Your Councillors

Chatham Road

�2 Objections

0 Comments

0 Support

Name

Address

Comments

Objection / Support

Response

Resident

Wallace

Chatham Rd

I am writing to protest about the parking restrictions that you plan to make on the Chatham Rd between Moncktons Lane and Calder Road.

In that you propose to impose penalties for persons parking their vehicles on the pavement and grass verge along the stretch of the road.

This estate was built in the 1930�s when there was not nearly so much traffic on the roads and the designers could not possibility have envisaged the volume of motor traffic that it would be subject to 70 years later. Between Moncktons Lane and Calder Road there are a number of houses with no off road parking available to them. There is also a busy shop with limited parking whose business could be seriously jeopardised if these restrictions are imposed. I myself do have off road parking but there are four adults in my household, all using cars. With other members of the family wanting to visit there is no room for everybody to park on the drive so we often park cars on the access to my drive between the two pavements.

Can you tell me why this restriction is limited to the area between Monckton�s Lane and Calder Road as you will find a far worse situation down Calder Road and indeed throughout the whole estate where streets are crammed with cars parking on the pavement to allow room for the buses to pass through.� If you impose parking restrictions outside our houses where are my neighbours and our visitors supposed to park. They cannot go round the corner to park because these roads are already full of parked cars.

We look to our local councillors to provide care and support for our community by providing solutions to our problems. To impose draconian restrictions like these would do the opposite making an already difficult situation intolerable. There is also the matter of policing the area. How much is the council going to spend on paying for wardens to patrol this area to ensure the ruling is upheld. Would the residents who would be inconvenienced by this ruling be expected to pay for its enforcement.

The area mentioned in the notice has two parallel footpaths with grass verges between them. Do we need two footpaths? Can we do without the grass verges? Yes it might not look so pretty but if the path nearest to the road were converted into spaces and a cycle path put between them and the footpath it would solve two problems. The parking situation and it would give cyclists no excuse for using the footpath as a cycle route riding at speed past my drive entrance. You may say that the cost of such an enterprise would prohibit it but how much would it cost and how many years of paying out for parking wardens would that money cover. A lot has been spent making the town centre attractive to encourage visitors and tourists. Can�t a little more be spent on making its outskirts more pleasant so that they don�t have to travel through run down overcrowded areas to get to it.

Objection

Maidstone Council only looked at this issue following complaints from residents in relation to damage to verges and obstruction of footways by parked vehicles. Both of these activities are unauthorised but the current road traffic order was not up to date and was therefore unenforceable. To continue not to enforce would open the Council up to challenge from those individuals who demand that the County of Kent Act and obstruction legislation is implemented. We have received two objections to the regularising of the enforcement situation within the consultation period � however a greater number of local households lodged the initial complaint to the local councillors.� There is clearly a local problem with obstruction of local authority footways provided for pedestrians and damage to public property (verges and posts).

It is inevitable that there will be dispersion effect, this will have to be monitored and if necessary further restrictions may need to be implemented, however this will need to be managed carefully to reduce the impact on residents although we must appreciate that there is not an infinite amount of space on street.

Kent County Council are responsible for road improvements and therefore any request to implement parking spaces on the current verge areas should be addressed to them for consideration.

Resident

Loveless-Bascombe

Chatham Rd

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Prohibition of Stopping on the Footway or Verge Order-Variation No 2 Order 2013.

Our Home is within the area of the proposed order. At the moment there is no safe on-street parking outside our house as the road is too narrow to park at the kerbside without causing a dangerous obstruction for other road users. Our house is owned by the Golding Homes housing association� and does not have any provision for parking off the street.

Moncktons Lane or Calder Road are both residential streets with any available on-street parking taken up by their own residents.

Our only vehicle is a van which my husband uses for his work. As a self-employed tradesman his van is essential for him to earn his living and he cannot afford for it to be out of service. Even parked outside our house it has already been broken into twice and we are very concerned that if we had to park it away from the house it would be even more vulnerable to theft and damage.

A further concern is that disabled people will not be able to visit us. My mother is suffering from Leukaemia and is very weak and unable to walk any distance. If she were not allowed to park outside she would not be able to visit us.

The verge outside our house consists of two separate footpaths separated by a grass area. Parking on the roadside footpath does not hinder pedestrian passage as the second footway is still clear for use.

We believe that this space has the width to be adapted to incorporate residents parking bays and a cycle path in addition to an existing footpath.

I also wish to complain about the position selected to post the notice about this order. It was not a place that most people would pass normally. There is no pedestrian crossing nearby and indeed no footpath on the other side of the road. It gives the impression that it was put there in order to be obscure. I am enclosing photos to illustrate this.

Objection

Kent County Council are responsible for road improvements and therefore any request to implement parking spaces on the current verge areas should be addressed to them for consideration.

Public Notices where erected on 8^th Oct and removed on 12^th Nov in the following locations:

On LC KCBY014 o/s Church Hall & LC KCBY021 O/S 101,opp 95, on Roundabout sign jct with Moncktons Lane

Bower Close

�3 Objections Including 21 signature petition

3 Comments

1 Support

Name

Address

Comments

Objection / Support

Response

Resident

Hoare

Bower Street

It has come to my attention that there is a proposal for Prohibition of Footway and Verge Parking in Bower Close. A residents of Bower Close has made this known to me, as letters have only been sent to those particular residents (9 in total, of which 3 do not have cars due to being elderly).

I feel firstly that Councillor David Picket has been underhand in this process, knowing that a lot of normal working families suffer because of this and wanted to get this order through without their knowledge.

The impact that it will have to me is that I work unsociable hours for the NHS and this would force me to then park in Bower Mount Rd and I would have to walk down an unlit alley, where it has been reported that drug addicts use late at night (of which this particular Councillor did not want to get involved with and put no importance to this situation), putting myself and other residents in danger. There should be importance placed on resident�s safety first surely. I have gone out there late at night and residents of Bower Street do not park across residents drive and would gladly meet the Councillor in question over the next week to prove this point, as I feel his priorities are disjointed.

It has also come to my attention also that outside of these particular houses there are grass verges of which have no use, apart from dogs going to toilet. Has anyone not looked into making parking facilities for the residents that would affected by this? If the Councillor thinks this is high priority,

Then surely he must look at alternatives to assist the families with young children who will suffer, issues of lighting in the alleys would benefit all residents and not just Bower Close.

Lastly, I understand and appreciate that I�m not guaranteed a parking place in the bay, although I pay �25 annually and understand that it�s a bonus, but feel that in this case it�s not what you know, but who you know.

I would gladly meet up with the Councillor to go through these issues including the added risk to residents and health and safety at any time outside my working hours and feel there is more to this that should be taken into account before any decision is approved.

Comments

We are proposing to place a prohibition on parking on the Footway or Verges in a number of roads within the borough due to an increase in vehicles parking upon them and in order to preserve the ambience and characteristics of the area, and to protect further degradation which includes Bower Close, however it would appear that Bollards have been placed which will protect the main grass verge and although the current parking restriction does not cover the evening period as parking in the area is limited to increase the operational times would have an adverse affect on residents of the area.

If vehicles are causing an obstruction then this can be dealt with by the Police as we have no powers to enforce this offence.

Resident

Talbot

Bower Street

I wish to object to the above proposed order as I feel it would further compound the problems of parking in bower St/Bower Close. I have previously written regarding the single yellow line restriction which commences at 8am until 6.30pm. This I found to be bizarre and served no real purpose other than to raise funds for the issue of parking tickets. I have witnessed parking attendants drive to Bower Close , just after 8am and issue parking tickets. This was a specific purpose as vehicles parked in the road were ignored. Previously vehicles have been parked in the residents parking area without tax but nothing was done to check these or arrange for removal. I previously gave two registration numbers and have photographs on my desk top of a traffic warden parked after 8am in the restricted area taken photographs of a car to issue a ticket.

I leave home at 7am and arrive back at approx 6.30pm. I sometimes have no option other than to park in Bower Close not obstructing a driveway. I could park in Bower Mount Road and walk down the dark alley, dodge the dogs mess and hope I don�t encounter any unsavoury characters on route. I know there have been previous incidents in the area of mobile phone theft. The pavements are not used for people to walk down in Bower Close as they are very short. No doubt it is inconsiderate residents in Bower Close who do not have a problem and only think of themselves, typical of the world. There are two grass verges at the top of the road, which serve no purpose other than for people to allow their dogs to foul upon. Why can the grass verges not be removed the area tarmacked to allow additional residents parking alleviate the problem.

Luckily for David Pickett he does not own a car and is fortunately enough to be able to afford or claim back via expenses the cost of taxi�s, we often witness his arrival by this form of transport. It would seem a letter was sent by David Pickett but to the residents of Bower Close only and a notice pinned to a lamp post conveniently not walks past and therefore not viewed by many people (probably the intention). This affect the whole of Bower Street and Bower Close so it is unfair and underhand to only make certain residents aware. I thought councillors were meant to be impartial but clearly they are devious.

Objection

If vehicles are causing an obstruction then this can be dealt with by the Police as we have no powers to enforce this offence. Kent County Council are responsible for road improvements and therefore any request to implement parking spaces on the current verge areas should be addressed to them for consideration.

Resident

Tibbals

Bower Close

I am writing as a resident of 9 Bower Close. I am highlighting my concern that should this proposed parking alteration to the public highway of bower close be made it will force the residents to look for alternatives which is likely to impact on the privately owned Bower Close No�s 9 � 14. There is considerable ill feeling due to the development removing 40 garage spaces in the area and I think the proposal would further antagonise the people living in Bower Street who use these verges in the evening and weekends. In my opinion a single yellow line is sufficient and unless you can assure me that this would not adversely impact the new development I feel that I have to object.

If you could please communicate this to the relevant parties I would be grateful.

Objection

It is inevitable that there will be dispersion effect if the proposal is approved, �this will have to be monitored and if necessary further restrictions may need to be implemented, however this will need to be managed carefully to reduce the impact on residents.

Resident

Trezise

Bower Street

A letter has come into my possession regarding the prohibiting of stopping on the footway and verge in Bower Close. This letter was only sent to the residents in Bower Close so of course they are going to agree to it. I live in Bower Street and have to pay �25 a year for the privilege of sometimes not parking in my road let alone outside my house. The only respite we get is on a Sunday when there are no parking wardens. Why not make it fairer and tarmac the grass verge that is of no use and let us have a bit more parking in the road. Bower Close are lucky enough to have drives and I can understand why they dont like all the cars up there. There is a large grass area that is doing nothing. Why cant that be used for parking ?
The letter was written by Councillor David Pickett and surely it should have gone to Bower Street as well as Bower Close. We pay to park and Bower close don�t. Surely we should be entitled to a little leeway.

Comments

Kent County Council are responsible for road improvements and therefore any request to implement parking spaces on the current verge areas should be addressed to them for consideration.

Resident

Yates

Bower Street

We are really dismayed after conversations we have had with you Re parking in Bower Street, and now to read about proposed parking order in Bower Close.

Bower Street is full of cars during the day and has limited spaces.

The parking permit is �25 and cannot guarantee parking even in the next street. We have lost many parking spaces in the last 2 years due to the garages all rentals sold with spaces for parking for new houses in Bower Close. There are many families with young children as well as older people with difficulty walking from their cars including the safety issue of the dark winter nights and pending ice and snow issues.

We as residents of Bower Street feel we are being victimised and used as cash cows for MBC, with wardens sitting in their own cars, hiding in back alley ways to catch people out who have no choice but to load their cars outside of their houses.

Comments

Resident

Woollett

Bower Close

I would like to support the proposed prohibition of footway and verge parking in Bower Close it is only a narrow road when car park on footways� you have got to walk in the road also cars are parked opposite drive ways it makes access to my drive way very difficult especially going to work at 6am in the mornings.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Support

Resident

Chilcott

Including 21 signature petition

Bower Street

It has come to my attention that, due to complaints from a few residents of Bower Close, you are intending to implement further parking restrictions on all boundaries of Bower Close. Although the manner of the restrictions has not been stated I can only assume that this means double yellow lines.

The residents of Bower Close had the courtesy of being informed about this with a letter from Councillor David Pickett the Liberal Democrat for Bridge Ward ( his letter attached). However we, the residents of adjoining Bower Street, had no such privilege and I find it extremely underhand that it was deemed unnecessary to inform us of such plans. This is because parking in this area is totally inadequate and at a premium and WE WILL BE FAR MORE AFFECTED by this decision than those in Bower Close.

The complainants of Bower Close have the enviable luxury of having driveways or garages to park their vehicles. Therefore further restrictions will have LITTLE effect on them other than the view from their windows. In this day and age a lot of people have put up with this and do not purposely cause hardship to others because of it.

However, the implementation of further restrictions will DRASTICALLY and UNFAIRLY have dire consequences for residents of Bower Street. For us it is already a nightmare to find a parking space when we get home at the end of the day. This is despite having to pay outlandish fees for our parking permits but still with no guarantee of a parking space. Unlike the residents of Bower Close, with their driveways/garages and no fees to pay, we in Bower Street have a daily struggle to find parking spaces let alone the finances to pay it.

I understand that it is being said by some residents of Bower Close that the evening and overnight parking on the single yellow lines is causing obstruction. I live three doors down and totally refute this allegation.

I, amongst others, frequently have to park on these lines (there being no spaces in Bower Street) and I can personally vouch, not only for myself but also for others too, that we are mindful of the residents needs and can truthfully say that in no way are footpaths totally obstructed or their driveways blocked. If there are some cars on the footpaths/verge it is purely to make it easier for Bower Close residents to exit their driveways. However this parking is only between the permitted times of the single yellow line stipulations i.e between 6.30pm and 8.00am so the parking is not all day long, day in day out. I might add at this point that the majority of Bower Close residents also cause obstruction by leaving their refuse bins on the footpath at all times. I do believe that this is against regulations too. It is also unnecessary as they have much more space on their properties to store their bins that we on Bower Street do.

It has also been bandied about that there is ample parking for Bower Close residents on the next road up which is Bower Mount Road. That may be but that would necessitate the use of the alleyway between the two roads which exits at the junction of Bower Street with Bower Close. This is not a viable option and is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for several reasons.

1,� The sheer distance is not viable for the elderly or infirm

2, it is also not an option for parents with young children, pushchairs and shopping to contend with.

3, The arguments at numbers 1 and 2 are further validated by the instances of undesirables frequenting these alleyways and causing intimidation.

4, These alleyways are littered with dog excrement which is never cleared away. I have on occasion also seen hypodermic needles discarded.

5: The arguments at 3 and 4 are even more important after dark as the alleyways are inadequately lit and even more hazardous to the safety of those using them.

6, After dark no one should be expected to use these dingy, unlit alleyways strewn with dog excrement. With the loitering of undesirables they should, especially, not be expected to be used by vulnerable people such as women and children or the elderly and infirm.

I cannot understand how the Council can make such a complete reversal on the parking restrictions in this area. Approximately five years ago there were plans by the Council to implement lowering the restrictions on the single yellow lines by altering the restricted times from 8.00am -6.30pmk to 9.00am � 5.00pm. At the time ONE Bower Close resident objected to the plan and it was, therefore not implemented. JUST ONE � how can that be a fair outcome when so many wanted (needed!) the restrictions lowered. I would hope that the many voices of Bower Street residents, objecting to these latest proposals, will have the same effect as that ONE person five years ago in stopping these new parking restrictions being implemented.

Since the development of new houses at the end of Bower Close there has been even more need for parking spaces. Although these residents have their own allotted parking spaces their visitors do not. WE are therefore also competing with even more people for a place to park.

This leads me on to the grassed area of land between this development and post box. This is waste land, rarely maintained and covered in dog excrement (despite a dog bin nearby) and in my opinion, when parking is in such short supply, is a total was of space. Surely this could be turned into a much needed parking area.

I did call on Mr Pickett (The Councillor) to discuss this matter of the impending restrictions. However, he was not interested in listening to what I had to say and in fact was most rude. I have written a separate letter of complaint regarding this matter.

I sincerely hope that my objections, along with other residents of Bower Street who also object, to these proposals are dealt with in a sympathetic and correct manner as I find the fact that we have not been officially informed by letter and therefore left in the dark regarding these proposals most unacceptable.

Objection

We can confirm that the proposal is to prohibit parking on the grass verge and footway, the current parking restriction which operates from Mon-Sat 8am � 6.30pm will remain and therefore vehicles will still be permitted to park adjacent to the kerb.

If vehicles are causing an obstruction then this can be dealt with by the Police as we have no powers to enforce this offence.

Parking Services did amend some of� the parking restrictions in a number of residential zones within the borough from Mon-Sat 8am -6.30pm to Mon-Fri 9am � 5pm however none of the streets in the west area where included in the proposals.

Kent County Council are responsible for road improvements and therefore any request to implement parking spaces on the current verge areas should be addressed to them for consideration.

Mote Avenue

3 Objections including a� 21 signature petition from 18 properties although 4 had also responded separately. 1 has been subsequently withdrawn.

6 Support

2 Comment

Name	Address	Comments	Objection /Support	Response
Resident Bates	Mote Ave	In my defence for submitting these comments late, I would like to point out that I had great difficulty in viewing a copy of the Order. I was unable to find this document on both the Maidstone Borough Council and Kent County Council websites and on enquiring at the reception desk in Gateway, King Street on a Saturday morning, I was informed that they did not have a copy and to go to County Hall! I also emailed Kent County Council via their website, quoting the Order, asking if they could send me a pdf copy. To date I have not had a reply or even an acknowledgement to the online request! As I do not work locally I had to enlist the assistance of a friend to view the order and obtain a copy of the plan for me which I was able to view this weekend. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you with regard to the issues raised within my letter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I note from your email that it is not the Council's intention to enforce these restrictions to the access's of the properties in Mote Avenue and given that this will be the case, I am happy to withdraw my objection. As stated in my letter, I do agree that parking should not be allowed on the grass verges or footpaths in Mote Avenue which are currently being ruined in places, so welcome these proposals. I would, however, ask that when these restrictions come into effect, you inform your civil enforcement officers for this area of this arrangement, to prevent any misunderstandings occurring. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to get back to me on this matter, which is appreciated. I appreciate my comments are beyond the consultation period but I hope you will look at these favourably and clarify the issues raised.	Objection Withdrawn	We are proposing to place a prohibition on parking on the Footway or Verges in a number of roads within the borough due to an increase in vehicles parking upon them and in order to preserve the ambience and characteristics of the area, and to protect further degradation which includes Mote Avenue. As you may be aware there is currently signage stating under Section 86 of County of Kent Act 1981 No vehicles on Mown Verge which is not at present being enforced, there is also a byelaw which is intended to preserve the road margins, the proposed restriction will supersede these and enable our Civil Enforcement Officers to enforce the above restriction, regrettably our mapping system does not depict the access�s to the properties however it is not our intention to enforce these areas. I hope this clarifies the present situation and I respectfully request that you consider withdrawing your objection which would enable us to continue with the proposal, if you are agreeable to withdrawing your objection this must be in writing, if you wish to discuss the matter further please do not hesitate in contacting me.
Unkown Madden	Unknown	I am thrilled to hear of Maidstone Borough Council's proposal to enforce illegal parking on verges and footways on Mote Avenue, with new signage to ensure offenders are caught. Bravo! New signage should be introduced where possible throughout Maidstone!	Comment
Resident Carpenter	Mote Ave	I support whole heartedly the above proposed order. Please put a stop to this thoughtless and dangerous practice.	Support
Resident Collingwood	Mote Ave	My main concern is the driving of motors driving along the footpath to access to 44-46 are we waiting for a fatality to happen?? Main offenders are 36 42 48 50 I am in favour of the proposed parking order, But with better clarification.	Support
Resident Batchelor	Mote Ave	I am writing to you concerning your proposed Prohibition of Footway and Verge Parking in Mote Ave. Although having gone to view the proposed plans at your Gateway offices and speaking to someone there it was not clear if this parking restriction included the tarmac approach or if it included weekends and during the evenings. So therefore at the time of writing I am unable to obtain precise information of what you are proposing. I would therefore like you to take into account the following. I have no objection to the stop the parking on grass verges, but having lived at this address for the past 28 years without fear of my family or friends being unable to park on my drive or on the tarmac approach area before the walking pavement when necessary until now. So therefore I do strongly OBJECT to stop the parking on the approach to my property if this is part of the proposed plans. To the best of my knowledge this has never caused any problems or concerns in all the time that I have been living here.	Objection to ban on parking on approach road.	The proposal is to prohibit parking on the verge and footway at all times, As you may be aware there is currently signage stating under Section 86 of County of Kent Act 1981 No vehicles on Mown Verge which is not at present being enforced, there is also a byelaw which is intended to preserve the road margins, the proposed restriction will supersede these and enable our Civil Enforcement Officers to enforce the above restriction, regrettably our mapping system does not depict the access�s to the properties however it is not our intention to enforce these areas.
Resident Cunningham	Mote Ave	I am delighted and please to support the above proposed prohibition. Section 86 of the County of Kent 1981 act has been ignored for far too long. There are far too many vehicles parked on the lovely grass verge and I hope a Penalty is in future fully enforced. Thank you very much.	Support
Resident French	Mote Ave	My husband and I are delighted at last something is being done to stop people parking on the grass verge and driving along the pathways. When there is an event in the park we have to endure people parking all over the grass verge, such as when the music festival was on recently. In bad weather it churns up the grass and makes deep muddy ruts which are very unsightly. Also constantly parking on the verge does not help the grass to grow properly. And when the men come to mow the verges, they can�t do it properly with cars parked on the grass. It is also unsafe for people to drive along the pathways to get on to Mote Ave. We have been here 18 years and never do this only in an emergency when we have been blocked in by a delivery lorry or something similar. We look forward to this being implemented as soon as possible.	Support
Resident Vuko	Mote Ave	For a while I have not understood why you have not understood why you have not been enforcing parking restrictions on the verges. I fully support your proposal.	Support
Via Councillor	Mote Ave	We totally support the above mentioned proposal to ban parking of vehicles on the footpaths and especially the verges in Mote Ave. It is rarely people attending events in Mote Park who cause the most damage to the verges, but the residents of Mote Ave. This is particularly relevant to number 36, who runs a business from home. We have lived at number 27 for 27 years and have only once heard of the existing single yellow line restrictions, which apply up to the cartilage of the properties being enforced.	Support
Via Councillor	Resident Brain	I live at No 36 and we have a tarmac area leading up to the drive of our house. When we have visitors to our house they park on this tarmac area. Can you tell me if this area is to be included in the proposal to be prohibited or is it merely grass verges and footpaths. Thank you for the clarification that the tarmac areas will not be affected by any proposed parking restrictions in Mote Ave. It does however beg the question as to why the proposal has been made in the first place. It is already illegal to park on the footway and the grassed areas are covered by the existing bylaw that prohibits parking on the grass.	Comments	My apologies for the delay in replying I only managed to catch up with Charlie Reynolds in parking serves this afternoon as he was out on site most of yesterday. The clear view from the officer was that the proposal only covers verges (ie grass, or possibly mud) and footway. So drives and tarmac are not covered. This would be reinforced by consideration that the householder and other visiting the householder would possess a right of way over the direct access route.
Via Councillor	Resident Kelly	I object to the imposition of parking restrictions on the footway and verge areas on the avenue. I believe the majority of residents on Mote Ave are not adversely affected by parking on the Avenue while events are on at Mote Park. I have never experienced problems with the public parking on the approach ramp or the verge outside my property. I believe the imposition of parking resections would adversely affect me. On a few weekends and public holidays during the year, we have visitors to our home who use the approach ramp and grass verge to park. Use of the footpath is never impaired and we only use the verge when there is no more room for vehicles on the drive outside my property. To lose this facility because a few residents close to the park complained would be unfair to me and the majority of residents on the Avenue. If it is impossible to police parking on the Avenue during events at Mote Park, and in the event that restrictions are necessary, would it be possible to issue parking permits to residents on the Mote Avenue to give to visitors so that we can continue to allow the use of the areas outside the property to be used as I have described above.	Objection	All the properties in Mote Ave have ample off road parking facilities, there are also numerous roads within the area where there is the ability to park, residents can also purchase permits to parking within the residents parking scheme.
Via Councillor	Resident Butler	I live in Mote Ave and would like to object to the proposed prohibition pf parking. I have family members who visit on a regular basis to help look after my disabled son and without being able to park outside they would have to park elsewhere which would not only be miles away but may also be at a cost. I feel this will also lead to more people using Mote Park, the Leisure Centre and possibly the Rugby clubs parking, thus leading to more disruption to others. I live 3 houses away from the park gates, so this proposed problem parking during events probably effects us more than anyone else down the road, most people are courteous when parking and would move if asked to. Mote Park is the heart of our town and if people were not allowed to park nearby then they may not attend these events which would be a great shame. The organisers generally inform us of up and coming events and some even offer free tickets as compensation, so residents should not really be perturbed by one or two days disruption. My friends and family should not have to have the extra worry of not being able to park near my house when they would like to visit and I find it unfair that a few neighbours feel the need to complain, we knew we was moving next to a park so you take the rough with the smooth. Another idea would to be make sure the organisers plan the parking properly and steward the events before and after to ensure the least amount of disruption to residents.	Objection	All the properties in Mote Ave have ample off road parking facilities, there are also numerous roads within the area where there is the ability to park, residents can also purchase permits to parking within the residents parking scheme.
Turner Including 21 signature petition from 18 properties although 4 had also responded separately.	Resident	Having been made aware of the above proposal by the way of a letter from Councillor Clive English, I contacted him to clarify the exact details however, Mr English was unable to clarify as to whether the hard standing areas giving access to the residents properties was also included in the proposal and suggested viewing the �proposed orders� at the Council Offices. When I visited the Gateway and was eventually given a copy of the proposal to peruse, I was none the wiser as it was extremely ambiguous, with no mention made of the afore-mentioned areas. When I pointed this out to the lady on the reception desk, I was told to �assume� that the hard-standing/access were not included! Obviously , I stated that I could not afford to � assume� and asked if I could see a member of the Parking Services Dept to clarify the proposal, only to be told �I don�t think anyone will come down to see you� When I persisted the receptionist then disappeared briefly, returning only to state that nobody from Parking Services would see me, I immediately contacted Councillor English again, only to be told that the ambiguity of the proposal would form the basis of the objection. Subsequent enquiries from residents of Mote Avenue to Parking Services have been met with the following, varying responses :- 1 The person dealing with it is unavailable. 2, The proposal DOES include the hard-standing area 3, The proposal DOES NOT include the hard-standing area. To sum up, I would confirm my objection to the proposal on the basis of the obvious ambiguity of same. Furthermore, I would also like to state my dismay and incredulity at the way in which this process has been handled by Parking Services which can be at best described as unprofessional and at worst, underhand and shambolic. Accordingly, I look forward to receiving your response and comments on the above.	Objection	It is disappointing that there was no one available to see you when you visited the Gateway, I would therefore like to take this opportunity to clarify the present situation. We are proposing to place a prohibition on parking on the Footway or Verges in a number of roads within the borough due to an increase in vehicles parking upon them in order to preserve the ambience and characteristics of the area, and to protect further degradation which includes Mote Avenue. As you may be aware there is currently signage stating under Section 86 of County of Kent Act 1981 No vehicles on Mown Verge which is not at present being enforced, there is also a byelaw which is intended to preserve the road margins, the proposed restriction will supersede these and enable our Civil Enforcement Officers to enforce the above restriction, regrettably our mapping system does not depict the access�s to the properties however it is not our intention to enforce these areas. �I hope this clarifies the present situation and I respectfully request that you consider withdrawing your objection which would enable us to continue with the proposal, if you are agreeable to withdrawing your objection this must be in writing, if you wish to discuss the matter further please do not hesitate in contacting me. We have also meet with the gateway manager to review the current arrangements and will make some changes to allow staff to be available to discuss future proposals.

Little Field/Greenhill

1�� Objection

1 Comment

Name

Address

Comments

Objection

/Support

Response

Young

Little Field

I would like to speak to someone to clarify the proposed parking restrictions in Staplehurst in Lime Trees / Greenhill and the cut through to the Station in particular.

Dependant on the outcome of the clarification, the possibility of lodging an objection to the proposal before the deadline of Monday 9th December 2013.

Having looked at the detail of the proposal it looks to me as if you are suggesting painting solid yellow lines with parking restrictions around the whole of the problem area,

including the current solid white lines that are currently there to protect the junctions. I live in the road at 24 Little Field

If this is the case and further restrictions are not to be out in place to protect the junction then I would like to lodge an objection.

We currently have a problem with cars parked outside our home on the kerb, making it dangerous and impossible to pull out without risk, let alone pedestrians and children not being able to use the pavement. It is predominantly our next door neighbour and their visitors and has been recorded by the Police

If the white line is replaced by the solid yellow line they could quite rightly say that the only restriction to parking is the stated on the notices and therefore it would be unacceptable to us.

It would make sense to me to make the junction a double yellow line to protect the junction at all times.

Objection

We contacted the resident and advised him that the proposal was to manage the current parking availability and that we did not intend to introduce corner protection as we were unaware of any difficulties being experienced.

If vehicles are causing an obstruction then this can be dealt with by the Police as we have no powers to enforce this offence.

If necessary further restrictions may need to be implemented, however this will need to be managed carefully to reduce the impact on residents.

Charlwood

Little Field

Customer has called he has forwarded 3 appeals against the decision for single yellow line in the above area.

I have directed him to KCC proposed TRO�s but I know we maybe involved.

But what he wants advice on is he is prepared if this goes through to have a bay if possible and pay for permits. There are 3 car at this property and he needs advice please.

Comment

We contacted the resident and advised him that the proposal was to manage the current parking availability and due to the nature of the restriction we will not be provided permits for residents and that we have no intention to introduce parking bays.