After giving this subject a lot of thought and reading all the comment from a previous posting (which have been shared with the Town Council) I welcome the idea to investigate the idea further.
As I live in Town I rarely have the need to use either of the Town Car Parks. The introduction of a charge is likely to be of benefit to me, provided the money raised is used to reduce the precept. For others, it will depend on their individual circumstances. I had assumed most of the people using the Car Park, would be from outside the area (the area that funds Tenbury Town Council) but from previous comments, this might be entirely wrong. Only research will tell.
If charges are applied I think that the Palmer Meadow Car Park should be priced as a long term car park, but the minimum charge should be at the very least equal the minimum charge in the Burgage Car Park, but could be for a longer duration.
eg: 60p for 1 hour (Burgage) 60p for 8 hours (Palmers)
I think any notion that the Car Park should be run on an "honesty" system with no non payment penalties is unworkable. The Car Park is at it's busiest when either the Rugby or Football Clubs are playing. Word would quickly spread that no payment is required.
There could possibly be a partial refund for people using the Car Park to visit the Swimming Pool (& therefore only parking for a short while).
Many people already buy a MHDC residents pass which allows them up to 2 hours parking per visit (to any MHDC Car Park) for £15 a year. Perhaps a similar scheme could be introduced for the Palmers Car Park for people who work in the town.
I do think that the Town Council should consider giving WCC/Severn Waste notice to quit. Severn Waste have put aside sufficient funds to build a modern waste site locally. It is only lack of imperative that seems to be delaying this project. If they really cannot find another site then the Town Council should levy a far higher charge for the space being utilised, as it appears we are paying a far higher charge through the WCC precept (to fund the waste contract) and this is ending up as extra profit for Severn Waste, unless WCC are charging a high rent for the facility & passing just £1 a year to the Town Council.
Update after the Town Council Meeting 6/611
The Town Council agreed to form a sub-committee to research the idea of implementing a charge for parking on the Palmers Car Park, but adjourned until the next full meeting (4th July) the decision on who should sit on this committee. 
Posts
15 comments:
WR15, for once i agree with you....I beleive the "Skips" should be relocated to the failed business park area on the Bromyard road where a full servie can be provided, including more recycling options. This does not mean that the bottle banks need to be removed...this way we as a town could achieve more recycling and assit MHDC reaching their own targets. I would propose the opening hours of the skips were also extended, maybe not 7 days but vertianly Sat, Sun and 1 day mod week, Weds or Thurs for instance. Asking themt o leave would also open the oppurtnuity to invite themt o dnate to the resurfacing, without a doubt the HGVs they use for the delivery of skips etc has contributed to the wear of the car park surface....
Personally i would alos stop the fair coming, there is a fair at the Tenbury show for those who need a Waltzer fix....if we cannot stop them we should impose a suitable levy which reflects the impact on local business as well as the wear to the car park.
The first thing is charge the waste site a proper rent. That should bring in enough money to cover the rates on the car park. This should have been done years ago.
It is very expensive to run a pay and display car park. It costs thousands to set up, it costs thousands to 'police'. Many council pay-and-display car parks do little more than cover their running costs.
As I posted on the previous thread. I think charges are a bad idea and would produce minimal revenue (or even extra cost), it would have an overall negative effect on traders in the town and as I said previously a potentially negative effect on local residents as people who work in town would park on their street.
I wonder just how much it would cost to re-surface the car park - if the re-surfacing was 'aggressively' bought by the town council. Potentially I suspect that if this was done then a temporary increase for 2 years on the 'precept' would be sufficient and most people would (whilst not appreciating the extra charge)understand what it was for.
I think the estimate is circa £40k (I will listen out Monday) so about 40% of Councils annual precept. Some might be happy with temporary increase to pay it, but possibly most who don't use it would object.
Repairs aren't iminate, but more than the current £1k a year will need to be put away if no other funding option is agreed.
rugby fan 72 the fair is intitle to come to tenbury there is a medeival charter that been in place for hundreds of years or are u a sad git .
Hmm wr15 thought you wasn't going to publish posts with personal attacks. And there we are one saying you sad git.
I felt "or are you a sad git" was just borderline acceptable, whereas I wouldn't have published "you are a sad git".
Always difficult knowing where to draw the line, but more interested in knowing if the charter bit is correct and gives the fair a right to pitch even if not wanted.
"A charter [in Tenbury] for a market and yearly fair was granted in 1248 to Roger Clifford..."
Also both Ludlow and Tenbury had a 'statute Fair' on May 1st - originally for the hiring of local labour.
So does that mean the fair have a statuary right to hold a fun fair in Tenbury in May?
Done a bit more digging and found:
"The granting of charters however did not necessarily herald the right to hold a fair: it was in effect the control of revenues for the Crown in return for the control and organisation to stay with a particular town, abbey or village. Between 1199 and 1350 over fifteen hundred charters were issued granting the rights to hold markets or fairs."
And
"The start of hiring fairs or mops can be traced to the fourteenth century with the passing of the Statute of Labourers in 1351 by Edward III. These Statute fairs or Mops, as they are known in the Midlands, still continued in their original purpose until the end of the nineteenth century. However even with these hiring fairs the original purpose of the event was soon superseded by the amusement side…"
I know that this doesn't actually give an answer but interesting never the less..
Fair enough:)
I think car park charges would be a shame. Unless somewhere can be found for shopkeepers/staff to park without incurring charges. Not everyone is fortunate enough to live within walking distance.
As for the Tesco affair, I'm sure it would be possible to get 800 local residents who would oppose this idea!
I've never had the benefit of free parking for any job, I wondered why you feel the Shop Keepers and Workers of Tenbury should be so rewarded out of the Council Tax payers purse?
Thousands and thousands of workers in Worcestershire get free parking, funded from the council tax, because they work for the County Council or District Council. If these people enjoy parking paid for from council tax, it's only fair that parking in Tenbury should be paid for from council tax.
When WCC suggested staff at County Hall should pay to park, the union plunged into discussions to prevent this, subsequently sending out a letter to members saying "......any thoughts the Council had for charging workers to park onsite have been dropped. It’s not surprising that staff were not keen on being effectively taxed for coming to work. We’re glad that the Council have listened...."
If it's wrong to 'tax' council staff for 'coming to work', then it's just as wrong to 'tax' others. Or is it one rule for 'them' - and one rule for 'us'?
Post a Comment