2. Detail
2.1 Following negative reaction to changes in Residents Parking Scheme
policy in 2005/06, the Director of Transport was asked to work with elected
ward members and take a fresh look at resident and on street parking in
the central areas of Swindon. Having insufficient staff resource to do this,
officers commissioned the work from Halcrow through its framework
agreement with the Borough for transport, highway and civil engineering
work.

Page 80

Central Area Resident and On-Street Parking Review
CABINET Date: 25 July 2007
Further information on the subject of this report can be obtained from Geoff Bryant on
463675 or Email gbryant@swindon.gov.uk.
2.2 The Halcrow Report
(i) Comparison with other authorities
In addition to looking at the existing scheme in Swindon, Halcrow sought
to determine best practice elsewhere by comparison with that of seven
other local authorities.

o Bath and North East Somerset
o Nottingham
o Oxford
o Reading
o Cheltenham
o Taunton
o Newport

A full evaluation of the comparison can be found in Chapter 3 of the
Halcrow report attached as Appendix 3 to this document, but in summary
the following are examples of practice elsewhere that could be considered
by Swindon Borough Council.
• Allowing residents over the age of 60 to purchase double the number
of visitor permits as for those under 60 years old
• Linking the number of residents permits for which a household is
eligible to the off-street parking provision available to that household
• Planning restrictions on buildings converted from single to multiple
occupancy dwellings generating resident or visitor parking permits
• Issuing permits exempting doctors from resident only parking
restrictions whilst on call
• Permits issued to specific health care workers to enable parking in
resident only bays whilst on professional visits
• Issuing one carer permit per household for residents over 60, or
registered disabled, which shows up to a maximum of three
registration numbers
• Trade persons permits
• Landlord permits
(ii) Public Consultation
Elected Council members, led by Cllr Dale Heenan organised and
attended six public discussion meetings. The residents of all the

Page 81

Central Area Resident and On-Street Parking Review
CABINET Date: 25 July 2007
Further information on the subject of this report can be obtained from Geoff Bryant on
463675 or Email gbryant@swindon.gov.uk.
resident parking zones were invited to attend the meeting most
convenient to them and give their views on how the scheme is
currently operated by the Council; to identify problems and to enable
suggestions to be made on how the scheme might be improved.
Over 100 residents attended the meetings, producing over 350
comments and generating in excess of 50 e-mails. Halcrow has
scheduled the content of this work on pages 31 and 32 of its report
(Appendix 3), with the key issues arising being capacity: the need to
provide additional spaces; permits: their allocation; and operational:
relating to enforcement, planning restrictions and identification of bays
etc.. Halcrow then looked at options that could be considered in order
to address these concerns which they included in a matrix shown on
page 46 of their report (Appendix 3). Your officers have reappraised
this matrix and identified the following key issues that should be
addressed:-
• The creation of a Resident Parking Advisory Group
• Use of planning controls to limit the number of permits to development
of brownfield sites and sub-division of properties into houses of
multiple occupation
• Measures to remove the obstruction of rear backways in order to allow
and encourage off road parking
• Increase capacity by converting, where safe to do so, existing double
yellow and single yellow parking restrictions into residents parking
bays
• Remove all personal information from permits
• The additional use of on street pay and display where this does not
negatively impact upon resident parking zones.
2.3 The Residents Parking Zone Survey
To supplement the work of the Halcrow report a separate questionnaire
based survey was undertaken of residents within the scheme using the
micro-democracy model. Over 1100 responses were received to this and
a summary of which is attached to this report as Appendix 4. Again key
issues emerge which significantly support the results of the Halcrow
consultation meetings and can be identified as follows:-
• That the resident parking scheme in Swindon should be retained, but
be modified

Page 82

Central Area Resident and On-Street Parking Review
CABINET Date: 25 July 2007
Further information on the subject of this report can be obtained from Geoff Bryant on
463675 or Email gbryant@swindon.gov.uk.
• Visitor permit books should continue to be issued, ideally on a rolling
basis and with a refund policy for part used books
• That a Residents Parking Advisory Group should be created
• The free use of car parks overnight by resident parking permit holders
• Creating capacity by removing yellow line restrictions
• Encouraging and maintaining backway access to properties
• Restriction on the parking allocation for new properties
• Parking meters should not replace visitor permits.
2.4 Residents Parking Advisory Group
The creation of the above as an advisory body to the Cabinet Member on
the management of the resident parking scheme in Swindon is seen as
essential. It is anticipated that this Group will be one of the series of
Cabinet Member Advisory Groups with a remit to receive and consider
issues relating to resident and on street parking and submit
recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and
Strategic Planning for decision or, where powers have been delegated, to
the Director of Transport.
The view of officers is that the Group should consist of two elected
representatives from each of the wards containing resident parking zones;
plus a lead member as chair and with officer support as appropriate from
within Transport and Planning directorates.
Matters arising from both the Halcrow Report; resident survey and officer
consideration and not forming one of the key recommendations in this
report have been included in appendices one and two for consideration by
the Residents Parking Advisory Group
Alternative Options
• Remove the resident parking zones and revert to unrestricted parking, but this
would go against the wishes of the residents by removing all assistance to them
and opening up on street parking to commuters and shoppers. It would impact
negatively upon use of public car parks and has the potential to increase
congestion. Chapter 5 of the Halcrow report (Appendix 3) enlarges upon this.
Risk Management
Financial and Procurement Implications
There are no significant procurement implications within this report. Financial

Page 83

Central Area Resident and On-Street Parking Review
CABINET Date: 25 July 2007
Further information on the subject of this report can be obtained from Geoff Bryant on
463675 or Email gbryant@swindon.gov.uk.
implications are implicit as follows:-
• Conversion of existing yellow line restrictions into resident parking bays (Estimated
at 11K)
• Introducing No Waiting At Any Time regulation into backways within resident
parking zones (Could be done either by yellow line orders or creation of a parking
restriction zone with signs only. Costs are similar, with an example of Zone D in
Eastcott ward costed at an estimated 10K.
• There is currently an annual revenue allocation of 5K for maintenance of the
resident parking scheme which is insufficient to implement the measures required.
• No capital funding has been identified for improvements to the scheme and
although some costs could be met from within existing traffic management revenue
funding, additional funding sources need to be identified. Some measures will have
the potential to increase income, which suggests additional funding could be
generated from within the operating account for residents parking. To this end, an
Agenda item has been included on the first meeting of the Resident Parking
Advisory Group to receive a full financial appraisal of the scheme costs.
Legal / Human Rights Implications
• There are no direct legal or Human rights implications in this report.
Links to Corporate Plans and Policies (in particular to Swindon 2010 Promises)
• None.
Consultees
• The Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) and Director of Law and Democratic
Services (Monitoring Officer) are consulted in respect of all reports.
• Relevant elected ward members
• Cllr Dale Heenan
• Cllr Peter Greenhalgh Lead Member for Transport Strategic Planning and Highways
• Residents within the parking zones
Background Papers and Appendices
• Appendix 1, Suggested Initial agenda for the Resident Parking Advisory Group
(RPAG)
• Appendix 2, suggested agenda for subsequent meetings of RPAG
• Appendix 3, Halcrow report on resident and on-street parking in Swindon central
area
• Appendix 4 Summary of resident survey
Appendices 3 is contained in Annex 1, circulated as a Separate Document with
the Agenda Papers. Appendix 4 is available in the Members’ Room.
Key Decision / Decision in Forward Plan
• This is a Key Decision and is included in the Cabinet Forward Plan for July 2007.

Page 84

APPENDIX 1
INITIAL AGENDA FOR
THE RESIDENT PARKING ADVISORY GROUP
• To receive the proposals in respect of recommendations (a) and (b) of
the report, namely, replacement of double yellow and single yellow
restrictions into residents parking bays and the introduction of “No
Waiting At Any Time” restrictions into backways and alleyways.
• Determine those car parks within parking zones appropriate for
overnight use by residents.
• The potential for books of visitor permits operating on a “rolling” basis,
with a refund policy for part used books, and the number of books to be
issued and the cost thereof.
• The potential for marking out resident parking bays.
• A full appraisal of finance and operating costs in respect of the
residents parking scheme

Page 85

APPENDIX 2
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS FOR
THE RESIDENT PARKING ADVISORY GROUP
• Change a Zone’s operating hours.
• Increase the number of visitors parking permits for over 60s.
• Visitor permits for over 60s to be free of charge.
• Introduce permits for Doctors and Health Care workers.
• Relate the price of permits to the scale of vehicle emissions or size of
vehicle.
• Cap the number of residents parking permits issued in each Zone to
the number of spaces available or a multiple thereof.
• Make payments more widely available through local retail outlets.
• Exempt permit holders from time limited on-street parking controls.
• Replace “No Waiting At Any Time” restrictions in existence in Resident
Parking Zones to create passing places with a single yellow line
restriction.
Page 87
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 23, 2007, 12:23:29 PM
Finally finished skim-reading the report.

A bit disappounted really.
I thought the basic comparison work with other auitorities was interesting and some good ideas were forthcoming. (different stuff for people with carers for erxample)

However, the thing which seemed to be missing is what is most basic question of all:
"What is the problem with residents parking in Swindon"

At no point did I find any analysis (beyond the trivial which we've seen before) of the issues which are being faced in the various zones.
I think that not finding out what the problems actually are, and when they occur basically undermines much of the otherwise good work.

Measurement of parking penalty notices or number of (actual or potential) available off-road parking in each of the zones would help complete the picture with only small additional survey cost.

I an concerned that the report will be used as a hammer to push changes through and silence critics in (and out of) the council chamber, despite these rather critical gaps.

I hope that I have missed something in the detail, but I do not think I have. Anyone?

Sorry Dale, but I must confess myself to be rather disappointed.

James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 24, 2007, 11:48:12 AM
An example of what I mean...

This from the executive summary pages...
Recommendation 3:
Quote
Where highway safety is not compromised, convert existing double yellow and single yellow line
restrictions to permit holder only bays, to increase the number of spaces available for residents. It is
anticipated that an additional 308 spaces will be added to the existing number of 3279

All well and good. But it gives no clue as to what this will actually mean for the residents involved. In a zone where demand is 30% more than spaces, a 10% increase will barely be noticed. And in one where there is almost no excess demand it will also barely be noticed.
And sadly, only looking at permits in issue does not resolve this.

By providing supply solutions without understanding demand, we may well be getting poor value for money.

But as I said I may have missed something in the report itself.

James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dale Heenan on July 24, 2007, 03:46:53 PM
Hi

I can see where you are coming from... quickly on your points, about to dash off to a meeting.

There is a table in the report which sets out how many spaces can be created from removing the yellow lines in each Zone. 308 spaces is the total number which can be added based on where it is safe to do so, this work has already been undertaken by the department. It doesn't really matter whether demand is x, y or z in a particular Zone, SBC can only create this amount without compromising safety and that is what the recommendation is putting forward. It has to be short and to the point so it's not the place to cover demand, it's still 308 spaces that wouldn't otherwise be there. The implementation of this is down to the Advisory Group.

Your first post kind of covers the whole point of that group and why we are keen on it happening. It's in the context of this group where for example, the analysis of the pcn's by street/zone etc could be useful with identifying and dealing with issues at a low level to make a difference. The first meeting for example will include discussions on which car parks, if any, can be used free by residents overnight. This will mean talking over revenue implications, likely demand, would it actually make a difference, PCNs, how to implement etc, this report cannot and should not go down to that level.

It's a complex area but I hope this framework works out, I'm certainly hoping everyone can get their head around the approach because it is quite different. I'm not aware of anywhere else that operates a group in the way proposed, particularly from a non-political stance. When people start saying they threatened to throw their toys out of the pram because they didn't get their way, I think that reflects on them and also kind of defeats the whole point of working constructively together.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 24, 2007, 09:15:09 PM
Mmmm.

How big is a space then? Someone must know, or how do you count them?

Then, what is the tolerance allowed between vehicles? The wastage as it were, some rum old types seem to be under the illusion they are towing an invisible caravan.

How does this definition of a space compare to the average length of car currently in use in Swindon? (DVLA will help out with that one, they are proper fonts of wisdom, and getting wiser everyday), or we could settle for the average car length in the UK.

Does it make any difference to the total spaces available?

Wouldn't mind but I asked these rather fundamental questions last summer.

Finally, where is my 'Good Boy Badge' and swingeing Council Tax cut for using a garage, and off road parking space?
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 25, 2007, 11:28:27 AM
Thanks for coming back Dale.

Quote
It has to be short and to the point so it's not the place to cover demand, it's still 308 spaces that wouldn't otherwise be there. The implementation of this is down to the Advisory Group.


But how much will it actually improve things? Without demand you can't say.
If those spaces will be created predominantly in zones without much of a problem, you have largely wasted the investment in change.

This is a big miss, and rather undermines the reports conclusions and recommendations doesn't it...?

James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dale Heenan on July 25, 2007, 07:38:07 PM
Not really because it's the Advisory Group which will decide the way in which the spaces will be phased in. Doing all 300 spaces will take time, but those areas which have the greatest demand should come first... it also ties into the use of car parks question.


The report was accepted by Cabinet and can now be moved forward. The planning related points from the paper should all being well go to Committee on August 14th. I hope everyone will be onboard and willing to work on this, just a shame that once again the Liberals didn't bother to turn to a meeting affecting residents!
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 25, 2007, 11:14:48 PM
Hmm.

Do you know when the advisory groups first set of recommendations are be expected to be delivered?

James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 26, 2007, 03:24:54 AM
I hope everyone will be onboard and willing to work on this, just a shame that once again the Liberals didn't bother to turn to a meeting affecting residents!

Sorry to get in the way of your sniping but Stan is in Poland, I understand Martin to be away on business and, whilst it had been my firm intention to come and say my peace, I was admitted to A&E half an hour before the meeting started.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Jarvis on July 26, 2007, 05:33:37 PM
whilst it had been my firm intention to come and say my peace, I was admitted to A&E half an hour before the meeting started.

I'm confused Mr Wood.

Would 'saying your piece' on Talkswindon be as a member of the public or as one of the elected Councillors in my ward?.  I, for one, am left bewildered as to what your chosen role is when you appear on Talkswindon, and I'm buggered if I can detect what your input, or that of your colleagues Cllr's Pajak and Wiltshire, has actually been throughout the entire residents parking consultation.

As far as I can tell, the 'Eastcott Three' have delayed proceedings, whinged, whined, moaned, pointed the finger of blame almost anywhere but at themselves and seem to have established a proven track record of not bothering to turn up to meetings or speak in the council chamber.

Your recent: 'I know a secret, but I can't publicly tell you what it is but if you phone me I might deem to tell you' stunt was infantile and insulting to many who bothered to visit the polling station and vote LibDem.

I won't make that mistake again and I sincerely hope a credible alternative candidate is on offer in Eastcott when Stan the Man is up for re-election next year. 

Tobes from this very forum, a member of the public that you are supposed to represent, has proven himself to be a better advocate of Eastcotts residents interests than the combined efforts of three bloody councillors  :bash:

I hope that Tobes can be persuaded to stand for election next year because I for one don't like the idea that, while I'm struggling to park outside my own house, LibDem councillors are collecting an SBC councillors wage but doing next to sweet fanny adams for it. Allegedly.

Please tell me, (without the use of excuses), why a vote for a Liberal Democrat councillor isn't a wasted vote. Don't give me reasons why you haven't done something, tell me what you are doing.


 

Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 26, 2007, 07:21:54 PM
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME HOW BIG A SODDING SPACE IS?

Is it 9ft, 12ft, 15ft, or a previously alleged 23ft (on this very forum back when I was a year younger)

The Highway Code says 4m, (must be a french version) which in English is 13ft, now if you are calculating at 15ft to allow for shuffle room, fair enough, but if you are at 16ft you are wasting 1ft, which is a net waste of, mmmm, 3279ft, or a frankly astonishing 252 cars. Average ones mind.

See, I might be a fatuous oaf, but every so often there is a glimmer.

Because if you can't tell me HOW BIG A SODDING SPACE IS!! how in the hell do you know what you are counting? You are arguing about something that has not been defined, now that is perfectly permissible in a philosophical or theological debate but these are parking spaces. HOW SODDING BIG ARE THEY?

When defined, paint them in and fine the arse off anyone who cannot navigate into one.

Point 2, Dave, I voted Lib Dem cos you said you would do the business, I'm sorry about the A&E thing and all that, but I am a mercenary bugger and I must admit my allegiance is flagging. I know I am bit of a single subject bore (actually I can bore on any number of subjects, the less I know about it the better) but you need to put yourself about a bit, or let us know when you do.

Finally, PARKING SPACES, HOW BIG???!!
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dale Heenan on July 26, 2007, 08:55:05 PM
I'm not sure what the space size is now but at Planning Committee on 14th August, the Parking Standards policy will be saying:

Car parking Dimensions Individual Car Parking Space
4.8m x 2.4m
Tandem Parking / Parallel Parking
6.0m x 2.4m
Dedicated Parking Space
4.8m x 3.6m (minimum width)

Garages will be larger than the current standard by about a 1m. It will also have various diagrams to show how to put these into practice in as clear a way as possible.
Other than that I can't say a great deal because it's in the prepublishing stage. Another 8/9 days before the full details are public.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 26, 2007, 10:11:30 PM
Ta very muchly.

Individual parking space, 15 and a half foot, by 8ft, Fair enough, can't grumble with that. I'm thinking this is multi storeys and pay and displays? I can even get the old ozone muncher in a space like that.

Tandem parking, did think of something sarky about permits for pushbikes but I reckon you mean the residents style on street parking.

Did you know that the french 6 metres when translated into English is a stonking 19 and a half feet, well jiminy cricket no wonder we have run out of the bloody space things. A Ford Transit is 15 ft 2ins, the frankly astounding Chrysler 300C comes in at a smidge over 16ft (I like that one), a Challenger Tank is 27ft (ok, bit big but it helps with context) the Bentley Flying Spur W12 goes 17ft, a Range Rover is a tad over 16 ft and a Golf is 13 and a half feet, so even allowing for a steering wheel made of cooked spaghetti you would think that, generally, 19 and a half feet is a more than generous provision to allow parallel parking.

Wind it down to 18ft and I give you 378 additional parking spaces that are five feet longer than the average UK car, 2 and a half foot longer than the ones we pay sbc 70p an hour for or whatever it has gone up to now. All that is asked in return, from the user, is a moderate ability in the discipline of parallel parking, what I am saying is that your space spec is way out and I am surprised sbc hasn't grasped the opportunity to magic some more up by this simple, and basically, petty honest bit of jiggery pokery. Bays to enforce it though.

Dedicated parking space is what then? It's a very funny shape.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 26, 2007, 10:55:21 PM
I know I've said this before but since it's come up again I thought it important to reiterate.

I do not, and will not, make it my business to engage with biased, er, people who spout nonsense.

I speak as myself on this forum, not as a formal representative of anyone else.  That's my place.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 26, 2007, 11:07:41 PM
Point 2, Dave, I voted Lib Dem cos you said you would do the business, I'm sorry about the A&E thing and all that, but I am a mercenary bugger and I must admit my allegiance is flagging. I know I am bit of a single subject bore (actually I can bore on any number of subjects, the less I know about it the better) but you need to put yourself about a bit, or let us know when you do.

Hi Mart,

With the greatest respect I am not accountable to a chat forum.  I am accountable to my residents.  I regularly tell my residents what I do directly, in the same way as my colleagues have done for 20 years.  And the residents tell us they are happy with that three years out of four at the ballot box.
To put this into context there is no ward the Tories have held peoples' confidence in every for the time period.  There are 2-3 Labour areas where they have, but these are 'natural' Labour areas.  Eastcott is not a 'natural' Lib Dem area; we would frequently come 3rd before Stan stood.  We work hard and tell people what we've done, that's the only reason most people elect us year after year.

I could spend all my time justifying myself to a small number of people on here, but I've already been told by Tory councillor posters here that that's a waste of time.

Dave
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 27, 2007, 01:59:35 AM
Accidental post.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 27, 2007, 02:00:56 AM
And another.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Peach on July 27, 2007, 06:36:12 AM
I could spend all my time justifying myself to a small number of people on here, but I've already been told by Tory councillor posters here that that's a waste of time.

For some of us, this forum is the only contact our councillors make so it would be a shame if they few that do stopped posting. (I'm not including reading about them kerb crawling, or driving without the correct documentation in the adver as contact).
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Geoff Reid on July 27, 2007, 07:24:18 AM
Peach/Mart/Jarvis.

I do believe that Mr Woods paucity of experience and lack of years have tempted him into flipping you, and every other reader of Talkswindon, the Agincourt salute.

Still, looking on the bright side, Woody is secure in his belief that TS contributors and readers are insignificant....and they, in turn, can be satisfied that it's only another 8 months until they can deliver a suitably insignificant message to Ole Pappy Pajak at the ballot box.

Good job Davey!, keep it up and you'll soon be sharing Eastcott with a Snelgrovian finger puppet.   

:)
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dougal on July 27, 2007, 04:42:34 PM
Admin received this email today from one of it's many unregistered guests. It is reproduced here with the kind permission of the author.

Name and address were supplied.

Quote
"I think that Dave Wood is entitled to make any point he wants in whatever capacity he chooses to do so. He is engaging in the debate here along with other people and elected members from SBC. I personally as a ward resident do not believe that this forum is a waste of time, on the contrary, I believe it read by far more people than contribute to it.  I know more about parking issues now than I would ever get from an article in other media.

I find time spent reading TalkSwindon is just like the time I spend out and about meeting people.  It keeps my feet very firmly attached  to the ground. From my own experience working in the public sector, some councils aspire to become "dream factories" and then councillors complain when their well constructed "Ivory Towers" are brought crashing to the ground by the electorate. That is why I think more councillors would benefit from closer involvement with Talkswindon, It's a quick cure for "Ivory Toweritus".

I personally believe forums like this are more than just talking shops, they are micro opinion formers in the very relevant and very important local community, in which I live. I have often said that the "goss" at the parish pump carries far more weight than a thousand copper plated press releases or official statements. It is the modern equivalent of Graffiti or murals, both of which have been used throughout the centuries to inform the wider public about politics and, if you recall from history, Ceaser was warned by Graffiti appearing all over Rome depicting  people behind him with a knife to his back, and the saying beware ides of march. History shows that in his bravado he dismissed it publicly as a waste of time! Though those close to him thought that it clouded his judgment as it preoccupied him so much. That he was actually blinded to the events on the ides of March.

I know from my own experience that TS has an important function in Swindon and I am sure that there are many politicians who would dearly love to have a TS in their area but for whatever reason don't. There may even be some politicians that feel or believe they can't join for various reasons? and may even be some politicians who, in their own minds, dismiss TS very much like Ceaser did? I could not possibly comment, but as they say beware the ides of March.

The basic tenet is that TalkSwindon is not about politicians, it is about local issues for local people and people can contribute in whatever way they want to. The agenda is a bit like a moving feast, dip in pick something out that catches your eye and taste it or just graze through it trying everything either way "


It is worth mentioning that admin often receives several hundred emails each week from people who are not registered forum members, but who indicate that they are regular readers of the forum.

From the many thousands of emails received since the 29th of March 2006 less than 6 have been anything less than complimentary or encouraging towards the Talkswindon forum.




Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: concerned_of_Old_Town on July 27, 2007, 05:13:22 PM
I am merely a concerned Old Town resident not affiliated to any political party (although I know couple of the conservative councillors socially) and I think Dave is my councillor although never met him.

From what I have seen been quite impressed with Dave as my ward councillor we get the occassional update newsletter (and liked the fact that encouraged feedback on which issues we want him to concentrate on.) He does seems quite dilligent in trying to get things and appreciate his feedback and input to this forum.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Jarvis on July 27, 2007, 05:34:47 PM
*sighs heavily

I know I've said this before but since it's come up again I thought it important to reiterate.

I do not, and will not, make it my business to engage with biased, er, people who spout nonsense.

I speak as myself on this forum, not as a formal representative of anyone else.  That's my place.

Is that even possible?, you are an elected member of the local council and when you pass comment on anything related to the council, its policies or actions, you are, by definition passing comment as Councillor Dave Wood, elected representative of Eastcott ward.

For you to deny this is arrogant in the extreme and I personally think you are now verging on bringing your office into disrepute.

Your arrogance is further demonstrated by this statement:

I could spend all my time justifying myself to a small number of people on here, but I've already been told by Tory councillor posters here that that's a waste of time.

I was about to demonstrate attendant irony, and rank hypocrisy contained within the above quote by supplying various quotes from the 'blog' section (https://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogspotURL=http%3A%2F%2Feastcott.blogspot.com%2F) of the Swindon Liberal Democrat website.

Unfortunately the relevant section of Councillor Woods public information orifice is no longer public, and is now displaying the message "This blog is open to invited readers only".

Previous to the Liberal Democrats taking this curiously illiberal move to restrict access to their site, it would have been the work of moments to illustrate how Councillor Woods versions of recent events differs radically from everyone elses. Put bluntly, most of the 'facts' contained in his his blog are 'questionable', several more just don't tally with verifiable and recorded data.

Perhaps it's not surprising that access to his blog has been restricted to 'invited readers only'. If it ever does become publicly available again you can rest assured its content will have been thoroughly checked and edited.

Peach touched on an interesting point when he/she said:

For some of us, this forum is the only contact our councillors make so it would be a shame if they few that do stopped posting. (I'm not including reading about them kerb crawling, or driving without the correct documentation in the adver as contact).

So why are the Liberal Democrats restricting access to the very part of their site which allows residents of Eastcott the opportunity to read about their councillors activities?, is this behaviour Liberal or democratic?.

I think not.

Grow up Councillor Wood, and start living up to the responsibiity of your elected position and learn to deal with the everyday knocks that other Councillors take for granted.

If you are unable to stop yourself veering between Councillor one minute, and member of the public the next, and seeing tories behind every every piece of received criticism, you should admit you're not up to the job, stop letting your residents down and resign.

Being elected a councillor didn't imbibe you with superhero powers and you can't just return to public anonymity as and when it suits you.

You are not a Clark Kent type figure, able to flit between personas. You are an elected councillor.  Start behaving like one.




  
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Jarvis on July 27, 2007, 05:38:37 PM

From what I have seen been quite impressed with Dave as my ward councillor we get the occassional update newsletter (and liked the fact that encouraged feedback on which issues we want him to concentrate on.) He does seems quite dilligent in trying to get things and appreciate his feedback and input to this forum.

We'll agree to disagree on our respective levels of satisfaction with Mr/Cllr Woods performance  :)
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 28, 2007, 10:38:46 AM
Quote
I do not, and will not, make it my business to engage with biased, er, people who spout nonsense.

This must make local politics quite a lonely experience...

James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 29, 2007, 10:20:06 PM
Davey boy, just been catching up and I do believe you are having a pop back, well that is encouraging.

I never made any secret when we first crossed paths of my view on local politics and cheerfully stated that I would vote for anyone who got off their arse vis a vis residents parking, as I recall you said you were that man. So I voted for you, so I am shallow, so what? People like me are the lifeblood of politicians.

Points to make then.

Of course people are bloody biased, wouldn't be a lot of point in all these political parties otherwise would there? When their bias lines up with your stated bias you get a vote. Kerching!

One person's nonsense is another's dearly held belief put as well as they can express it, bit of a Marie Antoinette moment there I feel, crudely dismissive.

Of course you speak as yourself, but your position contributes to who you are in the perception of others. It's a cake and eat it thing. When you pinged up the residents parking stuff you said you had seen it, but we couldn't, who were you then, dave the councillor, or dave the chap?

I accept you are not accountable to a this forum, though it is where you first came onto my radar as it were, but I am one of 'your' residents, and I ramble on his forum. I can behave like a bit of a tosser in any medium but the distinction you make between the communication methods is too fine for me. The comment about the support from the Tory, tell me you don't have whingeing sessions about how ungrateful the electorate are?

I fear you are going native and that would confirm my belief that most politicians, regardless of station or party, are fundamentally the same.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 30, 2007, 04:24:16 PM
Much as I've enjoyed reading the other posts, I'd still quite like to know the answer to this one...

Quote
Do you know when the advisory groups first set of recommendations are be expected to be delivered?

James


James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on July 30, 2007, 08:11:38 PM
Give it 12 months I reckon.

I have experience in these matters, but then ain't we all?
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 31, 2007, 12:10:02 AM
So with a little creative stalling, this could last us until the next election!

James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Peach on July 31, 2007, 08:10:53 AM
So in summary - the results of the survey are: we'll form a committee to make some recommendations?

I thought the survey was about listening to the voice of public opinion and acting upon it. 
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Tobes on July 31, 2007, 09:46:06 AM
I haven't weighed into this one coz I've been off on hols enjoying Belgian beer and making things out of cast iron (not a statement you'll often hear!)

Wow. This thread is exploding in all sorts of directions. Well, news so far would appear to be a bit of a 'curates egg' - ie, "good in parts". On the plus side we can see that the council have engaged - and that some important positive moves have been taken to, if not solve, at least partly mitigate the existing problems and at least (hopefully!) stop them from getting worse. As Jim and others have observed however, a trick has been missed in making the process more inclusive by sharing that data with the rest of us (ie the ones actually directly involved - and who's vociferous campaigning presumably was at least partly resposible for getting this ball rolling). The last niggle is of course the sheer length of time its taken to get to this point - and my own personal surprise that it took the hiring of Halcrow to make conclusions which half a dozen residents having a pint down The Beehive could probably have come up with in about half an hour. Perhaps if the original parking consultation had been properly designed, the correct conclusions could have been drawn without the delays and angst? Still, 20-20 vision, hindsight and all of that. We are we we are, as they say, and at least the future looks a lot brighter for us.

I guess now, its time for a bit of a revue of how we got here and look at who did what...

Dave - its good to see you back and involved, but I've got to say, quite what your agenda is, confuses the life out of me. You know I've argued for you to be involved and engaged - not just because you're one of my local elected representatives, but also because its important to see the different shades of the political spectrum on the issue. I have to say though that I can only echo the comments of some of the others: You've been strident in the way you've dealt with criticism, to the extent of leaving the forum for a time - and now to returning as 'Dave' rather than Dave Woods the councillor. The irony is of course that you've then gone on to feed comments into an issue which effects your ward and elctorate using information and knowledge you gleaned as a councillor. I don't see how you can square that. I can't help wondering what anyone thinks regarding how they might conduct themselves in a conversation when they have been elected into PUBLIC office. You were! thats means your name is on the SBC website, was in the Adver, on the local news, is on the LibDems website, etc etc: WE know who you are. You can't say that you're NOT commenting as Dave the Councillor - it's your job - not one that as far as I'm aware, only applies 9 to 5. THIS is a public forum where debate is open. Selectivity in your communication and presentation of facts will only frustrate the people you're talking with - or have them questioning your motives. There's such a thing as the 'sef-fulfilling prophesy' - people who think that everyone's out to get them behave in such a way that it frequently comes true!

Still, lets all hope the summary of all of this good news - and I'd like to extend my thanks once again to ALL of the councillors who've taken the opportunity to share their thoughts on this issue. As time goes by, I'm becoming evermore evangalistic that TS represents a real chance for people within the community to engage with the people they elected. They in turn have a real chance to share ideas with the people who elected them and to have a rpoper in-depth debate. Those who dimiss the contributions of 'the few' members of the public who post their opinions here do so at their peril. Lets just look at my case. I had not met a single one of my local councillors in over five years of living within swindon. I've never been door-stepped. Never met them down the pub, never previously been able to share a thought or ask a question in a public rather than private capacity. Now i can. Not only that, the advantages for both me AND the local politicians is to be able to see whether I'm just some lone voice - OR if the effects of the sweep of a committees pen has a real negative effect upon the interests of the electorate. This is the 'connected age' - as thr Admin has already mentioned, TS have massive engagement from 'silent' visitors. Who are these people? They're the electorate! When communities are so fractured that you'll never ordinarily engage with your local politicians and councillors outside of election time, TS represents the only viable opportunity to reverse the ever increasing sense of disillusionment with the political process. As a result (and although things are far from fully resolved!) I think we all ought to take a little bit of pride regarding how this process, flawed as its been, has gone. Ideas have been exchanged and listened to - positions and understanding has evolved, everyone will benefit at least to some extent. I honestly believe that we're blazing a trail here for the way in which similar issues ought (and will) be addressed in the future...
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 31, 2007, 04:21:54 PM

From what I have seen been quite impressed with Dave as my ward councillor we get the occassional update newsletter (and liked the fact that encouraged feedback on which issues we want him to concentrate on.) He does seems quite dilligent in trying to get things and appreciate his feedback and input to this forum.

We'll agree to disagree on our respective levels of satisfaction with Mr/Cllr Woods performance  :)

Thanks for your kind words, Concerned.  Whilst I could never expect more than 50:50 support from my own residents it is good to know the my residents here approve of some of the things I do some of the time. 
It doesn't bother me how non-residents see me they, after all, only see one side of the story.  Mainly derived from my comments here, which I haven't always expressed as well as I could have.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 31, 2007, 04:24:01 PM
Quote
I do not, and will not, make it my business to engage with biased, er, people who spout nonsense.

This must make local politics quite a lonely experience...

James


Yes and no! I have my party and my residents, both of whom are fantastic.  It's rare that I bother with people from other political persuasions, with a few exceptions of opposition people for whom I do have great respect or some liking.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 31, 2007, 04:26:24 PM
So in summary - the results of the survey are: we'll form a committee to make some recommendations?

I thought the survey was about listening to the voice of public opinion and acting upon it. 

Well... I wasn't going to be the one to say it.  I don't want to jump down the throats of the administration too much.  They are trying, at least, which is much more than can be said of the administration even a couple of years ago.

I did insist several times that this report should not be portrayed as deferring it to a future, unformed body.  I do have great confidence in the potential of the future, unformed body but I did ask and ask again for targeted DEADLINES for all the recommendations.  However, the final report didn't include them  :-X
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 31, 2007, 04:28:48 PM
Much as I've enjoyed reading the other posts, I'd still quite like to know the answer to this one...

Quote
Do you know when the advisory groups first set of recommendations are be expected to be delivered?

James


James

I have asked the question.  If it's not well before the end of this month I'd be sorely disappointed.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 31, 2007, 04:34:10 PM
Davey boy, just been catching up and I do believe you are having a pop back, well that is encouraging.

I accept you are not accountable to a this forum, though it is where you first came onto my radar as it were, but I am one of 'your' residents, and I ramble on his forum. I can behave like a bit of a tosser in any medium but the distinction you make between the communication methods is too fine for me. The comment about the support from the Tory, tell me you don't have whingeing sessions about how ungrateful the electorate are?

I fear you are going native and that would confirm my belief that most politicians, regardless of station or party, are fundamentally the same.

Actually... I wasn't referring to you! I said I wouldn't engage with such people (wouldn't reply to them) and then the first thing I did was reply to you :)

Funnilly enough if you're the emailer I remember from the 2006 campaign I wouldn't say you acted like the T word.  In fact your individual contributions were much valued in several quarters.

On the point of the Tory.  T'was not support.  He was having a bit of a pop ;) But the point was well made.

I fear you are going native and that would confirm my belief that most politicians, regardless of station or party, are fundamentally the same.

I think some of the natives might chuckle if they saw that :) I didn't even go native when I was a local authority employee, I'm certainly not going to start now ;)
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: DaveWood on July 31, 2007, 04:41:52 PM
As Jim and others have observed however, a trick has been missed in making the process more inclusive by sharing that data with the rest of us (ie the ones actually directly involved - and who's vociferous campaigning presumably was at least partly resposible for getting this ball rolling).
The last niggle is of course the sheer length of time its taken to get to this point - and my own personal surprise that it took the hiring of Halcrow to make conclusions which half a dozen residents having a pint down The Beehive could probably have come up with in about half an hour.

Glad to hear you had a good time, Tobes.

There was an appendix missing for the RP results.  I still haven't been given a straight answer on whether we're OK to share it now.  I have a nasty suspicion this won't be resolved until the first RP meeting.

I'm on board with you about the time taken.  It's been recommended that I don't bite the hand that feeds by flaunting my view on this to them, but my views will out shortly.

Dave - its good to see you back and involved, but I've got to say, quite what your agenda is, confuses the life out of me. You know I've argued for you to be involved and engaged - not just because you're one of my local elected representatives, but also because its important to see the different shades of the political spectrum on the issue. I have to say though that I can only echo the comments of some of the others: You've been strident in the way you've dealt with criticism, to the extent of leaving the forum for a time - and now to returning as 'Dave' rather than Dave Woods the councillor.

Good point well made.  Others have tried and not quite got there. 

To clear up the misunderstanding here: on this forum I want to be (more or less) free to speak my mind.  If I am tagged as, effectively, speaking on behalf of SBC in everything I say here I cannot express myself for fear of action being taken against me.  It does happen.

People know I'm a councillor, yes, and I speak of council business.  But there's a difference between this and being a 'marked' spokesperson of the borough.  I hope you appreciate the difference.  But do let me know if you want further clarification.
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Dale Heenan on July 31, 2007, 05:51:29 PM
Much as I've enjoyed reading the other posts, I'd still quite like to know the answer to this one...
Quote
Do you know when the advisory groups first set of recommendations are be expected to be delivered?
James
James
A couple of dates have been pencilled in for the first meeting, and I gather it's mainly down to member availability. I suspect it will be about 4 weeks and towards the end of August.

The 2 recommendations which reflect Planning in the Cabinet report are going to the Planning Committee on August 14th as the future policy...
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: James on July 31, 2007, 06:33:13 PM
I may sound picky, but I don't really care when the meetings are.
I am only really interested in the output.
When should we expect to see the RESULTS of the advisory groups first set of recommendations actually delivered.


And if we miss that date, who (on the council - head of transport, some council officer?) is going to be held responsible.
My guess is that the residents will suddenly become responsible for the failure to deliver change.

I echo Tobes comment about the report btw. A couple of hours trawling the internet could have provided much of the content.

As I have said, the big miss for me is the complete lack of measurement of demand. Without which none of the recommendations can be measured for success. Measurement of success and failure are vital to ensure that our money is spent in the best way, yet we don't have the basic information to even begin to do that.

The reasons for opening this can of worms were a bit blurry, and ill-defined in the first place. Boiling down to some residents thinking parking was a bit of a problem, especially those pesky visitor books. Lack of measurement of that original problem, means we won't know when (or even if) the original issues will have been addressed by any part of this.

James
Title: Re: RP Paper Finally in Public Domain!
Post by: Mart on August 02, 2007, 07:05:09 PM
Dave

Nothing personal, at least you respond, unless something's popped in recently there is sweet fanny adams on the, possibly, next big thing refuse collection.

When you think of all the bright young, and not so young, things who were ready to strike a pose at the outset you tend to wonder where they went to, more pressing matters, or a lack of mental stamina allied to a short attention span, an unfulfilled need for a camera flash and printed quote?

I have nothing new to add really, ditto on the fact it was churned out by consultants and contained an alarming amount of, what I thought, was padding, but I don't know if the teenage pregnancy rates are some sort of obligatory inclusion, or to produce a document so forbidding it put people off perusing it too closely.

I still have my space dimensions hobby horse, I genuinely think we are missing a trick, especially with bay markings, or even markers dobbed on the kerb, measure and manage the resource.

Finally, if I say I am a tosser then I am, it is my human right to be one and I may have grounds for suing, hopefully, car tax due.