NEWPORT PARKING: Council snubs petition

South Wales Argus: NEWPORT PARKING: Council snubs petition NEWPORT PARKING: Council snubs petition

NEWPORT City Council is pressing ahead with its decision to reintroduce parking charges in the city – before reading our petition signed by thousands of traders and shoppers.

The council posted a public notice on page 32 of yesterday’s Argus entitled “Variation of Parking Charges 2013.”

The notice stated that “On 1 February 2013 Newport City Council…intends to vary the charges for car parking in the following car parks.”

It went on to detail the introduction of a flat rate of £1 for up to three hours parking in its Park Square, Hill Street, Riverfront, Stow Hill and Emlyn Street car parks as well as the council-run pay and display at Faulkner Road.

Three to five hours parking will cost £3.50 in all of those car parks except Faulkner Road where it will be £3.60 to park for anything more than three hours.

A stay of more than five hours in the car parks other than Faulkner Road will cost £4.50.

The move comes despite our petition, urging the council to reverse its decision to axe two hours of free parking, not yet being submitted to the council.

Kingsway car park free for 2 hours

TWO hours’ free parking remains in place in the Kingsway multi-storey car park.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:21am Fri 11 Jan 13

whatintheworld says...

I would rather my taxes were spent on schools and residential homes struggling to stay open than subsidise peoples parking. Please Argus, get over this petition.
I would rather my taxes were spent on schools and residential homes struggling to stay open than subsidise peoples parking. Please Argus, get over this petition. whatintheworld

11:31am Fri 11 Jan 13

Valrep says...

£1 for 3 hours sounds reasonable to me. Don't people realise that maintenance has to be funded from somewhere!
£1 for 3 hours sounds reasonable to me. Don't people realise that maintenance has to be funded from somewhere! Valrep

11:49am Fri 11 Jan 13

D Taylor says...

Good for the Council.
Good for the Council. D Taylor

12:03pm Fri 11 Jan 13

UpsetResident says...

At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored.

Yes indeed, good for the council.

I'm voting Tory next time.
At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored. Yes indeed, good for the council. I'm voting Tory next time. UpsetResident

12:26pm Fri 11 Jan 13

D Taylor says...

What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today.
What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today. D Taylor

12:46pm Fri 11 Jan 13

UpsetResident says...

D Taylor wrote:
What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today.
It was a clear enough desire that the local newspaper ran a campaign.

4000 signatures means there were 4000 people who wanted their voice heard, that is far more than the few pro-council commenters who post on this site.

The population of Newport covers 70 square miles of the local area, the issue is relevant only to people in and around the town center, you can spout your fractions of the population all you like, the fact is a sizable number of the voting public have taken action to have their voice heard, only to be ignored by the very people who are meant to represent their needs.
[quote][p][bold]D Taylor[/bold] wrote: What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today.[/p][/quote]It was a clear enough desire that the local newspaper ran a campaign. 4000 signatures means there were 4000 people who wanted their voice heard, that is far more than the few pro-council commenters who post on this site. The population of Newport covers 70 square miles of the local area, the issue is relevant only to people in and around the town center, you can spout your fractions of the population all you like, the fact is a sizable number of the voting public have taken action to have their voice heard, only to be ignored by the very people who are meant to represent their needs. UpsetResident

12:51pm Fri 11 Jan 13

D Taylor says...

How many people who signed the petition are not residents of Newport?
How many people who signed the petition are not residents of Newport? D Taylor

12:53pm Fri 11 Jan 13

D Taylor says...

And the £800,000 is every Newport resident's money. Not just the ones who go the town centre.
And the £800,000 is every Newport resident's money. Not just the ones who go the town centre. D Taylor

1:11pm Fri 11 Jan 13

UpsetResident says...

You're avoiding the point to try and deflect, are you saying 4000 people are not enough voices?

How many people are enough? Is there a set percentage? is there a threshold at which the Council could care less?

Would you be so understanding and enthused with the Council if they were planning on scrapping bin collections in your street because they were too costly?
You're avoiding the point to try and deflect, are you saying 4000 people are not enough voices? How many people are enough? Is there a set percentage? is there a threshold at which the Council could care less? Would you be so understanding and enthused with the Council if they were planning on scrapping bin collections in your street because they were too costly? UpsetResident

1:35pm Fri 11 Jan 13

whatintheworld says...

UpsetResident wrote:
You're avoiding the point to try and deflect, are you saying 4000 people are not enough voices? How many people are enough? Is there a set percentage? is there a threshold at which the Council could care less? Would you be so understanding and enthused with the Council if they were planning on scrapping bin collections in your street because they were too costly?
Are 4000 people enough? Out of a population of around 145,000... no. Is there a set percentage? No, but a little more than 3% would help. To your last point, the scrapping of a public service that everyone uses is very different. Apples and oranges.
[quote][p][bold]UpsetResident[/bold] wrote: You're avoiding the point to try and deflect, are you saying 4000 people are not enough voices? How many people are enough? Is there a set percentage? is there a threshold at which the Council could care less? Would you be so understanding and enthused with the Council if they were planning on scrapping bin collections in your street because they were too costly?[/p][/quote]Are 4000 people enough? Out of a population of around 145,000... no. Is there a set percentage? No, but a little more than 3% would help. To your last point, the scrapping of a public service that everyone uses is very different. Apples and oranges. whatintheworld

1:53pm Fri 11 Jan 13

portforever says...

they would have to pay me 3 pounds to go to the depressing place, have not been for ages and have no intention to visit if i can help it.cant beat spytty retail park,got all anyone could want or need come and see us for youself..
they would have to pay me 3 pounds to go to the depressing place, have not been for ages and have no intention to visit if i can help it.cant beat spytty retail park,got all anyone could want or need come and see us for youself.. portforever

2:23pm Fri 11 Jan 13

UpsetResident says...

The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.
The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out. UpsetResident

2:27pm Fri 11 Jan 13

whatintheworld says...

UpsetResident wrote:
The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.
that's a fair point!
[quote][p][bold]UpsetResident[/bold] wrote: The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.[/p][/quote]that's a fair point! whatintheworld

3:58pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Mr Bump. says...

UpsetResident wrote:
At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored.

Yes indeed, good for the council.

I'm voting Tory next time.
Did the four years those clowns along with their lap dog Liberal partners ruined this city pass you by somehow? I applaud the council on this car parking decision Bravo.
[quote][p][bold]UpsetResident[/bold] wrote: At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored. Yes indeed, good for the council. I'm voting Tory next time.[/p][/quote]Did the four years those clowns along with their lap dog Liberal partners ruined this city pass you by somehow? I applaud the council on this car parking decision Bravo. Mr Bump.

4:20pm Fri 11 Jan 13

D Taylor says...

UpsetResident wrote:
The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.
Yes but that isn't to force a decision. It's to get an official response. Which we've had. It's pay a £.
[quote][p][bold]UpsetResident[/bold] wrote: The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.[/p][/quote]Yes but that isn't to force a decision. It's to get an official response. Which we've had. It's pay a £. D Taylor

5:40pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Howie' says...

UpsetResident wrote:
The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.
We have a similar thing in the UK, The e-petition, which with 100,000 signatures the subject would be eligible for consideration for debate by MPs.

The Council have replied, you just weren't listening. It went something like this "up yours we will do as we like" or more probably it was along the lines of "as the elected representatives of Newport it is our duty to spend what little money we have on keeping essential services going".
[quote][p][bold]UpsetResident[/bold] wrote: The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.[/p][/quote]We have a similar thing in the UK, The e-petition, which with 100,000 signatures the subject would be eligible for consideration for debate by MPs. The Council have replied, you just weren't listening. It went something like this "up yours we will do as we like" or more probably it was along the lines of "as the elected representatives of Newport it is our duty to spend what little money we have on keeping essential services going". Howie'

9:03pm Fri 11 Jan 13

sylwebydd says...

or maybe, since they're closing schools and care homes, we should just pay for our parking? Upset Resident, you vote as you will, we call that democracy.
or maybe, since they're closing schools and care homes, we should just pay for our parking? Upset Resident, you vote as you will, we call that democracy. sylwebydd

10:27pm Fri 11 Jan 13

The People's Republic of Newp says...

UpsetResident wrote:
At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored.

Yes indeed, good for the council.

I'm voting Tory next time.
Good on you. After all, the Conservatives are renowned for subsidising public services.

£1 for 3 hours is more than reasonable. If you can afford insurance, petrol and tax you can certainly afford such a negligible charge.
[quote][p][bold]UpsetResident[/bold] wrote: At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored. Yes indeed, good for the council. I'm voting Tory next time.[/p][/quote]Good on you. After all, the Conservatives are renowned for subsidising public services. £1 for 3 hours is more than reasonable. If you can afford insurance, petrol and tax you can certainly afford such a negligible charge. The People's Republic of Newp

10:29pm Fri 11 Jan 13

The People's Republic of Newp says...

UpsetResident wrote:
D Taylor wrote:
What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today.
It was a clear enough desire that the local newspaper ran a campaign.

4000 signatures means there were 4000 people who wanted their voice heard, that is far more than the few pro-council commenters who post on this site.

The population of Newport covers 70 square miles of the local area, the issue is relevant only to people in and around the town center, you can spout your fractions of the population all you like, the fact is a sizable number of the voting public have taken action to have their voice heard, only to be ignored by the very people who are meant to represent their needs.
What's your solution? Reconstitute the polis? Referenda left, right and centre?
[quote][p][bold]UpsetResident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D Taylor[/bold] wrote: What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today.[/p][/quote]It was a clear enough desire that the local newspaper ran a campaign. 4000 signatures means there were 4000 people who wanted their voice heard, that is far more than the few pro-council commenters who post on this site. The population of Newport covers 70 square miles of the local area, the issue is relevant only to people in and around the town center, you can spout your fractions of the population all you like, the fact is a sizable number of the voting public have taken action to have their voice heard, only to be ignored by the very people who are meant to represent their needs.[/p][/quote]What's your solution? Reconstitute the polis? Referenda left, right and centre? The People's Republic of Newp

10:06am Sat 12 Jan 13

areyour4real says...

A local Newspaper tries to influence politics with a half baked petition and it didn't work, shame on you SWA you are like a cancer on Newport.

Do something positive for a change rather than dragging this town into the muck and pitting us residents against one another.

I will be voting independent next time!
A local Newspaper tries to influence politics with a half baked petition and it didn't work, shame on you SWA you are like a cancer on Newport. Do something positive for a change rather than dragging this town into the muck and pitting us residents against one another. I will be voting independent next time! areyour4real

10:17am Sat 12 Jan 13

D Taylor says...

It's ironic that when the Argus run a story about this seemingly never ending saga they print a picture of the now defunct Cambrian car park. A campaign to make sure that enough parking spaces remained in Newport would have been far more worthwhile.
It's ironic that when the Argus run a story about this seemingly never ending saga they print a picture of the now defunct Cambrian car park. A campaign to make sure that enough parking spaces remained in Newport would have been far more worthwhile. D Taylor

1:33pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Limestonecowboy says...

In this context can parking really spaces 'free?' taking into consideration cost of maintenace etc. Parking at Spytty is not technically 'free' respective stores will pay within their overheads
In this context can parking really spaces 'free?' taking into consideration cost of maintenace etc. Parking at Spytty is not technically 'free' respective stores will pay within their overheads Limestonecowboy

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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