Here's an updated summary

Tempers were set to rise again as the Ingress Management company steps up its attempts to control parking with the introduction of overnight parking permits for visitors. Officially the "ticketing" has started but in reality no permits have yet arrived and the newly energised "anti" group has submitted a petition against - seems hard to imagine that ticketing can actually start but we shall see.

Links

"Hey! I support the parking controls!"

Why not use the bus? - no fastrack in sight

Residents against the parking regs

Why is there a problem?

When Kent County Council agreed to the development of Ingress Park they decided to try and reduce car ownership. As a result they set a limit on how many car parking places could be provided. This is not something set by Crest.

There is a rumour that the limit of 1.5 spaces per dwelling may have been re-interpreted to 1.5 per dwelling plus garages. If this is true and can be made effective here then we do have the chance to create new parking to take off some of the pressure.

So what is the issue?

There are three major issues

1) Emergency access. Before the push to getthe regulations policed, parts of the estate were so congested that emergency vehicles could not easily get access

2) Visitors access. At any given time a large percentage of visitors' bays are filled by residents which leaves nowhere for the visitors.

3) Space "theft" and resulting arguments when people find that their allocated parking spaces have been taken up by someone else.

What are the rules?

According to the terms of the covenant the only place you can park is your designated parking space. So roads, driveways, odd bits of land etc are all no-parking zones.

Commercial vehicles are banned from parking on the estate

You cannot plant lemon trees. (If you think this is a joke go read your covenant)

Why should we object?

Objections to the parking restrictions tend to fall into three camps

They will not work. Many of the "anti" group are actually favour of some kind of restrictions but they don't feel the current proposals are fair or effective. Ticketing only VP in the middle of the night will effect residents using VPs but will not effect residents "stealing" other allocated bays - by far the biggest issue now. The 10 minute rule for commercial vehicles is not practical (though it is clearly easy for the ticketing man to impose)

 I have been accused of being anti-regulation, but this is not the case. - Linet Carter

Many of the complaints are based on practicality. Some roads of 16 or more houses have as few as 4 visitors parking spaces. This forces residents to break the rules whenever they have a party, BBQ, etc.

Finally there are the concerns that these issues affect the whole "community aspect" that Ingress was supposed to be offering. If you cannot have visitors, your children cannot have cars and you are constantly fighting for spaces then it is indeed unlikely that an old fashioned community results.

Why should we support the measures?

Not everyone is against the parking restrictions....

"I would be more than happy to see the visitors bays free for my visitors to use. I get pretty p*ssed off when they are full of residents' cars! Too many people have spaces they don't use coz they cannot be bothered to put their cars away properly"

What is the proposal?

To restrict overnight use of VP bays to vistors by allocation 10 VP permits per month to each resident household. This will be enforced by ticketing between 3 and 5 am.

Who will it catch?

Anyone parked in a visitors bay overnight who has no permit. So likely to be

1) Visitors who forgot or could not get a permit from the person they are visiting.

2) Residents who regularly park in Visitor bay

Who will it not catch ?

Residents who hog VPs all weekend

Residents who steal others allocated parking

What are the options?

More spaces? Crest have said for years that this would not be allowed but the info we have recently is that the guidelines may have changed. This is the strongest possibility for a resolution. 

Reduced car ownership? Well, they are in effect enforcing this. But at present they alternatives are not there. The much vaunted Fastrack bus service is stalled at a 30 foot chalk cliff face where the council money stopped and Crest were supposed to pick up. Opening up this road would offer easier bus, train and cycle access to the station. (Don't be convinced by the "Bat Issue" - it is real but Crest have been using it for 5 years)

Changed behaviour? Already we are seeing increased usage of allocated spaces. This is by far the easiest way to reduce our stress levels but may not provide a full answer or certainly a quick one.

"In the end I gave up and emptied the stuff out of the garage. It had got to the point where car parking was the biggest issue in my life and I just don't need that. Now I park "legally" and I'm happy.....well, mainly, now the other residents and their parking are winding me up!"

Going forward

Despite some of the emotive language being used there is actually a lot of common ground. Most people are in favour of some sort of parking controls as long as they are targetted, reasonable and effective.  Most people would welcome more spaces being made available as long as we don't become "Ingress carPark". Most people are keen to keep commercial vehicles off the roads.

So there is a good chance that a coming together of various groups (who have much more in common then they think) can facilitate a tolerable set of parking proposals. That would be a great thing. After all, a community is not a car park and we still have many other issues that we could address (Spring Fair, speeding, school, kids clubs, ...)

We look forward to the day when the things in our lives that make the blood boil do not include car parking.