Check out today’s YEP letters
Inconsiderate motorists mounting kerbs and parking on the pavement could soon face a £70 fine. We asked YEP readers if they agreed with the proposal. Here’s what some of them said on Facebook..
It’s technically already illegal to ‘drive’ on the pavement although the act needs to be witnessed by the issuing agent of a penalty.
However you cannot park on a pavement without driving on it at some point. I’m very much against any pavement parking. With inactivity related diseases on the increase efforts should be made to promote active travel.
The simplest form of this is walking and pavement parking makes it more dangerous and has an impact on the pavement quality. Pushchairs are especially vulnerable.
In the area around Pudsey it is largely ignored.
On the road where I live if people parked on the road nobody would be able to drive down it. It’s not even wide enough for two cars to pass so we have to park on the pavement. Yes it’s a pain to people with pushchairs (I have children and use a pushchair) but I’d rather the fire brigade and ambulance get down the road in case of an emergency than block them.
Yes I am sick of having to walk on the road to get round parked cars on paths and very inconsiderate not thinking of parents with prams/pushchairs and wheelchairs.
The council planning department should stop stipulating minimum housing/acre so that house builders stop building narrow streets. Seriously the LCC planning department are creating so much stress for future generations it’s untrue.
Yes absolutely, pavements are for the pedestrians and should remain that way. Too many people just think it’s ok to park on the pavements without a thought for anybody else. These people are so selfish.
On the other hand I don’t think it’s right because where I live there’s about 40ft from my gate to the public footpath covered with grass if the council spent their money on parking facilities for residential properties instead of stupid pointless things then wouldn’t have this problem.
Yes, they should! The amount of times I have to walk in the road with my two toddlers because of inconsiderate people parked on the pavement is infuriating.
It wasn’t created for cars, it’s for pedestrians. These people put my children in danger for their own convenience.
Maybe you’ve to park a little further from where you want to be.
We have a path about three metres wide one side and at least five the other but double yellows down both sides. Makes no sense to me which is why people end up parking either on the path or double yellows and risk a fine. People have to park somewhere and until councils help with safe parking spots this will always happen whether they bring a law out or not.
I think it needs to be relative to the area. Where we live we park on the path but there is room to get a pram etc down (I push one up and down the street all the time) and if we parked on the road we would block the road; however where we used to live people used to park to drop their kids off at the local school and every day I would end up walking on the road and even if I didn’t have the pram as they rammed the cars anywhere so there wasn’t even room for a person to walk past.
It was ridiculously dangerous and so in that case then yes fines should be handed out where people have no regard or common sense.
Our street has cars parked on pavement all the time weekends are even worse and it’s a cul-de-sac so emergency vehicles would have a job getting through.
If they are an obstruction to emergency services then yes. Where I live I have no option but to park on the pavement however it’s a very wide pavement with plenty of room for a double pushchair to get past.
However, I can see frustrations as last night I experienced a car parked next to the pavement opposite another and I could only just get my car through the gap (a VW polo) so an ambulance or a fire engine would have no chance.
They need to look at certain areas and consider double yellow lines.
There probably is a problem with pavement parking and its impact on pedestrians. Fining people won’t address the root cause which is that there aren’t enough proper spaces for people to park. This is what needs to be addressed.
A LONG term masterplan for up to 70000 new homes to be built in Leeds over the next decade has been signed off to be sent to the Government for final approval despite claims that the views of thousands of objectors have been ignored. Here’s how YEP readers reacted on Facebook.
Let’s guess, shall we, the majority will be “luxury apartments”, this means more ugly towers, on 100 year leases (so you don’t truly own them”, if you don’t buy the 100 year lease, you have to pay over the top rents, then nice expensive monthly “service charges”, plus “yearly ground rent”, costing a single person more than it does to own a one bedroomed house).
All property companies across the country want to build are buildings on 100 year leases, creaming money for one hundred years. They won’t and don’t build affordable housing because they only get the money from the sale and that’s it because they are freehold.
Soon single people won’t be able to afford to live anywhere in this country. It’s time to cut the building companies out, build these modern prefab homes in factories, setup them up each day on site, they cost a fraction of what building companies charge, they are more energy efficient and to buy or rent will be affordable for everyone, other countries in Europe are doing this.
I will be so cross if houses are built right up to the Bradford boundary with Leeds. Leeds are playing right into Bradford’s hands. Then with the boundary changes for elections Pudsey gets lumped with Holmewood. The councillors in Pudsey have done nothing to stop this.
If people aren’t happy about their being a “sprawling housing” development across the city - they can always move. Plenty of towns out there looking for new residents. Unfortunately, with an ever growing population more housing is needed, only alternative would be something no one wants to think about.
Labour Leeds aren’t listening to anyone outside the green belt because their heartlands are inside the green belt. They simply call us nimby.
You’d moan when there’s no housing available. If people can’t afford them then they will either be empty or jobs will need to be created to pay for them in the area. And people can’t afford them – get a job that pays well and you’ll live there it’s simple.
Don’t suppose there’ll be any council houses – the things that are really needed.
Staff and customers more vulnerable
A Ward, Leeds 8
I see there’s been yet another knife raid on a building society in Leeds.
It’s no surprise that these raids are happening as more and more banks and sub-post offices are opening up their counters, doing away with security screens and other safety devices.
Thieves threatened staff at our local post office a few months ago and I imagine most of your readers will know of someone who has been targeted in this way.
Presumably managers sitting in safe, warm offices have made these decisions, but how long will it be before a member of staff in one of these vulnerable locations is injured, I wonder.
Presumably the idea isto make these places more customer-friendly but in my opinion they make it easier for thieves to do their worst, while making staff and customers even more vulnerable.
Did we sign pre-nup agreement?
John Appleyard, Liversedge
The scientist Albert Einstein once said: ‘if I could do it all again I would be a plumber’.
I suppose former Prime minister David Cameron must be thinking something similar given that he lost his job after failing to convince the public of the merits of staying in Europe.
Day in day out we witness the pro and antis of Europe going at it like two ferrets in a sack, the politicians who created this mess didn’t have a clue about what they were letting this country in for.
A bit of light relief was brought to the proceedings by those who marched in London calling for a second referendum carrying placards such as ‘oh to be in Europe now that Trump is here’ and ‘hard brexit? ‘
Now leading figures in Europe are saying it will cost the UK £50b to leave, this must be the most expensive divorce on record, didn’t we sign a pre-nuptial agreement?
Another job for Mr Osborne?
John Roberts, Wakefield
I trust that George Osborne, renowned networker and multi-multi tasker is settling in as editor of The London Evening Standard.
Should Mr Osborne be short of work, I suggest he pops over to Wakefield (a few miles east of Tatton, his constituency) as there are a couple of jobs he could do. We have a slight damp problem in the kitchen and the bathroom tiles could do with a little re-grouting. Alternatively, and perish the thought, perhaps Mr Osborne could do some voluntary work at one of our charity shops?
Giving up corporate greed for Lent will be good for the soul (after all, the idea of abstaining for Lent is to give up something you’ll actually miss). And, of course, he won’t starve.
Dame Vera is the voice
Mavis Harrison, Leeds
Re the BBC Two programme ‘Dame Vera Lynn - a landmark anniversary’.
For anyone of my generation this programme, giving us an insight into her work and career, was for me, spellbinding.
When my father was in the army in Italy, my mother would listen to her on the wireless and always turn up the volume. Very Lynn certainly is “The Voice.”
Council could learn something
Judy Goodwin, Altofts
Wakefield Council is set to raise council tax again.
May I suggest they contact East Hampshire council and enquire how they are able to reduce their council tax by over two per cent this year, the second year in a row , with a view to eliminating it altogether by 2021.
Perhaps they could learn something.
Let us know what you think
THE Yorkshire Evening Post wants you to share your views with other readers.
Whether you’re commenting on a very local topic, a national story or international affairs please join the debate.
You can email your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org or write to The Editor, Readers’ Letters, Yorkshire Evening Post, No.1 Leeds, 26 Whitehall Road, Leeds LS12 1BE. Please keep letters under 300 words.