Curly's Corner Shop, the blog!

South Shields premier political blog

Parking predictions

with 12 comments

South Tyneside Council to increase parking revenue in South Shields?

Now that “pay and display” parking is to become the norm in the bottom end of Beach Road South Shields, and despite the protestations or plans of Eric Pickles to end the “war against motorists”, I predict that South Tyneside Council will within a matter of the next two years extend the areas over which it can charge motorists to park in the town. We have already discovered that our parking charges are reasonably economic compared to other tourist haunts in the north-east, so I see an opportunity for our Labour councillors to increase revenue by extending the pay and display areas just as soon as they think it is opportune to do so.

Extra revenue is always welcome to a local authority, and if it is gathered in places where there is a captive market and they can claim that they are attempting to reduce vehicle congestion, then why won’t they? I predict that Bents Park Road, Seafield Terrace, Lawe Road, and even Ocean Road will get to see the familiar machines and more “enforcement officers” all in the due course of time.

It will be a war against Eric Pickles!

:: :: :: Digg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRank ::

Written by curly

August 1, 2011 at 12:46 pm

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Fatty Pickles’ ‘War on the Motorist’ is like the ‘War on Terror’; a phoney war to score populist points and push a dodgy agenda.

    Compare Pickles’ claims with the previous planning guidance regimes and it actually looks like the steepest parking price increases came under the versions of PPG6 and PPG13 (1996-2006) written under the Major government, as were the development policies that favoured out of town development. Odd how the Telegraph piece failed to mention that.

    If Pickles has another fine mess to sort out, it is one of mostly Tory making.


    August 1, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    • I wonder how much additional revenue the businesses in the town would make if parking where free throughout the year?

      In walk the dog on a regular basis at the seafront and after a while you meet other people doing the same. Over the past year all those people have disappeared. I bumped into one couple the other week in Roker, and guess what? they woukd rather drive to Sunderland and park for free, have a coffee in the cafe and walk the dog than pay an arm and a leg in South Shields.

      Don’t see how we have vehicle congestion in the town the place is like a bloody ghost town and patrolled by the green clad parking stormtrooper looking to knock up a bit more revenue and drive even more people away from the town.


      August 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm

      • If parking was free who would pay for the maintenance of the car parks? Currently South Tyneside’s car parking makes a profit which goes towards other services – how would you replace that lost revenue? Or would you cut other services so tight fisted dog walkers can park their car?


        August 1, 2011 at 11:01 pm

  2. With parking charges the council make a profit and pay for lots of services, sometimes even climate change auditors. However because that means that fewer people park in town, businesses are worse off.

    So the choice is either free parking and allow businesses to make a profit which helps keep the town a nice place to go without any boarded up shops OR have parking charges which go into feed extra services the council runs which means that mother and baby groups and a myriad of other special interest groups can be funded.

    I would ask why car parking charges are funding other council services. If that is the case, then budgets have to be re-evaluated so that the services aren’t so expensive; that includes salaries of the top people as well as extra levels of management and extraneous services such as smoking enforcement officers, climate change auditors, etc.

    If there is a problem with parking causing an obstruction put down double yellows and fine people. If there isn’t a problem then don’t charge. In car parks there should be a fee, but only for long stays.

    The whole point about car parking being free is to allow everyone, not just dog walkers, to come into the area for the benefit of the whole town, not just special interest groups who are funded by the council.

    Why can’t these special interest groups fund themselves?


    August 2, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    • Brian If under the localism bill the council can keep the bsuiness rates, then surely attracting more business to the town will bring in more revenue.

      Also can you tell me how much is spent on maintaining cars parks Brian? What does it take to maintain them. How much does it cost to maintain the car park stormtroopers, would that money be better spent on the services you think need car park revenue to support them.

      Thanks / Tight fisted dog walker


      August 2, 2011 at 7:08 pm

  3. This is good debate; parking and charges for, or not, as the case may be, is an important local issue. It would be helpfulto the debate to have the financial facts and figures clearly set out as suggested by Avatar.Problem is that for those who live near a Metro Station parking can always be an issue, as appears to be the case in East Boldon fr example, where metro users, and, on occasions, airport holidaymakers vehicles are parked legally up to 8/10 minutes walk away from Metro, these legally parked vehicles cause problems for local householders, whose visitors cannot park near them and also can hamper the passage of vehicles along the streets near to the station and access to local shops and businesses Perhaps STC could “pilot” a 6month free parking scheme and try and measure the effect upon local business interests with their cooperation.


    August 2, 2011 at 7:38 pm

  4. The problem with the localism bill in this scenario as I see it is that councils still have budgets to balance. The funding model of the localism bill suggests that it gives Westminster the opportunity to vary it’s funding to councils, forcing councils to rely more on their rates.

    Also, councils will be unlikely to use it to levvy additional costs on businesses to pay for parking, for two reasons. The first was documented in the last South Tyneside business forum consultation, where respondents were concerned that changing rates created uncertainty, increased risk and reduced confidence, making them more likely to go elsewhere with more stable rate charging regimes. This leads to the second problem, is that some councils will use the rate controls in a race to the bottom.

    As far as the profit the council makes on parkling I’m not sure. There was a document produced last year by South Tyneside Council which if I recall correctly put the profit at something like £132,000 per annum. I presume this goes back into the budget, rather than paying directly for the toddler groups SadButMadLad seems to worry so much about. By the way, motorists are a special interest group too.

    Whichever model for parking you use someone is going to have to pay. Here in South Tyneside, which has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the UK, should council tax payers pay for parking spaces, or the motorists who actually use them?


    August 2, 2011 at 9:05 pm

  5. If parking was free and teams of people carried shoppers in sedan chairs to their exact destination there would still be boarded up shops.
    The economic climate is such that people are hanging on to what little they have. Taxis and pubs/clubs are also suffering because people can’t or won’t spend.
    The story is the smae in many other places not just Shields.
    Our town was never designed for the level of car ownership we now have- even if it is comparatively low. . My quiet little street has four car households with consequential problems of people being unable to park outside their front door. This reduces people to outbreaks of ‘parking rage’ and I’ve seen normally peaceful middle aged people nearly come to blows. People near the town centre,beaches or Metro stations are even worse off as has been outlined.


    August 3, 2011 at 10:06 am

    • Ironically, in affluent residential areas of ST you have, as pointed out by I Spy, 2,3 even 4 car families without adequate driveways and garaging causing those “parking rage” incidents as described. Furthermore, in addition within those areas you now have what can best be described as “white van virus” developing in situations where householders are staying put and extending/improving their property, employing a variety of traders to carry out the work, all of whom seem to have a white van that has to be parked in a residential area for 9 hours, occasionally, completely obstructing pavements and blocking access to and exit from neighbouring driveways. Wage freezes and loss of consumer confidence = idler taxis and boarded up shops.


      August 3, 2011 at 11:51 am

  6. Don’t insult your readers intelligence Curly. Your ‘prediction’ is hardly earth shattering is it? The council is consulting with local residents, a relative of mine has already had a letter. You might want to polish that crystal ball before making further predictions otherwise people might ask for their money back.


    August 5, 2011 at 6:53 am

  7. Why not introduce free parking for 1 or 1.5 hours in Town Centre car parks to encourage shoppers and introduce parking charges along Commercial Road (opposite the Law Courts) & the top of River Drive to help make up the loss of revenue?


    August 5, 2011 at 10:36 pm

  8. […] to see that Cllr. Khan is agreeing with me on at least one thing, however I do disagree that these schemes will kill off the town or deter visitors, I took this […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: