A long-standing parking dispute between Powderhall and Hopetoun residents, developers and the City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) does not appear much closer to being resolved. However, some of the issues have at least been clarified in a recent report to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee (see pdf at foot of page).
'It has become common practice in the case of many developments that it is implied to purchasers that road parking spaces are for their exclusive use,' reads the CEC document. But such exclusive use is not and never has been the reality.
Bryant Homes (and later Taylor Wimpey) entered into Road Construction Consents with CEC in 2000 and 2001. These legally bound the developer to build roads (including the now disputed parking bays) which met CEC specifications. CEC in turn was bound to adopt the roads if asked to do so by the developer. This happened in February 2012, and CEC will probably adopt by February next year.
Legal advice now suggests that the general public – not just the residents – have a right to use these parking bays, and that only the Council can control them. Presumably, this renders any private issue of permits and charges (see photo below-right) invalid.
[img_assist|nid=3414|title=|desc=|link=node|align=right|width=437|height=640]Unfortunately, in 2006 the waters were muddied when senior CEC officials mistakenly suggested that the parking bays could be resident-controlled if the developer withdrew them from the list of roads to be adopted. That advice was wrong, says CEC, and the option does not exist.
Various solutions have been suggested since, none of which meets both strict legal tests and residents' aspirations for guaranteed, free parking.
At present, the most likely scenarios appear to Spurtle to be that either the bays will remain uncontrolled, or brought into a local Controlled Parking Zone. A compromise has been mooted offering residents 4 years' worth of sliding discounts on parking permits, but the developer has not made clear how much it might contribute towards the cost of this ... if anything.
The report concludes, airily, by recommending further discussions, another report, and the taking of a decision 'as soon as possible'. However, it also makes clear that CEC, in considering legal advice, should think long and hard about 'the risks associated with each of the options as well as the extent to which any decision regarding these schemes may be seen as a precedent elsewhere'.
The tone of the report is remarkably sympathetic. But not all observers feel the same way. There are those who regard the developers' misleading implications as scandalous, and the gullibility of purchasers as their own fault.
Others question Point 4.1: 'There are no financial implications directly associated with this report'; they resent any possibility that Council Tax-payers elsewhere may end up subsidising permit discounts to clear up a mess not of their own making.
Spurtle understands Powderhall and Hopetoun residents' annoyance, but finds it hard to identify compelling reasons why they should not share in the inconvenience and expense of parking endured by everyone else in the city centre. If they have been mis-sold a guarantee, their grievance and the source of any compensation surely lie with the developer.
What do you think? Send us your views by email, Facebook or Twitter.
-------------------------------------------------
Evolution Design, Edinburgh (branding & websites) Fire Engines may have had access probelms earlier this week at the fatal fire, engines strewn about in small street.
Harald Tobermann by email: Flood protection (ha!) between Bonnington and Stockbridge is estimated to cost £21 million – Powderhall will account for 15–25% of that. Thank you, Wimpey.
[img_assist|nid=3415|title=|desc=|link=node|align=middle|width=640|height=427]