Bollards not 'suitable to address the inconsiderate actions of those who choose to park illegally'

8bb450fb7c2f9f9b822eac5cf03b3471

Following a local councillor's call for bollards to be introduced on Cliff Road, to prevent the obstructive parking which is forcing pedestrians onto the road, Cheshire East Council has confirmed that this action will not be taken.

A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said: "We are aware of this long-standing issue and have been working actively with local ward member Councillor Stockton to address it.

"The parking restrictions that are already in place include the full width of the footways and this is an appropriate restriction for this location and situation.

"Civil enforcement officers have undertaken regular and more concentrated visits to the area over the past few weeks – but their remit of activity is limited to enforcing the parking restrictions. They have no power to move a vehicle nor deal with ones that are parked on the pavements or those causing obstructions.

"The council's parking team are in regular dialogue with the local Police Community Support Officer to pass on incidents of inconsiderate parking, where this is causing an obstruction.

"Should a vehicle cause an obstruction this is a police matter and should be reported to the police accordingly. There are, unfortunately, no engineering measures suitable to address the inconsiderate actions of those who choose to park inappropriately in this location that would not also adversely impact on pedestrian movement and safety on the footway.

"As always, we would ask that people park respectfully around the borough."

Tags:
Cliff Road, The Carrs
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Beatrice Turler
Tuesday 16th June 2020 at 3:10 pm
Bollards to that...
Pete Taylor
Tuesday 16th June 2020 at 4:13 pm
ARMCO fence- job done. Not only will that keep the cars off the footpath, it will protect the pedestrians.

Now that is an “appropriate restriction”.
Jonathan Follows
Tuesday 16th June 2020 at 4:33 pm
That sounds like "we know best, don't have the audacity to question how we do our job" from the council.
Barbara Burgess
Tuesday 16th June 2020 at 5:56 pm
Once again the Council has sidestepped the issue. Granted, the pavement is wide and that is why cars are parked ILLEGALLY on the pavement. I am at a loss to understand how the erection of bollards would be impossible. Please explain. Alternatively metal railings would not take up much room on the pavement. The Council's answer in the past was to paint double yellow lines which are completely ignored. I agree with Pete Taylor and concur with Beatrice Turler's remark.
Jon Williams
Tuesday 16th June 2020 at 6:28 pm
Make it one way, then you have plenty of room
David Hoyle
Tuesday 16th June 2020 at 9:08 pm
If the cars are completely blocking the footpath the police can have them towed away.why do they not do that.
Jo Jeffers
Tuesday 16th June 2020 at 11:57 pm
Absolutely not an appropriate restriction or response

If it is not having an impact or acting as a deterrent then the measures enforced are not suitable as they are not working. If in the business world I implemented a strategy and it did not lead to the results we wanted i would not say it is suitable.

The police are only able to ticket individuals, it does not solve the problem, the ticket does not magically move the car while the owner is enjoying the carrs so it doesnt stop pedestrians having to step into the road. Plus it only impacts that one car - there will be more.

I would like to understand the cost/benefit analysis against the cost of doing this vs risk to residents - the council are effectively ignoring a sunny day death trap or dont think its worth the investment. Well as a resident and a mum of a little boy I do.
Julian Barlow
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 2:53 pm
CEC are the council of no action. They take pride in telling us what they can't do. In this instance they're conflating appropriate with effective.
Michael McLaughlin
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 3:33 pm
Pedestrianise and close the road off from the car park to the top of the hill. Pedestrians et al can go up and down freely and if your are in a car it’ll add 1 minute to a journey to go the longer way around.
David Nelson
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 4:47 pm
Railings at a sensible height to avoid trips, etc. would be a one-off solution which is cheaper than turning the traffic wardens and/or police out time after time.
Roger Bagguley
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 5:21 pm
I'm with Jon Williams. One way from church to Styal Road. Current left hand lane given over to footpath and cycle lane. Cost: two signs and continuous white lines for cycles.
Chris Neill
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 6:16 pm
I completely agree with Roger and Jon. It's amazing that the public pay the salary and pensions for local Government services, who you would hope come up with solutions to obvious problems, but don't. The public, then figure out the best way , and then as in this case, will pay for the paint as well.
The whole parking issue in and around the town is a shambles and not controlled properly. Made worse by complete and unsociably inconsiderate drivers, who can't control themselves, and public officers who won't address the problem, and it really is a problem.
Michelle Bell
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 7:01 pm
If you narrow the pavement so cars can’t park on it that will stop them
Laurie Atterbury
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 7:56 pm
Michelle Bell , won’t they simply park part of their car on the narrowed pavement thus still obstructing the pavement?
David Smith
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 7:57 pm
How will making the road one-way with a wider pavement stop cars parking on the pavement which will be wider and perhaps attract more cars to park on it?
Jon Williams
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 9:53 pm
If it is a "one way street" you have more room to make the footpath wider and put up a wall to keep cars off the footpath if you want --- but C/E can't see wood for trees
Diane Walker
Wednesday 17th June 2020 at 9:59 pm
Typical weak and 'we don't care' response from CEC! Double yellow lines obviously are not working because we are an area of utterly selfish human beings....will it take the death of a child to make our useless council take action?
David Smith
Thursday 18th June 2020 at 8:45 am
Another way forward would be to paint double yellow lines with a red line in-between, which would signify that there can be no vehicles parked either side of the red line. So if a red line was added to the existing double yellow line in the gutter it would mean that no parking was allowed on the pavement as well as in the road.
It would of course mean our MP becoming involved to discuss with the law-makers in our democratic parliament, that we elect to improve our daily lives, and even perhaps get the police on board when they might find time to think about the suggestion and then our council to arrange a few surveys [if they can find a budget with some money left in it for the financing] before one day deciding that it might be a good idea and will perhaps think about looking at it sometime.
It would be a simpler method of preventing pavement parking than installing bollards, which will eventually get knocked over. The cost would be much cheaper too I should think.
Another forgotten problem with pavement parking is the damage done to the pavement surface, in particular cracked flagstones which need to be repaired so pedestrians [you know those for whom pavements were put there in the first instance] can go about without tripping up! This cost comes out of our council tax. Most damage in this way is done by delivery vans which are the heavier vehicles on our roads and some are even HGV's which are the heaviest and do the most damage - but get away with it.
David Smith
Thursday 18th June 2020 at 1:32 pm
Just to throw a spanner in the works and create some confusion - have a read of the following and go to the link below - just in case you think there is an easy solution by towing away, ticketing or any other method to stop nuisance parking.

The advice given by our PCSO persons has been that as long as a double buggy can pass a vehicle parked on a pavement then it is ok. So what happened in Cliff Road?
The Highway Code states that you must not park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on a pavement can obstruct and inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, those with visual impairments, and people with prams and pushchairs.
The key here is ‘must not’ and ‘should not’.
In other words, offenders in London are committing a punishable offence and are liable to receive a parking ticket.
Elsewhere, drivers aren’t necessarily committing an offence, but it is an offence to drive on the pavement.
This means the law is a little fuzzy, as outlined by the Ask The Police website. It says: “Despite the obvious inference that a parked vehicle has been driven on the pavement prior to being parked there, witnesses to the driving will probably be needed to secure a prosecution - this can be problematic.” If parking on the pavement is permitted, it will be marked by a blue and white sign. If the car is wholly on the pavement, then vehicles may be parked entirely on the verge or footway. If the car is half on the pavement, vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway.

See https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/parking-on-the-pavement/
Sally Hoare
Thursday 18th June 2020 at 1:37 pm
Could a fence/handrail not be placed along the pavement?
Or narrow the pavement thus widening the road.
Marcia McGrail
Saturday 20th June 2020 at 6:32 pm
I have to say, I completely concur with the more sensible comments but no amount of concurring comments will galvanise a lacklustre council into action.
Refuse to pay their wages.
David Smith
Sunday 21st June 2020 at 10:41 am
Furthermore - it is not just our lacklustre council but also OUR police:

"Inspector Duncan Gouck, of Macclesfield LPU, said: "The local authority is responsible for the majority of parking related issues however there are occasions, where a vehicle is causing a significant obstruction, when the police can assist. Any vehicles parked on the pavement should leave sufficient room for a pushchair or wheelchair user to pass by safely without having to go onto the road. We attend reports of obstructions caused by parked vehicles where possible and deal with the matter in the most appropriate manner. This could be through a verbal or written advice to the driver, if they can be traced, or by issuing a Fixed Penalty Notice. When necessary, we will have the vehicle removed at the expense of its owner.'"

= So it is OK to park on the pavement - even though there are no signs giving permission and we might, possibly, perhaps, even if there isn't an 'R' in the month, you never know, maybe - but I can't guarantee it pop along to see what all the fuss is about and with any luck the offending vehicle that is causing so much bother and danger to pedestrians hopefully might have gone away and so save us doing the job that the taxpayers expect us to be doing.

What I would like to know is - where on earth does it say that a 'pushchair gap' has to be allowed which then makes pavement parking acceptable?
Over to you Inspector Duncan Gouck of Macclesfield police.
Nick Jones
Sunday 21st June 2020 at 2:18 pm
@ David ..[ Being a little mischievous ] I think you may have just solved the Wilmslow parking problem.. ! and were not short of pavements ..! As for demarcation of responsibility... we all now know who can do something about this.The primary legislation makes no reference to pushchair size .. Sir Humphrey similarly clarified... "... there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been government policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Ministers and administration as a responsibility of Officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy "...
David Smith
Sunday 21st June 2020 at 7:41 pm
Thanks Nick. I think you sort of more eloquently put it the same way. I'm not sure the 'younger' readers will be aware of the "Yes Minister' connection but the older generation surely must. The whole parking nonsense is a complete mess with inept regulations and Highway Code entries of what we can/cannot, should/should not do. All entwined with the local authorities who expertly display their lack of authority in dealing with what we the 'Residents Of Wilmslow' [could be a good name for a local political party?] want and expect.
If we eventually are given a greater say in the running of our own affairs under the devolution mooted by, I think, Theresa May's premiership, the present status of apparently not being able to do much about what seems to the 'electorate/customers' as bog standard, run of the mill, simple issues doesn't bode well for managing our own affairs in future.
One thing for sure though is if we have devolution, the 'civil servants' and in particular the equivalent of 'Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB KBE MVO' will all be expecting a larger pay packet courtesy of the council tax payers.
If so I would like to know how their financial aspirations can be severely curtailed.

As an aside, I hear that the ‘boy racers’ with their exhaust transplants have been out menacing the sound waves in Wilmslow along the A34 by-pass this evening, the 21st June 2020. So the well-advertised police ‘monitoring’ of this regular event was short lived and the regular cast is back in action. The relevant councillor is the chap/gal to moan to if you still think this disturbance should be stopped.

Add Your Comment

Share what you think of this story. In order to post a comment click here to sign in or register to become a member (it's free and will only take one minute).