The problem with Wyre Forest District Council’s parking review is not that they want to increase parking fees. That’s life these days. The problem is the unfairness and dishonesty of the council’s approach. The on-line document that the public were supposed to find during the “secret” consultation period concealed vital facts and confused others. It’s little wonder the public and press didn’t catch on to what the council was up to. It’s also little wonder that this document seems to have disappeared now the “consultation” is over.
What really galls is the council’s constant use of words like ”consistency, fairness and equity” as the reason for the changes, while being anything but. The people of, say, Franche or Sutton Park, don’t need parking permits on car parks because they have ample space on their drives or on the street. My father has a small house in Nursery Grove but it has sufficient drive and frontage to squeeze three cars; all free of charge. In Mitton, Stourport or the narrow streets of Bewdley’s old town, many people have no parking space, at all. They can only use the car parks, so, of course, fairness and equity are impossible. Indeed, the plans do not even attempt to be equitable. Why, for instance, is the proposed daily rate for parking in Vale Road, Stourport, double that of Blakedown? How is that consistent, fair or equitable? It isn’t and the council is either lying or in denial for saying it is.
People have cars because Wyre Forest cannot afford the comprehensive public transport system of a major city and because most people work outside the area. It is the council’s duty to help their taxpayers to accommodate these vehicles and to do so at a fair price. £260 per year is not a fair price. It is double that of St Johns Wood or Mayfair in London. The council knows it’s not fair, which is why it omitted the amount from its public consultation document and why it snidely remarked that the current Residents’ Parking Permits in Bewdley are “subsidised”. They are not. The council profited by half a million pounds on off-street parking last year. There is no subsidy involved in on-street parking in Wyre Forest. Anyone buying something in bulk in advance, should rightly expect a discount. It’s the same principle whatever they’re buying, including parking, and for the council, every resident’s parking permit paid for a year in advance is money in the bank.
As to the free car park in Vale Road, the council seems determined to dig an even deeper hole for itself. Twice in the past the council has attempted to levy charges on its users, even though many of them are residents of Mitton with no choice; even though it would be damaging to the economy of Stourport’s main and beleagured shopping streets; even though everyone in Stourport believes the land was given over by Thomas Vale for the free use of Stourport residents. On both occasions the council was rebuffed by the family who gave the land for the road that bears its name, Vale.
Even the recently deleted council parking review document admitted that there was agreement that the car park would be free until a footbridge was built across the road. It gave the County Council’s disinterest in investing in such a crossing as the reason to ignore the agreement and charge fees regardless. It is a sad sign of the times that “a man’s word is his bond” is regarded as irrelevant when cash is involved. The council itself destroyed thousands of documents in the 1970s and now regards the lack of hardcopy legal proof of the agreement as reason to ignore the weight of public opinion that the agreement existed.
I met with members of the Vale family last week and they are convinced that there was such an agreement. They wrote to the council when they heard of the changes and were brusquely dismissed with a bill of sale from 1947 that “proved” the council’s right to do what it liked. The document was missing the page with the signatures and therefore was no proof, at all. It is currently posted on the council website. What else was on that missing page? And such documents usually follow a chain of correspondence to agree the terms. Where are they? Were they destroyed? The council seems happy to offer incomplete evidence as “proof” and yet dismiss the opinions of those who remember. Where’s the fairness and equity in that?
Neville Farmer
Parliamentary Spokesman, Wyre Forest Liberal Democrats
October 3, 2010 at 10:48 am
Nev,
There has NEVER been a proposal for a footbridge across Vale Rd. which would cost hundreds of thousands, the proposal was for a PEDESTRIAN REFUGE in the middle of the road!
October 3, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Thanks Fran,
I hear different stories from different councillors and residents. I was informed that a pedestrian refuge would not have been allowed because the road is too wide (three lanes) to be within safety guidelines. Therefore the only alternative would have been an impractical set of lights with a Pelican crossing or similar, causing congestion issues, or a footbridge, which as you rightly point out would have cost a fortune. I bow to your experience in such matters.