There would be fewer spaces. Streets would be 'tidied' and hundreds of spaces would be lost making parking, especially at night, more difficult.

Fewer spaces would mean parking spilling over into neighbouring streets, causing problems where none exist today.

Absolutely not so --

• the whole exercise is designed to generate more parking spaces which are available to local residents.
• the only lost spaces will be those lost to the safety double yellow lining which is going to be inevitable and completely separate from any RPZ
• Parking at night will become easier because the spaces will be prioritised for local residents and not to residents of properties within walking distance that have no parking of their own.
• This is a pilot scheme and if it doesn't work for local residents we can go back to what we have now (heaven forbid!).

Residents, businesses and visitors would all have to pay to park or risk being towed away - adding extra costs in the worst economic situation for over 50 years.

Local businesses would suffer and maybe even close

Okay, let's look at this one.

Residents will have permits which are not expensive (£30 for the 1st car and £80 of the 2nd), businesses will have business permits and visitors will have adequate pay-and-display for short-term visits and visitors permits for longer term visits -- all of this seems a small price to pay compared with the current impossible situation.

The pilot schemes are in residential areas and areas with businesses and shops will be treated differently -- this is the point of looking at the problem from area to area.

This is a caveat and will probably only happen in extremely difficult areas. The rationing of permits will allow all residents an equal chance at a limited resource as opposed to this resource being taken up by cars from outside the area or by students (4, 5, 6 cars per household), who are within easy walking distance of university facilities and who have been advised by the university not to bring their cars.

We fully expect that the vast majority of households will be able to have 2 permits and that the one permit limitation will only be exercised in extremely limited areas.

The majority of "visitors" are short-term and will be able to use the pay and display facilities which will be scattered throughout the area.

One of the reasons for this restriction is that in other areas with CPZ's who have been more generous with visitors permits, they have been sold on eBay to commuters.

... come on! If they are going to argue that parking places are going to be reduced, they can't argue that it would be possible to find 100 places at any one time.

And by the way, even if this were possible, wouldn't having 100 cars parked for a single event in the immediate neighbourhood, however good the cause, be a tad unneighbourly?

This is correct, there are no personal allocated spaces. However they seem to imply that the present situation where people have to walk miles to park is acceptable. This is certainly not what has been said at CHASE meetings, particularly in the case of Mothers during the day and single people at night. It can only hope to be improved by limiting access to the spaces in the area.

Controlled parking would significantly reduce the number of cars parked from outside the area, increasing the number of places available to residents.

The size of zones is NOT FIXED. This is up for further detailed local consultation. There are certain areas which naturally define themselves and some which do not.

More recently, the council, as a response to representations from local residents, has increased the size of zones to a minimum of 1000 households.

It has already been agreed that places of worship and doctors surgeries will be looked at for special treatment.

As far as the shops are concerned, the 1st 15 minutes of the pay and display would be free and wouldn't it be great to be able to park legally close to the local shops -- not possible 5/6 times at present.

The scheme is being funded separately and at a cost and we are advocating the publication of the figures to keep accountability.

The council has recently confirmed that the proposed scheme will be charged at cost and that furthermore, they will provide an open accounting system for those sceptics among us to check up on them.

Multiple cars in the inner city are unsustainable. The majority of houses can park one car outside so why is it acceptable to use up your neighbour’s space?

The price of fuel is already curtailing short car journeys and this will continue. There are city wide campaigns to improve public transport and support Community Transport and car clubs. These are the future with walking and cycling taking over from 5 minute car hops.

I would similarly like to see the “THOUSANDS” of driveways in our area.

This is a proposal that has been modified so that people will have a choice of an advisory "No Parking" white line.

Shops always think they will lose from controlling cars. All pedestrianisation schemes are opposed by retailers across the country. In all cases that go ahead retailers find that their turnover actually INCREASES, sometimes by multiples, as people prefer to shop where there are less cars, less hassle, less pollution.

In fact, most of the people who park close to our local shops are there all day and not using the shops, making it difficult for people who do want to use the shops.

A vote against is NOT a vote for “no change”. The yellow lining to ensure access for emergency vehicles will happen. The council must pay heed to the reports from the emergency services.

We have had several incidents in the last few months where life was put at risk because ambulances could not get close to the casualty. This will reduce the numbers that can be parked, albeit usually stupidly.

And, quite frankly, when compared to the cost of petrol, the prices are very small indeed.

In addition, as CHASE has been warning for some years, the pressures are increasing. Office buildings, student accommodation and flats buildings currently under construction or in planning, at Harbourside, Deanery Road and Clifton Triangle will between them add about 2,000 commuters on our doorstep. With about 100 car spaces. Does anyone seriously suppose they will all cycle?

Possibly after parking to unload the folding bike to get their “tick” at the office!! Following on after them will in due course be the rest of Harbourside flats and offices.

Do you really want no control of our streets in the face of this?