We repeat our objection to car parking charges planned for Ely

1 comments

• I agree the ECDC does not listen to anyone and this public consultation on parking is as farcical and amateur as the last one. I have a different complaint, ... from a commuter viewpoint.... As a commuter I welcome any plans which create a fair payment structure for all drivers using any Ely car park. BUT THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT FAIR. The proposal is £12 a week for Angel Drove and £5 a week for all other car parks! Once again commuters are being fleeced by the ECDC. This Proposal plans to charge commuters more than double the price everyone else has to pay! How is that fair? This is blatant discrimination against one particular group of taxpayers. The previous public consultation resulted in the Angel Drove car park being the only fee paying car park in Ely. The ECDC focused their attention on commuters based on flawed and inaccurate information. Even this consultation has the phrase “The early morning restriction is a very effective way of ensuring that commuters do not fill our long stay car parks” How do they know who the cars belong to? Despite writing to the ECDC and requesting specific information a number of times they are still unable to tell me what methods they used to identify which cars in the car parks belonged to commuters, residents, visitors or local workers; what impact the previous restrictions have had on improving “footfall” and encouraging tourism or providing any details on how they actually measured anything or subsequently monitor anything! A methodical campaign of discriminatory and at times dubious methods of reducing any free car parking options for commuters beginning with early morning restrictions, closing lay-bys and adding new double yellow lines has forced commuters to either pay the well above inflation costs of the train station car park or use the filthy litter strewn boy racer’s playground at Angel Drove, with a fee structure set cynically at around 80% of the station car park. Previous consultations and comments from the ECDC have made it clear that local workers and visitors should have priority and be exempt from paying fees. Commuters and their families pay council tax and make a significant revenue contribution to local businesses,.. a revenue that could not be created or sustained by local employment. These same businesses then get free parking permits for their employees paid for by commuter parking charges. What is the difference between a commuter parking for the day to go to work and a city worker parking for the day and going to work ? the only answer is that a commuter is seen by ECDC as a cash cow that subsidises free car parking for everyone else. This Proposal plans to charge commuters more than double the price everyone else has to pay! How is that fair? This is blatant discrimination against one particular group of taxpayers. A final point; the previous public consultation had queries from ECDC and their union (UNISON) about the impact to their own staff parking. It was decided that this fell outside the scope of the public consultation and would be dealt with as a separate matter. As it is taxpayer’s money that funds the ECDC then it should be a matter for public record if ECDC staff continue to have a free parking perk. I fully support John Blunt’s call to encourage all Paradise Centre users, residents and visitors to complete the consultation and express their opinions on this continuing controversy. But don’t get your hopes up .. if you write to the ECDC don’t expect a straight answer anytime soon, my queries from October 2012 are still unanswered.

  Report this comment

  Muggins

  Tuesday, January 29, 2013