Boycott over Worcester parking fees amid coach fury

Worcester News: Chris Wise, who runs Cafe Severn on the Quay Chris Wise, who runs Cafe Severn on the Quay

A POPULAR Worcester cafe says tourists are being "driven out of Worcester" after council chiefs decided to hike coach parking fees up 100 per cent.

Cafe Severn on the Quay, which sits opposite Croft Road car park and overlooks the riverside, says both coaches and lorries are voting with their feet since Worcester City Council whacked up prices in April.

In a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant, prices for coaches to park in dedicated bays went from £5 to £10.

Lorry fees went up from £5 to £25, a 400 per cent rise, with the council's Labour leadership saying it wanted some form of 'deterrent'.

But your Worcester News can reveal how the move has infuriated coach firms, many of whom have told the cafe they will not be returning to the city.

The cafe, which says it relies on trade from tourists stopping through Worcester, has collected written views from 24 different coach or lorry drivers who are all fuming about it.

Among those signing it were drivers from some of Britain's best known coach companies taking tourists to or from holiday destinations.

Chris Wise, who runs the cafe, said: "I've got to make a stand because the way it's going I won't have a business to run.

"I've told them I think it's commercial suicide, for the sake of £5 they are losing maybe hundreds of customers each time.

"It'll hammer the city. I don't think half the shops realise what's going on."

The council says there are three free coach parking bays in King Street for drivers looking to avoid the riverside.

It also says it is talking with council officials in nearby Gloucester, which offers free coach parking and special promotions like deals on food and drink, to see if any ideas can be replicated here.

A spokesman for the city council said: "We are aware of concerns from coach drivers in relation to increased charges at Croft Road car park.

"We are currently reviewing coach parking facilities and drop off points in the city, and officers are in contact with Gloucester City Council to see if schemes they offer would work well in Worcester.

"We are also meeting with the Worcester BID (Business Improvement District, which representsthe shops) and other interested parties in the near future with a view to providing better opportunities for coach parking within the city."

Councillor Adrian Gregson, the leader, said: "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city - we are talking to people to see what different options we might have."

WHAT JUST SOME OF THE COACH AND LORRY DRIVERS SAID

"Two hours stop in Worcester and it cost me £10, will not stop here again, we don't even pay that in London."

"I was outraged that the coach parking has been increased after all we do to bring people into the city."

"I stop here for a lunch stop rather than the motorway services, a £10 parking charge for a two-hour stop is too much so in future I will go to Gloucester or elsewhere."

"Stopped for lunch on way back from Tenby. Ideal at £5 but (at £10) I shall take all 49 passengers and their money to Tewkesbury as its £3 to park there."

"This is a regular monthly shopping trip, my passengers bring enough money to Worcester with shopping, eating, plus entertainment - we cater for the disabled so have to be close - £10 on top is ridiculous."

"Another town driving away coach business, it will keep us away - our coaches travel from Weston-super-Mare."

"Stopped here for two hours and it was £10, too much. That's another 48 tourists you will lose."

"I often stop at Worcester on the way home, good facilities for passengers.

"As a driver I cannot justify paying double for parking, especially when we bring so many people at a time - motorway services next time."

"£10 is too much for parking these days when the country is in such a poor state, you should be encouraging coach companies to your city, not driving them away."

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:01pm Tue 13 May 14

Samboy says...

"our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the City" Not hitting the target with aim like that. 3 whole parking bays in King Street. WOW!!!. Has the City and tourism ever been treated to such goodies? Common sense dictates that a dedicated Lorry and Coach park in central Worcester is essential for the City's interests.
"our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the City" Not hitting the target with aim like that. 3 whole parking bays in King Street. WOW!!!. Has the City and tourism ever been treated to such goodies? Common sense dictates that a dedicated Lorry and Coach park in central Worcester is essential for the City's interests. Samboy
  • Score: 27

2:20pm Tue 13 May 14

scolesy says...

W.C.C. Shooting the foot again,,,,
W.C.C. Shooting the foot again,,,, scolesy
  • Score: 17

2:21pm Tue 13 May 14

Hwicce says...

It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs.

If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free.

If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park.

You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council.
It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs. If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free. If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park. You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council. Hwicce
  • Score: 28

2:49pm Tue 13 May 14

brooksider says...

2 hours is not a lot of time to spend in the City.
Sounds like the car park is used for comfort break rather than seeing the sights.
Maybe Worcester BID could come up with a similar scheme to Gloucester where coaches are given free parking if pre-booked and the driver a free meal and passengers discount vouchers to spend in the city.

Given that the increase is less than 11p per person on a 48 seat coach, why doesn't Mr Wise offer some kind of incentive to the coach companies to ensure their passengers eat at his establishment?
2 hours is not a lot of time to spend in the City. Sounds like the car park is used for comfort break rather than seeing the sights. Maybe Worcester BID could come up with a similar scheme to Gloucester where coaches are given free parking if pre-booked and the driver a free meal and passengers discount vouchers to spend in the city. Given that the increase is less than 11p per person on a 48 seat coach, why doesn't Mr Wise offer some kind of incentive to the coach companies to ensure their passengers eat at his establishment? brooksider
  • Score: -9

3:59pm Tue 13 May 14

Fog Based Japery says...

Remember folks. There's an election coming up. Lets get rid of this Labour stewardship that was enforced on us!
Remember folks. There's an election coming up. Lets get rid of this Labour stewardship that was enforced on us! Fog Based Japery
  • Score: 21

5:08pm Tue 13 May 14

Sir Smeg says...

My daughter was hit with a £25 parking notice along with many others, she works in the town centre and has paid £3.50 a day to park in Croft Road car park for many months now, when suddenly, overnight the fees went up to £6 per day.
Unfortunately she didn't look at the sign (just automatic I guess). Wonder how much the council has made from parking notice fees at £25 a go.

Needless to say she doesn't park there any more.
My daughter was hit with a £25 parking notice along with many others, she works in the town centre and has paid £3.50 a day to park in Croft Road car park for many months now, when suddenly, overnight the fees went up to £6 per day. Unfortunately she didn't look at the sign (just automatic I guess). Wonder how much the council has made from parking notice fees at £25 a go. Needless to say she doesn't park there any more. Sir Smeg
  • Score: 17

6:01pm Tue 13 May 14

DarrenM says...

Yes good plan, lets have a deterrent for people who want to come into the city, then we can see all these planned new shopping centre's that are in the Evening News all the time really thrive!
Yes good plan, lets have a deterrent for people who want to come into the city, then we can see all these planned new shopping centre's that are in the Evening News all the time really thrive! DarrenM
  • Score: 12

6:28pm Tue 13 May 14

bmoc55 says...

What can you expect from this dumb lot in the City Hall.

Next week is an opportunity to kick them out.
What can you expect from this dumb lot in the City Hall. Next week is an opportunity to kick them out. bmoc55
  • Score: 13

10:03pm Tue 13 May 14

wez70 says...

What do you expect with a labour led council, drive people away for the sake of a fiver . Muppets
What do you expect with a labour led council, drive people away for the sake of a fiver . Muppets wez70
  • Score: 16

10:16pm Tue 13 May 14

Omicron says...

We have a labour leader, Andrew Gregson, whose day job is an employee of the city council (should he find the time to be able to do his day job given his involvement with trying to run the city council) means that he has a 100% council mind-set. This being the case then it is unlikely that he has any concept of business and the commercial reality of what business is all about. Let's hope that that the forthcoming election ensures that this current incompetent council and their Lib-Dem and Green allies are duly disposed of
We have a labour leader, Andrew Gregson, whose day job is an employee of the city council (should he find the time to be able to do his day job given his involvement with trying to run the city council) means that he has a 100% council mind-set. This being the case then it is unlikely that he has any concept of business and the commercial reality of what business is all about. Let's hope that that the forthcoming election ensures that this current incompetent council and their Lib-Dem and Green allies are duly disposed of Omicron
  • Score: 20

11:32pm Tue 13 May 14

Ctrl Alt Del says...

On a lighter note, it's good to see the arms folded "i'm not happy" style of photo making a welcome return. *tongue firmly in cheek*
On a lighter note, it's good to see the arms folded "i'm not happy" style of photo making a welcome return. *tongue firmly in cheek* Ctrl Alt Del
  • Score: 13

1:46am Wed 14 May 14

Jabbadad says...

The owner of this nice little Cafe has the right to point out to our City Council that not only will he be a loser so will the City as a whole.
Our City council must be barking Mad. All Cities that have councilors with a grain of intelligence should know that coaches bring loads of trade to the City.
I recal that over the years of the Tory City Council control they tried all ways to rid that Car park of the overnight lorries, with some going out to Wainright Road Warndon (councils Idea where there were no Facilities ) and then were complaints about the Verges being churned up by the heavy lorries, and the drivers using the the nearbye feilds as Toilets. So again an out of touch Council then led by Simon Geragthy. Perhaps a qualification for leader of Worcester City Council and a Cabinet member is to be THICK.
The owner of this nice little Cafe has the right to point out to our City Council that not only will he be a loser so will the City as a whole. Our City council must be barking Mad. All Cities that have councilors with a grain of intelligence should know that coaches bring loads of trade to the City. I recal that over the years of the Tory City Council control they tried all ways to rid that Car park of the overnight lorries, with some going out to Wainright Road Warndon (councils Idea where there were no Facilities ) and then were complaints about the Verges being churned up by the heavy lorries, and the drivers using the the nearbye feilds as Toilets. So again an out of touch Council then led by Simon Geragthy. Perhaps a qualification for leader of Worcester City Council and a Cabinet member is to be THICK. Jabbadad
  • Score: 7

1:46am Wed 14 May 14

Jabbadad says...

The owner of this nice little Cafe has the right to point out to our City Council that not only will he be a loser so will the City as a whole.
Our City council must be barking Mad. All Cities that have councilors with a grain of intelligence should know that coaches bring loads of trade to the City.
I recal that over the years of the Tory City Council control they tried all ways to rid that Car park of the overnight lorries, with some going out to Wainright Road Warndon (councils Idea where there were no Facilities ) and then were complaints about the Verges being churned up by the heavy lorries, and the drivers using the the nearbye feilds as Toilets. So again an out of touch Council then led by Simon Geragthy. Perhaps a qualification for leader of Worcester City Council and a Cabinet member is to be THICK.
The owner of this nice little Cafe has the right to point out to our City Council that not only will he be a loser so will the City as a whole. Our City council must be barking Mad. All Cities that have councilors with a grain of intelligence should know that coaches bring loads of trade to the City. I recal that over the years of the Tory City Council control they tried all ways to rid that Car park of the overnight lorries, with some going out to Wainright Road Warndon (councils Idea where there were no Facilities ) and then were complaints about the Verges being churned up by the heavy lorries, and the drivers using the the nearbye feilds as Toilets. So again an out of touch Council then led by Simon Geragthy. Perhaps a qualification for leader of Worcester City Council and a Cabinet member is to be THICK. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

8:32am Wed 14 May 14

saucerer says...

Another example of typical council incompetence and sheer stupidity in Worcester. Yet another reason why the private sector needs to take charge of decision making processes, while the Worcestershire LEP would be an ideal candidate to oversee these processes as being a consortium of business leaders, they'll know what is best for Worcester and will make the correct decisions, which would also see value for money and efficient working practices too.

Councils are really trying their best to not only make Worcester a no-go area for vehicles, but they're trying their best to deter visitors full-stop thanks to their pathetic decision making processes over the decades. And thanks to their decision making processes, Worcester is not a really an attractive place or an enticing place to visit, so people wouldn't actually be missing much anyway if they didn't come to Worcester.
Another example of typical council incompetence and sheer stupidity in Worcester. Yet another reason why the private sector needs to take charge of decision making processes, while the Worcestershire LEP would be an ideal candidate to oversee these processes as being a consortium of business leaders, they'll know what is best for Worcester and will make the correct decisions, which would also see value for money and efficient working practices too. Councils are really trying their best to not only make Worcester a no-go area for vehicles, but they're trying their best to deter visitors full-stop thanks to their pathetic decision making processes over the decades. And thanks to their decision making processes, Worcester is not a really an attractive place or an enticing place to visit, so people wouldn't actually be missing much anyway if they didn't come to Worcester. saucerer
  • Score: 5

1:45pm Wed 14 May 14

gaillewisbraznell says...

Hwicce wrote:
It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs.

If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free.

If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park.

You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council.
Such a great answer
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs. If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free. If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park. You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council.[/p][/quote]Such a great answer gaillewisbraznell
  • Score: 4

8:01pm Wed 14 May 14

Fishkeeper says...

Is this not yet another case of the council thinking, if it benefits the public lets see what we can do to scupper their enjoyment.Yes we should be encouraging coaches to stop here and for passengers to spend money in OUR city and yes we put these idiots in power and we can and should take them back out next week.

Keith Handy A proud Worcester resident (well I was)
Is this not yet another case of the council thinking, if it benefits the public lets see what we can do to scupper their enjoyment.Yes we should be encouraging coaches to stop here and for passengers to spend money in OUR city and yes we put these idiots in power and we can and should take them back out next week. Keith Handy A proud Worcester resident (well I was) Fishkeeper
  • Score: 7

11:10pm Wed 14 May 14

Simple_logic says...

brooksider wrote:
2 hours is not a lot of time to spend in the City.
Sounds like the car park is used for comfort break rather than seeing the sights.
Maybe Worcester BID could come up with a similar scheme to Gloucester where coaches are given free parking if pre-booked and the driver a free meal and passengers discount vouchers to spend in the city.

Given that the increase is less than 11p per person on a 48 seat coach, why doesn't Mr Wise offer some kind of incentive to the coach companies to ensure their passengers eat at his establishment?
Worcester BID were supposed to have been setting up a system for coach drivers to get a free meal at participating eateries over a year ago, this however seems to have been abandoned or little promoted. What else should we expect from the spectacularly useless BID who do as little as possible to justify the exorbitant fees the extract from already struggling business owners?

Incompetent councillors (especially Gregson) obviously want everyone to stay out of the city centre and would prefer for us all to shop at out of town shopping centres such as that ridiculous concept being proposed by the hospital.
[quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: 2 hours is not a lot of time to spend in the City. Sounds like the car park is used for comfort break rather than seeing the sights. Maybe Worcester BID could come up with a similar scheme to Gloucester where coaches are given free parking if pre-booked and the driver a free meal and passengers discount vouchers to spend in the city. Given that the increase is less than 11p per person on a 48 seat coach, why doesn't Mr Wise offer some kind of incentive to the coach companies to ensure their passengers eat at his establishment?[/p][/quote]Worcester BID were supposed to have been setting up a system for coach drivers to get a free meal at participating eateries over a year ago, this however seems to have been abandoned or little promoted. What else should we expect from the spectacularly useless BID who do as little as possible to justify the exorbitant fees the extract from already struggling business owners? Incompetent councillors (especially Gregson) obviously want everyone to stay out of the city centre and would prefer for us all to shop at out of town shopping centres such as that ridiculous concept being proposed by the hospital. Simple_logic
  • Score: 8

1:03pm Thu 15 May 14

Marant says...

In come labour, up go the charges without a thought of knock on effects. 'It'll only affect the rich businessmen though right, so that doesn't matter? We need the money to buy our votes!' Muppets.
In come labour, up go the charges without a thought of knock on effects. 'It'll only affect the rich businessmen though right, so that doesn't matter? We need the money to buy our votes!' Muppets. Marant
  • Score: 5

7:07pm Thu 15 May 14

Lew Smoralz says...

Fog Based Japery wrote:
Remember folks. There's an election coming up. Lets get rid of this Labour stewardship that was enforced on us!
Easily the most incompetent administration in my lifetime.
[quote][p][bold]Fog Based Japery[/bold] wrote: Remember folks. There's an election coming up. Lets get rid of this Labour stewardship that was enforced on us![/p][/quote]Easily the most incompetent administration in my lifetime. Lew Smoralz
  • Score: 4

9:12pm Thu 15 May 14

Small Town says...

Ctrl Alt Del wrote:
On a lighter note, it's good to see the arms folded "i'm not happy" style of photo making a welcome return. *tongue firmly in cheek*
Agreed, but I'd prefer a "single finger pointed at the camera with a mouthy Worcester expression" type one on this occasion really.
[quote][p][bold]Ctrl Alt Del[/bold] wrote: On a lighter note, it's good to see the arms folded "i'm not happy" style of photo making a welcome return. *tongue firmly in cheek*[/p][/quote]Agreed, but I'd prefer a "single finger pointed at the camera with a mouthy Worcester expression" type one on this occasion really. Small Town
  • Score: 0

8:23am Fri 16 May 14

MJI says...

At least Webbs and Tewkesbury will make more money now.
At least Webbs and Tewkesbury will make more money now. MJI
  • Score: 3

10:09am Sun 18 May 14

Chronos says...

Hwicce wrote:
It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs.

If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free.

If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park.

You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council.
This apparent contradiction is even more puzzling than would first appear.

Surely these coaches should be considered, by even the most pedantic of standards, as "public transport", and should therefore be welcomed?

I'd venture that fifty people coming to our City (to spend their hard-earned in our economy) on one coach is surely much better for the environment than these same folk travelling here in twenty or thirty private cars.

By the same twisted logic the Council seem to be applying, shouldn't "polluting" busses should be banished from the City's streets too? If anything, this would seem to be a more compelling argument as, unlike the coaches that visit Worcester, most busses I see driving around are operating at far below maximum capacity.

I completely agree with those who have said we should actively encourage these coaches to bring customers here; I'd go as far as offering generous enticements as some have proposed (free parking, money-saving vouchers etc).

The final nails in the coffin of the 'pollution' argument, should any more be required, are: firstly (as has been mentioned), a number of these coaches are stopping on route, so the environmental impact is negligible; and secondly, common sense decrees that discouraging coaches from visiting Worcester doesn't actually stop the coach trips - they will still lay on their excursions, but obviously to a different destination.

You couldn't make this stuff up.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs. If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free. If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park. You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council.[/p][/quote]This apparent contradiction is even more puzzling than would first appear. Surely these coaches should be considered, by even the most pedantic of standards, as "public transport", and should therefore be welcomed? I'd venture that fifty people coming to our City (to spend their hard-earned in our economy) on one coach is surely much better for the environment than these same folk travelling here in twenty or thirty private cars. By the same twisted logic the Council seem to be applying, shouldn't "polluting" busses should be banished from the City's streets too? If anything, this would seem to be a more compelling argument as, unlike the coaches that visit Worcester, most busses I see driving around are operating at far below maximum capacity. I completely agree with those who have said we should actively encourage these coaches to bring customers here; I'd go as far as offering generous enticements as some have proposed (free parking, money-saving vouchers etc). The final nails in the coffin of the 'pollution' argument, should any more be required, are: firstly (as has been mentioned), a number of these coaches are stopping on route, so the environmental impact is negligible; and secondly, common sense decrees that discouraging coaches from visiting Worcester doesn't actually stop the coach trips - they will still lay on their excursions, but obviously to a different destination. You couldn't make this stuff up. Chronos
  • Score: 3

11:41am Sun 18 May 14

brooksider says...

Chronos wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs.

If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free.

If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park.

You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council.
This apparent contradiction is even more puzzling than would first appear.

Surely these coaches should be considered, by even the most pedantic of standards, as "public transport", and should therefore be welcomed?

I'd venture that fifty people coming to our City (to spend their hard-earned in our economy) on one coach is surely much better for the environment than these same folk travelling here in twenty or thirty private cars.

By the same twisted logic the Council seem to be applying, shouldn't "polluting" busses should be banished from the City's streets too? If anything, this would seem to be a more compelling argument as, unlike the coaches that visit Worcester, most busses I see driving around are operating at far below maximum capacity.

I completely agree with those who have said we should actively encourage these coaches to bring customers here; I'd go as far as offering generous enticements as some have proposed (free parking, money-saving vouchers etc).

The final nails in the coffin of the 'pollution' argument, should any more be required, are: firstly (as has been mentioned), a number of these coaches are stopping on route, so the environmental impact is negligible; and secondly, common sense decrees that discouraging coaches from visiting Worcester doesn't actually stop the coach trips - they will still lay on their excursions, but obviously to a different destination.

You couldn't make this stuff up.
You have got to differentiate the different types of Coach vistor.
The complaints in the article are about the 2 hour charge and not for coaches wanting to stay for an extended period of time.
The City should cater for real tourists spending time in the town but shouldn't subsidise Coaches only stopping for toilet breaks.
It is also illogical to attract lorries into our increasingly congested City Centre.
The £25 is a realistic fee and similar to charges on Motorway
Services.
[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: It seems the Council don't know what they want and are giving conflicting signs. If "Our main concern is tourism and encouraging people to visit the city" then coach parking should be free. If its "a bid to tackle pollution and make the riverside more pleasant" then dig up the cark park and turn it into a park. You can't have it both ways, it's make your mind up time City Council.[/p][/quote]This apparent contradiction is even more puzzling than would first appear. Surely these coaches should be considered, by even the most pedantic of standards, as "public transport", and should therefore be welcomed? I'd venture that fifty people coming to our City (to spend their hard-earned in our economy) on one coach is surely much better for the environment than these same folk travelling here in twenty or thirty private cars. By the same twisted logic the Council seem to be applying, shouldn't "polluting" busses should be banished from the City's streets too? If anything, this would seem to be a more compelling argument as, unlike the coaches that visit Worcester, most busses I see driving around are operating at far below maximum capacity. I completely agree with those who have said we should actively encourage these coaches to bring customers here; I'd go as far as offering generous enticements as some have proposed (free parking, money-saving vouchers etc). The final nails in the coffin of the 'pollution' argument, should any more be required, are: firstly (as has been mentioned), a number of these coaches are stopping on route, so the environmental impact is negligible; and secondly, common sense decrees that discouraging coaches from visiting Worcester doesn't actually stop the coach trips - they will still lay on their excursions, but obviously to a different destination. You couldn't make this stuff up.[/p][/quote]You have got to differentiate the different types of Coach vistor. The complaints in the article are about the 2 hour charge and not for coaches wanting to stay for an extended period of time. The City should cater for real tourists spending time in the town but shouldn't subsidise Coaches only stopping for toilet breaks. It is also illogical to attract lorries into our increasingly congested City Centre. The £25 is a realistic fee and similar to charges on Motorway Services. brooksider
  • Score: -4

2:29pm Sun 18 May 14

Jabbadad says...

Defending the indefensable again Brooksider. The loo break as you get older is most important, but the coaches who use that carpark are not just for a loo break, when as often the carpark has many coaches on there you can see the people walking into town to shop as well.
So no matter how you try to excuse these STUPID additional charges if you want to drive visitors away from the City let these idiot councillors carry on the way they are.

As to the lorries parking, they don't start to arrive until the evening, then park overnight and leave early morning, so not adding to the rush hours.. And if they also are not welcome in this City how will the foodstuffs and essential goods we need get to this City. They also are providing a valuable service to we the public.
Perhaps ypou should stand for the local elections Brooksider, many of your comments you make would qualify you as an out-of-touch-politic
ian so you would fit in either side. Since over issues such as this Carparking there is very little difference or common sense between Labour & CONservative Councillors all of which enjoy FRE PARKING at council premisses. I'M ALL RIGHT JACK POLICIES.
Defending the indefensable again Brooksider. The loo break as you get older is most important, but the coaches who use that carpark are not just for a loo break, when as often the carpark has many coaches on there you can see the people walking into town to shop as well. So no matter how you try to excuse these STUPID additional charges if you want to drive visitors away from the City let these idiot councillors carry on the way they are. As to the lorries parking, they don't start to arrive until the evening, then park overnight and leave early morning, so not adding to the rush hours.. And if they also are not welcome in this City how will the foodstuffs and essential goods we need get to this City. They also are providing a valuable service to we the public. Perhaps ypou should stand for the local elections Brooksider, many of your comments you make would qualify you as an out-of-touch-politic ian so you would fit in either side. Since over issues such as this Carparking there is very little difference or common sense between Labour & CONservative Councillors all of which enjoy FRE PARKING at council premisses. I'M ALL RIGHT JACK POLICIES. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Sun 18 May 14

brooksider says...

Jabbadad wrote:
Defending the indefensable again Brooksider. The loo break as you get older is most important, but the coaches who use that carpark are not just for a loo break, when as often the carpark has many coaches on there you can see the people walking into town to shop as well.
So no matter how you try to excuse these STUPID additional charges if you want to drive visitors away from the City let these idiot councillors carry on the way they are.

As to the lorries parking, they don't start to arrive until the evening, then park overnight and leave early morning, so not adding to the rush hours.. And if they also are not welcome in this City how will the foodstuffs and essential goods we need get to this City. They also are providing a valuable service to we the public.
Perhaps ypou should stand for the local elections Brooksider, many of your comments you make would qualify you as an out-of-touch-politic

ian so you would fit in either side. Since over issues such as this Carparking there is very little difference or common sense between Labour & CONservative Councillors all of which enjoy FRE PARKING at council premisses. I'M ALL RIGHT JACK POLICIES.
If you bother to read the story, the complaints by Coach drivers are that £10 is too much for two hours, a £5 increase or 10p per person on a 50 seater coach.
I quote
"Two hours stop in Worcester and it cost me £10, will not stop here again, we don't even pay that in London."
"I stop here for a lunch stop rather than the motorway services, a £10 parking charge for a two-hour stop is too much so in future I will go to Gloucester or elsewhere."
"Stopped here for two hours and it was £10, too much. That's another 48 tourists you will lose."
What you fail to realise is that it is £10 for up to 12 hours!
But why let facts get in the way of a good moan?
It seems you advocate needlessly bringing traffic into the City Centre which actually brings minimal economic benefit.
Why should Worcester taxpayers should subsidise lorry parking?
Attracting them into the city causes extra costs on road maintenance increase inconvenience being woken up at 5:30 in the morning by a procession of heavy goods vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: Defending the indefensable again Brooksider. The loo break as you get older is most important, but the coaches who use that carpark are not just for a loo break, when as often the carpark has many coaches on there you can see the people walking into town to shop as well. So no matter how you try to excuse these STUPID additional charges if you want to drive visitors away from the City let these idiot councillors carry on the way they are. As to the lorries parking, they don't start to arrive until the evening, then park overnight and leave early morning, so not adding to the rush hours.. And if they also are not welcome in this City how will the foodstuffs and essential goods we need get to this City. They also are providing a valuable service to we the public. Perhaps ypou should stand for the local elections Brooksider, many of your comments you make would qualify you as an out-of-touch-politic ian so you would fit in either side. Since over issues such as this Carparking there is very little difference or common sense between Labour & CONservative Councillors all of which enjoy FRE PARKING at council premisses. I'M ALL RIGHT JACK POLICIES.[/p][/quote]If you bother to read the story, the complaints by Coach drivers are that £10 is too much for two hours, a £5 increase or 10p per person on a 50 seater coach. I quote "Two hours stop in Worcester and it cost me £10, will not stop here again, we don't even pay that in London." "I stop here for a lunch stop rather than the motorway services, a £10 parking charge for a two-hour stop is too much so in future I will go to Gloucester or elsewhere." "Stopped here for two hours and it was £10, too much. That's another 48 tourists you will lose." What you fail to realise is that it is £10 for up to 12 hours! But why let facts get in the way of a good moan? It seems you advocate needlessly bringing traffic into the City Centre which actually brings minimal economic benefit. Why should Worcester taxpayers should subsidise lorry parking? Attracting them into the city causes extra costs on road maintenance increase inconvenience being woken up at 5:30 in the morning by a procession of heavy goods vehicles. brooksider
  • Score: -3

10:23pm Mon 19 May 14

Keith B says...

Omicron wrote:
We have a labour leader, Andrew Gregson, whose day job is an employee of the city council (should he find the time to be able to do his day job given his involvement with trying to run the city council) means that he has a 100% council mind-set. This being the case then it is unlikely that he has any concept of business and the commercial reality of what business is all about. Let's hope that that the forthcoming election ensures that this current incompetent council and their Lib-Dem and Green allies are duly disposed of
Is this true?

I thought it was illegal for a Council employee to stand for a Council they work for. Or is he an employee of a different Council - which is quite legal.
[quote][p][bold]Omicron[/bold] wrote: We have a labour leader, Andrew Gregson, whose day job is an employee of the city council (should he find the time to be able to do his day job given his involvement with trying to run the city council) means that he has a 100% council mind-set. This being the case then it is unlikely that he has any concept of business and the commercial reality of what business is all about. Let's hope that that the forthcoming election ensures that this current incompetent council and their Lib-Dem and Green allies are duly disposed of[/p][/quote]Is this true? I thought it was illegal for a Council employee to stand for a Council they work for. Or is he an employee of a different Council - which is quite legal. Keith B
  • Score: 1

10:47pm Mon 19 May 14

Keith B says...

It's Labour / Green / Lib Dem isn't it at City Council level who haven't a business brain between them. Idealists all - but couldn't run a whelk stall.

But the Conservatives at County level show us the alternative is pretty frightening .... destroying services and privatising everything, cutting staff but costing more as they give money to their supporters in the private sector. Would you really allow Hardman to look after your kids or your elderly parents? Well actually you do every time you put a cross in the Tory box.

There is an alternative. UKIP - which is my choice, if only to stick two fingers up to the established Parties - but I'm not really sure that their candidates are up to running a Council (yet). And of course as soon as they are elected the establishment will attempt to bring them down with some scandal or other as they trawl through facebook or newspaper cuttings for something they said 20 years ago.

Or should we should really dump the political parties at local level and elect independents from within our communities. We have in my area - and we thought we had a good representative - but they say power corrupts and now he has started to represent the the Council establishment against the community instead of the community who elected him at Council.

I am fast coming to a conclusion that democracy isn't working very well.

But I don't think there is an alternative.
It's Labour / Green / Lib Dem isn't it at City Council level who haven't a business brain between them. Idealists all - but couldn't run a whelk stall. But the Conservatives at County level show us the alternative is pretty frightening .... destroying services and privatising everything, cutting staff but costing more as they give money to their supporters in the private sector. Would you really allow Hardman to look after your kids or your elderly parents? Well actually you do every time you put a cross in the Tory box. There is an alternative. UKIP - which is my choice, if only to stick two fingers up to the established Parties - but I'm not really sure that their candidates are up to running a Council (yet). And of course as soon as they are elected the establishment will attempt to bring them down with some scandal or other as they trawl through facebook or newspaper cuttings for something they said 20 years ago. Or should we should really dump the political parties at local level and elect independents from within our communities. We have in my area - and we thought we had a good representative - but they say power corrupts and now he has started to represent the the Council establishment against the community instead of the community who elected him at Council. I am fast coming to a conclusion that democracy isn't working very well. But I don't think there is an alternative. Keith B
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Mon 19 May 14

brooksider says...

Keith B wrote:
Omicron wrote:
We have a labour leader, Andrew Gregson, whose day job is an employee of the city council (should he find the time to be able to do his day job given his involvement with trying to run the city council) means that he has a 100% council mind-set. This being the case then it is unlikely that he has any concept of business and the commercial reality of what business is all about. Let's hope that that the forthcoming election ensures that this current incompetent council and their Lib-Dem and Green allies are duly disposed of
Is this true?

I thought it was illegal for a Council employee to stand for a Council they work for. Or is he an employee of a different Council - which is quite legal.
Adrian Gregson is not employed in a politically restricted post within the Council therefore it is not illegal for him to stand as a Councillor.
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Omicron[/bold] wrote: We have a labour leader, Andrew Gregson, whose day job is an employee of the city council (should he find the time to be able to do his day job given his involvement with trying to run the city council) means that he has a 100% council mind-set. This being the case then it is unlikely that he has any concept of business and the commercial reality of what business is all about. Let's hope that that the forthcoming election ensures that this current incompetent council and their Lib-Dem and Green allies are duly disposed of[/p][/quote]Is this true? I thought it was illegal for a Council employee to stand for a Council they work for. Or is he an employee of a different Council - which is quite legal.[/p][/quote]Adrian Gregson is not employed in a politically restricted post within the Council therefore it is not illegal for him to stand as a Councillor. brooksider
  • Score: -1

1:31pm Tue 20 May 14

Barbournite says...

Setting aside the coaches for a moment, there is a bigger picture here too. Trucks are quite simply the backbone of our distribution system and without truckers very little would be in our shops anyway. Much of the truck parking is overnight so whilst our out of town lay-bys are an increasing theft/ curtain cut risk and no have facilities within reach Croft Road should be seen as a service to the drivers we depend upon. Every driver is a consumer. Every consumer talks to others about where to go or not go.
Back to coaches.
1. Every passenger is a consumer and talks to others about where to go or not go. If they don't visit for an hour in the centre or by the river then they'll not come back for longer and no word is passed on.
2. Presumably this bar on coaches parking and polluting and clogging our streets will be extended and fully enforced in time for the Victorian Fair, or did I miss something?? ;-/
Setting aside the coaches for a moment, there is a bigger picture here too. Trucks are quite simply the backbone of our distribution system and without truckers very little would be in our shops anyway. Much of the truck parking is overnight so whilst our out of town lay-bys are an increasing theft/ curtain cut risk and no have facilities within reach Croft Road should be seen as a service to the drivers we depend upon. Every driver is a consumer. Every consumer talks to others about where to go or not go. Back to coaches. 1. Every passenger is a consumer and talks to others about where to go or not go. If they don't visit for an hour in the centre or by the river then they'll not come back for longer and no word is passed on. 2. Presumably this bar on coaches parking and polluting and clogging our streets will be extended and fully enforced in time for the Victorian Fair, or did I miss something?? ;-/ Barbournite
  • Score: 2

5:32pm Tue 20 May 14

Jabbadad says...

I am sure that it was discussed by the so-called politicians, BUT we have to understand that they don't have the capability to think past the end of their pencils when it comes to real life issues, because these issues just aren't in the Party handbooks are they?.
I always welcome the facility offered by Worcester News and these columns for keeping us informed on topics we might never hear of, and also allowing our comments to get posted in the public domain.
No matter how long some politicians have been around it must make them squirm at some of these very truthful / personal and Political comments.
Well done the posters, keep it going.
I am sure that it was discussed by the so-called politicians, BUT we have to understand that they don't have the capability to think past the end of their pencils when it comes to real life issues, because these issues just aren't in the Party handbooks are they?. I always welcome the facility offered by Worcester News and these columns for keeping us informed on topics we might never hear of, and also allowing our comments to get posted in the public domain. No matter how long some politicians have been around it must make them squirm at some of these very truthful / personal and Political comments. Well done the posters, keep it going. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Tue 20 May 14

Keith B says...

There is another alternative I've just thought of.

Put the regular writers on these pages like myself, Jabbadad, Brooksider, DarrenM and the rest ...... and let us run the Council(s) in Worcestershire.

No elections - just self appointed dictators with opinions. And then we'd see what a foul up we'd make of it. On the other hand, wouldn't a random bunch of people off the street - like jury's are selected - actually make a better fist of running the Councils than the self selected Party drones that are currently in place.

The definition of a politician is someone who wants to impose their will on everyone else - if only we could take politics out of politics things would be great.
There is another alternative I've just thought of. Put the regular writers on these pages like myself, Jabbadad, Brooksider, DarrenM and the rest ...... and let us run the Council(s) in Worcestershire. No elections - just self appointed dictators with opinions. And then we'd see what a foul up we'd make of it. On the other hand, wouldn't a random bunch of people off the street - like jury's are selected - actually make a better fist of running the Councils than the self selected Party drones that are currently in place. The definition of a politician is someone who wants to impose their will on everyone else - if only we could take politics out of politics things would be great. Keith B
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree