BoroB Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Have all the shops shut? Doesn't seem so when I visit Hillsborough. Many people look on a permit scheme as a good selling point for their house, so I don' think property prices are negatively affected. Never seen permit scheme in any advertising literature for a house. Numerous customers to my shop have commented on the scheme in Hillsborough and the only one with a positive comment was a parking warden. To most people it is council interference with a money making agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 House prices in the Sharrowvale area have been negatively affected by the introduction of the permit zone. I have spoken to a number of Estate Agents about this and they concur. I have asked the council about compensation for this and have had no response... <fingers in ears> lalalalalalalal </fingers in ears> The council sees these as cash-cows and once implemented, will never recind them. Why would the Council need to compensate the residents for something that the residents themselves asked them for? In any case, as far as I am aware, there is no right of compensation for the imposition of traffic regulation orders. That is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that an estate agent thought that a permit scheme reduced property value. I can't see the logic, permits are quite cheap and it helps the residents to park. Why would it reduce values? Did they say why? ---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:22 ---------- Never seen permit scheme in any advertising literature for a house. Numerous customers to my shop have commented on the scheme in Hillsborough and the only one with a positive comment was a parking warden. To most people it is council interference with a money making agenda. As I have said before, people in Hillsborough asked for a scheme. Those areas that didn't want it, didn't get it. I have not heard of any significant groundswell of opinion in any of the schemes indicating that people wanted out, it seems quite the opposite from what I see on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Can't see that somehow. I'd never ever consider buying a house in a parking permit zone, same as I'd never ever consider buying one on a road with hundreds of speed humps like Carterknowle Road. Couldn't agree more. If there is any mention of a residents' parking scheme in the estate agent details, I'd pass that house over straight away. I suspect estate agents try and use it as a positive spin, but most buyers would see right through it immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincero dOro Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Why would the Council need to compensate the residents for something that the residents themselves asked them for? Did every single one of them ask for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Couldn't agree more. If there is any mention of a residents' parking scheme in the estate agent details, I'd pass that house over straight away. I suspect estate agents try and use it as a positive spin, but most buyers would see right through it immediately. Why do you view it as a disadvantage? ---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:25 ---------- Did every single one of them ask for it? No, you can never please all the people all the time. But, those areas where the majority said they didn't want it, didn't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Why would the Council need to compensate the residents for something that the residents themselves asked them for? In any case, as far as I am aware, there is no right of compensation for the imposition of traffic regulation orders. That is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that an estate agent thought that a permit scheme reduced property value. I can't see the logic, permits are quite cheap and it helps the residents to park. Why would it reduce values? Did they say why? ---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:22 ---------- As I have said before, people in Hillsborough asked for a scheme. Those areas that didn't want it, didn't get it. I have not heard of any significant groundswell of opinion in any of the schemes indicating that people wanted out, it seems quite the opposite from what I see on here. As post 1773 shows the imposition of a scheme on people who didn't want to be part of it is adversely affecting them to the extent that reluctantly they have to consider asking to become part of it. As you said in a post several months ago the problem is not solved, cars are displaced elsewhere. Looking at the posts on this thread over the last couple of days the majority appear to be against the scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Why do you view it as a disadvantage? Well, I'll use the reasoning that we used when my partner's old property was under the consultancy programme in HB, we "voted" against because: - finding a space was only difficult after working hours, which suggested what space there was was being used by residents anyway, so permits wouldn't solve anything - we didn't want to go through the hassle of applying and keeping up to date with permits - we could have done without the cost - we didn't want to have to be bothering with visitors permits every time someone popped round for a cuppa - we suspected that if implemented it would put buyers off the property, which we were thinking of perhaps selling I'm sure all these points have been raised by numerous people. Just to be clear, I'm not anti-council, I'm not anti-planners, I don't hold a radical agenda. I'm just a resident trying to make life as easy as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Why do you view it as a disadvantage? ---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:25 ---------- No, you can never please all the people all the time. But, those areas where the majority said they didn't want it, didn't get it. Correct - you can not please all people all the time. However, if you put a scheme in place on one road it is obvious what the effect is going to be on the next road along that did not want to be part of the scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litotes Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 No, you can never please all the people all the time. But, those areas where the majority said they didn't want it, didn't get it. What do you mean a majority? Less than 50% of residents in Sharrowvale voted for the scheme and yet it was implemented. Yes, you will try to wriggle out of this - but I would bet that less than 50% of residents in Hillsborough voted for the scheme. Care to prove it with the figures??? No, I didn't think you would... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 As post 1773 shows the imposition of a scheme on people who didn't want to be part of it is adversely affecting them to the extent that reluctantly they have to consider asking to become part of it. As you said in a post several months ago the problem is not solved, cars are displaced elsewhere. Looking at the posts on this thread over the last couple of days the majority appear to be against the scheme. My interpretation of post 1773 is that they are actually in the permit zone, but did not to apply for permits when the application forms came round. Yes, there is a displacement effect, but it does not go on for ever, most people will not park a significant distance from their destination. I believe the displacement effect has always been explained in the consultation for new schemes. I always made a particular point of it. Permit schemes do not suit everyone and they are not the solution to all parking ills. People need to understand what they are getting and decide accordingly. ---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:55 ---------- What do you mean a majority? Less than 50% of residents in Sharrowvale voted for the scheme and yet it was implemented. Yes, you will try to wriggle out of this - but I would bet that less than 50% of residents in Hillsborough voted for the scheme. Care to prove it with the figures??? No, I didn't think you would... What are you on? Do you think I am sitting here at home hanging on your every word with all the statistics from schemes that happened six or seven years ago here at my fingertips, just waiting for you to ask a question? Think again. We've had this debate before. Your view is that if the majority of people who live there don't positively say they want something, it shouldn't happen. The decision makers can only go on what people tell them. If the majority of responses are positive, that clearly will influence the decision. If people have a view, they need to make it clear to the decision makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.