Residents’ Representations
In regards to proposed changes at Tadcaster Road in regards to and pertaining thereof I wish to raise concerns and some objections.
Firstly the changes to timed parking will bring about and increase the already escalating parking problems for residents on the adjoining Slingsby Grove .
Removal of parking for staff at the businesses involved, will force them down the already crowded and difficult Slingsby Grove which a lot already park down. Customers to the shops who require longer stays will also move to said default road and deliveries will also cause road blockages and access issues for Slingsby residents which even at this time is difficult with residents like myself unable to enter and exit my property due to poor parking ,parking over dropped kerbs and parking opposite openings not allowing adequate turning circles a large amount of the day. Also parking would also increase on the yellow lines on the exit and entry to Slingsby Grove which is already a problem and is dangerous at times. This has been raised numerous times with local councillors and with the council but nothing has transpired even though the local councillors have diligently raised it .
In regards to the parking on Tadcaster road it would still mean that visibility for the bus stop is still restricted to north west side stop requiring dangerous stepping into road to flag down buses a really badly planned stop in terms of visibility.
From a prospective of removing the loading bay I object a better and safer solution would be better parking enforcement and keep the bay and using parking officers penalise those breaking restrictions also raising revenue .
If this scheme is to be implemented then the residents of Slingsby Grove must be considered with traffic measure in place and road markings to indicate no parking on the entry exit yellow lines. No long term parking for shops and prominent white lining to stop parking over entries/exits to property even a residents parking enforcement would have to be considered .The biggest area is congested parking from the top down to around Kew House number 11 on both sides of the street .It may also be prudent to have a consultation with the residents also if possible.
If these things are not introduced if the scheme is implemented the residents of Slingsby grove will have the parking problems shoved on them and exacerbate an already chaotic ,difficult situation.
We received a letter with regard to the introduction of a limited period parking on Tadcaster road. We live on Slingsby Grove and worry about the effect this will have on an already challenging parking and access issue on the street with people using the street to access the shops. Cars double park and often we have to go into the shops to identify whose car is double parked so we can enter and leave the street, this is despite the double yellow lines at the top of the street.
Whilst we appreciate this may help with being able to view coming out of the street, when we are trying to turn right if there are vans parked in the loading bay we struggle to see oncoming traffic, but as the loading bay isn't being removed in its entirety this problem will still exist and will cause significant problems with access on our street. Has this been taken into consideration in the proposal?
We would like to raise an objection to the proposed measures on the parking on Tadcaster Road, adjacent to Calcaria Vets.
As residents, we do not have access to any assigned parking. We use the bay on the opposite side of the road to the shops to park as we have no other option during the day. The alternative is to park on Slingsby Grove, which is already crowded and I do not expect the residents appreciate us parking there, or to park a significant distance away. As you can imagine, this can make shopping trips for example difficult as we have to carry our shopping a long way.
We do not object to the changes proposed to the other side (shop side) but we hope that you may reconsider the changes to the bay opposite. As a home worker I am privy to the comings and goings in the bays and have myself seen that people rarely stay more than 20 minutes or so, save for our neighbours who also have the same issue with parking. To change the parking rules would make no difference to the current state of things save for severely inconveniencing the small number of people who actually require the bays.
We have received your letter regarding limited parking at the top of our street, Slingsby Grove.
Please can you advise why you feel it necessary to introduce 1 hour or 3 hour limited parking in this area as it has never been discussed before, plus why only an hour? There are two hair salons within this area, I doubt any appointment will be done in under an hour, is this to free the car park spaces up for the other businesses, hardly a level playing field?
What assessment have you done on the impact these proposals will have on our street, which is already having major issues with badly parked cars, reducing the width of the road to the point where emergency vehicles can't get down the street? Adding these parking restrictions on Tadcaster Road will only force people into the side streets, adding to the problem.
Why wasn't this work done when the road was redesigned and resurfaced?
We have just received notice regarding the council decision to limit the parking on Tadcaster Road.
We wish to vehemently oppose and object to this decision.
As we have previously stated to the City of York Council and counsellor Paula Widowson before and during consultation - as a business where parking is VITAL to us remaining a viable business - there is insufficient parking not only to the 11 businesses that need and use the parking spaces but the community who uses those businesses!
The Council have placed a redundant bike path behind the said parking bay thus reducing the number of much needed car spaces by at least 3. Currently we have space for about 7 cars (if everyone parks fairly without too much space in between)
For perspective, we employ 5 people who all come from various parts and outlying areas of the city. For ONE business that's 5 parking spaces required for the employed staff, ......not to mention our customers! Considering we work a full day - and your notice is limiting the time period to 3 hours, what do we do for the other 5 hours of work??
7 Parking spaces for 11 businesses. What are the Council thinking?
Before consultation began we started a petition and took 150 signatures within a deadline of 2 weeks to demonstrate the feeling of the community. It appears it falls on deaf ears
We therefore inequivocably object to the decision and demand a response to answer the question - WHERE DO WE PARK??
Thank you for the recent communication on the above proposals which I think are sensible on many fronts.
I was disappointed not to see however any reference to the siting of the Bus stop at the top of Royal Chase. As often happens I balance on the edge of the kerb (not easy at my age!) when I can see a bus is coming to ensure that the Bus Driver can see me as the parked cars block their view.
I am not alone in this as I often see other passengers doing exactly the same thing and have seen buses flying past them!
Please will you kindly address this issue – as a passenger I feel it was a retrograde step removing the safely island for bus passengers and would ask that you consider replacing this safety island before there is an accident.
I look forward to hearing from you as I feel very strongly that Passenger safety is far more important that shoppers parking.
Further to your letter of September 13th 2024 regarding the changes proposed to parking places outside the shops on Tadcaster road we would like to make the following observations
There are also a couple of outstanding issues arising from the recent changes on Tadcaster road which have a bearing on this proposal.
. The positioning of the bus stop on the city bound side is such that a parked van or truck obscures the sight line meaning that to hail a bus it is necessary to stand in the road which is very dangerous.
Just received the letter from York Council - dated 13/9/24 - regarding proposed limited period parking places on Tadcaster Road.
I live at Slingsby Grove and will not be able to support the proposals and I will be making a formal objection/representation.
Before I do I wanted to ask you about the reasons for this change - my instinct is that it’s because you have had objections from the shops and businesses at the top of our road about customers not being able to park there. Is this correct? If not, what are the reasons for the change?
If my instinct is correct, this decision once again ignores the views of the residents of Slingsby Grove.
The issue with your proposal is that once again residents of Slingsby Grove will have got deal with the health and safety risk of turning right onto Tadcaster Road due to the restricted visibility of cars parking in the loading bay area. We’ve experienced this problem for years before the Tadcaster Road improvements when cars could park there. The creation of the loading bay alleviated this problem to a certain extent but your proposals will simply create issues once again.
Lots and lots of people love to park there cars there because they use the phone shop, the chip shop, there hairdressers etc and in my previous experience the bay is never empty., Although you are limited parking to 60 minutes there will be a steady stream of vehicles using the bay and it will very rarely be empty enough for us to have clear visibility when turning right.
In addition, there is another problem. There are double yellow lines at the top of Slingsby Grove on the left and right for 20/30 yards or so. Despite this cars and vans park here endlessly because drivers are too lazy and disrespectful to go a few more yards down Slingsby Grove to park where there are no double yellow lines! I have no objection to people parking in this area of Slingsby Grove - it’s a public road - but I do object to people parking on double yellow lines which inhibits our visibility to turn both left and right onto Tadcaster Road.
Whether the are outside the shops is a loading park or a customer parking area, this issue at the top of Slingsby Grove still exists. I know council budgets are tight but all you have to do is repaint the double yellow lines and/or put a sign up saying ‘no parking’. At the moment you are allowing people to break the law. In addition, when I have challenged drivers parking in this area - and can I say I have seen some people there for a long time eating their fish and chips - I have been met with a volley of abuse! You guys just need to do your job and sort this out.
I’m sure that even if I object to the loading bay proposal it will happen, however, I will not let the double yellow line issue drop. If there’s no action I’ll be sending you regular photos of cards breaking the law, writing to the press and maybe evening sharing my thoughts with Look North!
I would like to talk to you or meet with you about this and the loading bay proposal.
Further to your above reference for proposed limited period parking on Tadcaster Road, we offer for you consideration as follows:
1) The removal of loading only bay is no big issue as nobody observes it as far as we know nobody has ever been ticketed for parking in it whilst they consume their Fish & Chips, if it had been observed you would have had a clear view up,Tadcaster Road when exiting Slingsby Grove.
2) As a resident of Slingsby Grove we can appreciate your proposals but we object to them as by restricting the parking it will only push the drivers who want to park in the lay bys all day down into Slingsby Grove where there is already parking by numerous drivers all day where they park part on the road and part on the pavement.
We are unable to drive off our drive because of inconsiderate parking I have to go the the bottom of the Grove to turn round. So for these reasons we object to the proposals.
_________________________________________________________